THERE were two gallant fights in Court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday.

Tony Blair was fighting for his integrity and reputation, and for his right to be reported accurately; Gavyn Davies was fighting for the integrity and independence of the BBC and for its right to report on matters of great public interest - even if they are detrimental to the Government.

Despite their sterling performances, both men had weaknesses in their arguments. Mr Blair appeared to say that he was responsible for everything but he took responsibility for nothing. He also skirted ungracefully around the question of who authorised the identifying of Dr David Kelly's name: a few weeks ago on a plane he was adamant that he had "absolutely not" played a part, but yesterday he said it had been done by the rule book which, as Prime Minister, he must have drawn up. It didn't look particularly good.

In return, Mr Davies skirted ungracefully around the issue of how the BBC gave such prominence to an allegation from a single, uncorroborated source whose words it reported in "loose language" without giving the Government an immediate opportunity to reply.

He claimed the BBC was in the clear because it had never reported that the Government had done something wrong, it had only reported that its source said the Government had done something wrong. Lord Hutton, the referee, said he thought the average listener would have "difficulty" in differentiating between the two. That doesn't look particularly good for Mr Davies.

This, though, is what the Hutton Inquiry is boiling into. It is a fascinating soap opera watched avidly by the Westminster Village while the rest of the country realises it is largely about perception and semantics, and the mechanics of how a name which should have been in the public domain was released into the public domain.

Mr Davies seemed to sum it all up when he said: ''Sometimes in life you get the same event being watched by two different people with two different interpretations of the event.

''I was open-minded as to whether that had happened in this case."

It could well be that there is no truth any more.

If you give a Tory voter and a Labour voter the same health figures, one will say that taxes should be cut so that individuals can spend more on private healthcare and the other will say that taxes should rise so the NHS is better funded.

If you give a video of the same derby match to a Newcastle and a Sunderland supporter, one will probably feel that they was robbed by a dreadful referee while the other will say the best team won.

After yesterday, if you believe in Mr Blair you will accept that he did his best while caught in a dreadful "quandary" in the global spotlight; if you distrust him you will say that even in a judicial inquiry he is dodging the questions and spinning away.

While we appreciate the former - that the PM was caught in a no-win dilemma - it must be acknowledged that the Government's reputation for spin means that the latter may well be uppermost in people's minds.

Once trust has been eroded it is enormously difficult to rebuild.