As the 7/7 bombing inquiry is currently underway, I began thinking why do we have them?
Chances are the outcome will state the obvious along the lines that the killings were unlawful. The inquiry is not a criminal court so its not looking to find and prosecute those responsible (who were not blown up, anyway)
Will the inquiry serve to identify failings in the system such as bad radio communications?
If so, why wait 3 years for an inquiry to establish those kinds of important facts.
If errors of judgement were made in the run up to and the aftermath of the bombings surely those kind of issues need resolving immediately rather than wait for an official outcome 3 years later?
Also, inspite of inquiries such as the Soham murders, Bl**y Sunday and various train crashes, things still happen which cause public outcry and an inquiry never solves the issues. Plus there's the cost aspect.
|
>> Public Inquiries - What purpose
>> As the 7/7 bombing inquiry is currently underway, I began thinking why do we have
>> them?
>>
It is just another wasteful British tradition.
I hope that Theresa may takes note of this
www.policeoracle.com/news/Police-Criticised-Over-Death-Siege_27117.html
Getting rid of that Union's mass of road and motoring related guidelines, which are taken as Law by the Police, would cut the enormous cost borne by motorists ( not counting motorists cost of time wasted ).
|
The OP is lumping public inquiries and inquests together.
The last Bloody Sunday inquiry was, in my view, a near-criminal waste of public money.
The current 'inquiry' into the 7/7 bombings is an inquest in front of a coroner.
Inquests can have some purpose because a coroner has a bit of clout, so if he makes some choice remarks at the end of the hearing, they may be listened to.
A good recent example was the coroner at Oxford who did a lot of the soldiers who died abroad because the bodies landed at RAF Brize Norton, which is on his patch.
He was outspoken about the soldiers' poor equipment and arguably did some good in that regard.
I'm told relatives often like to see the circumstances of their loved one's death aired in public, and would feel short-changed if there was no hearing.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Fri 15 Oct 10 at 23:12
|
You are all wrong.
All designed to keep lawyers in business... No other purpose at all..
And the lawyers think spending £4.5M on 1 lawyer for the b***** Sunday enquiry is a good thing...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11536743
|
...All designed to keep lawyers in business... No other purpose at all...
Not really.
The majority of inquests involve no lawyers at all, unless you count the coroner, who is usually a local solicitor who does the coroner's job part time.
As I mentioned earlier, the bloody Sunday was not an inquest, it was an inquiry.
It was also truly extraordinary, so citing it as typical is like saying a Veyron is a typical example of a car.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Sat 16 Oct 10 at 19:50
|
|
Circumvented the swear filter for you Iffy - I think the b in b***** should be capitalised by the way but I won't interfere...:-)
|
...I think the b in b***** should be capitalised by the way but I won't interfere...:-)...
Ah, good point, well made, how's this for a wriggling off the hook excuse?
I'd b***** well given up after the first time.
|
>> And the lawyers think spending £4.5M on 1 lawyer for the b***** Sunday enquiry is
>> a good thing...
Well let's suppose 25 people died at a protest in Trafalgar Square & the government of the time lied blatantly that the security forces had fired in self defence.......
|
You'd think that the facts would be widely accepted but, if Wikipedia is to be believed, at least one survey amongst Muslims suggested that 24% believe that the people blamed for the attack didn't, in fact, carry it out.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7#Conspiracy_theories
Now, should we spend the money to try to convince those brainwashed idiots who believe that there is a conspiracy? I don't know.
Same with the 9/11 commission of course, and there are still many that believe it was carried out by the US government.
Ditto, the Iraq War as a means to get hold of Iraqi oil, ditto, the shooting of that lawyer, and of Raoul Moat being the consequence of trigger happy police and/or dodgy Taser dealers.
Some useful facts do come out of these inquiries, but I think a lot of it is pressure to hold these, by those hoping to prove their conspiracy. Maybe we do have to try to satisfy those people to keep a sufficient level of transparency.
|
Couldn't let any mention of Bloody Sunday go without bringing this up.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhGPrgVZj0
Last edited by: Pugugly on Sun 17 Oct 10 at 00:15
|
|
Another inquiry on which time and effort is being spent, to no useful purpose IMO, is this unfortunate lady who was kidnapped in Afghanistan, and died during an attempt to rescue her. In the end she is dead and she was either killed by her captors or by a grenade thrown by her rescuers. I know nothing of Army tactics but Iit am sure the rescuers had a plan. I can't say that I think that throwing a grenade into a building containing people, one whom one doesn't want to kill is a top move but it happened. If they find out that it was a grenade and who threw it I don't imagine there will any disciplinary outcome and I don't thionk there should be.
|
Public Inquiries - What purpose - John H
