Hillsborough Law
Discussion
Can’t see a discussion in this in NP&E
Apparently this has been driven by the Hillsborough families. The new law of brought in, will oblige public officials to tell the truth in public enquiries and provide equal legal support for both sides in an enquiry.
It will be interesting to see how far this actually goes.
It is shocking but not surprising, that public officials presently have no duty of candour.
Link to the BBC article here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?d=HOMEPAGE_PS&q=%...
Apparently this has been driven by the Hillsborough families. The new law of brought in, will oblige public officials to tell the truth in public enquiries and provide equal legal support for both sides in an enquiry.
It will be interesting to see how far this actually goes.
It is shocking but not surprising, that public officials presently have no duty of candour.
Link to the BBC article here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?d=HOMEPAGE_PS&q=%...
Astacus said:
Can t see a discussion in this in NP&E
Apparently this has been driven by the Hillsborough families. The new law of brought in, will oblige public officials to tell the truth in public enquiries and provide equal legal support for both sides in an enquiry.
It will be interesting to see how far this actually goes.
It is shocking but not surprising, that public officials presently have no duty of candour.
Link to the BBC article here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?d=HOMEPAGE_PS&q=%...
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that covered by perjury legislation then?Apparently this has been driven by the Hillsborough families. The new law of brought in, will oblige public officials to tell the truth in public enquiries and provide equal legal support for both sides in an enquiry.
It will be interesting to see how far this actually goes.
It is shocking but not surprising, that public officials presently have no duty of candour.
Link to the BBC article here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?d=HOMEPAGE_PS&q=%...
In hearing about this in a very short summary on radio news today I did also wonder why this is needed. Especially since having been a civil servant for about 100 years I'd have thought that was already the case. But I guess there is a difference when it becomes an actual law rather than (for instance) part of your terms and conditions or workplace code.
You cannot 'force' somebody to tell the truth.
Swearing on the bible to tell the truth as an atheist is comical.
As for under oath, using 'to the best of my recollection' as an officer works just as well if you kinda believe in swearing on the bible, along with 'in my professional opinion'.
Swearing on the bible to tell the truth as an atheist is comical.
As for under oath, using 'to the best of my recollection' as an officer works just as well if you kinda believe in swearing on the bible, along with 'in my professional opinion'.
Wheelspinning said:
You cannot 'force' somebody to tell the truth.
Swearing on the bible to tell the truth as an atheist is comical.
As for under oath, using 'to the best of my recollection' as an officer works just as well if you kinda believe in swearing on the bible, along with 'in my professional opinion'.
An atheist would affirm. Carries the same weight. And the same penalty if perjured.Swearing on the bible to tell the truth as an atheist is comical.
As for under oath, using 'to the best of my recollection' as an officer works just as well if you kinda believe in swearing on the bible, along with 'in my professional opinion'.
XCP said:
Wheelspinning said:
You cannot 'force' somebody to tell the truth.
Swearing on the bible to tell the truth as an atheist is comical.
As for under oath, using 'to the best of my recollection' as an officer works just as well if you kinda believe in swearing on the bible, along with 'in my professional opinion'.
An atheist would affirm. Carries the same weight. And the same penalty if perjured.Swearing on the bible to tell the truth as an atheist is comical.
As for under oath, using 'to the best of my recollection' as an officer works just as well if you kinda believe in swearing on the bible, along with 'in my professional opinion'.
To be perjured, you would have to proven beyond any reasonable doubt you are outright lying; thats harder than you think.
As I understand it the issue is that it has come to light, that various organisations and individuals have been less than truthful during enquires into Hillsborough and other high profile reviews and those people would now face criminal proceedings.
@XCP do enquiries have the same legal status as courts from the POV of perjury?
@XCP do enquiries have the same legal status as courts from the POV of perjury?
Astacus said:
As I understand it the issue is that it has come to light, that various organisations and individuals have been less than truthful during enquires into Hillsborough and other high profile reviews and those people would now face criminal proceedings.
@XCP do enquiries have the same legal status as courts from the POV of perjury?
Pass.@XCP do enquiries have the same legal status as courts from the POV of perjury?
But people have been jailed for perjury in civil matters.
Ask Jonathan Aitken.
And Jeffrey Archer ( I accept he was PCOJ as well)
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wheelspinning said:
I'm an atheist, and if asked to swear on the bible I would oblige, but seeing as I don't believe in anything in there or the existence of God, it would hold the same weight to me as swearing to tell the truth on a Harry Potter book.
Why wouldn't you just affirm? To me there is no 'higher authority' that i might one day have to answer to.
Each to their own tho...
Wheelspinning said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wheelspinning said:
I'm an atheist, and if asked to swear on the bible I would oblige, but seeing as I don't believe in anything in there or the existence of God, it would hold the same weight to me as swearing to tell the truth on a Harry Potter book.
Why wouldn't you just affirm? To me there is no 'higher authority' that i might one day have to answer to.
Each to their own tho...
Wheelspinning said:
I stated I would oblige, or affirm as you want to put it, but by placing my hand on the bible would not make me 'fear the worst' if I was economic with the truth.
To me there is no 'higher authority' that i might one day have to answer to.
Each to their own tho...
That's alright. No bible involved in affirming. You're just basically promising to tell the truth without involving God.To me there is no 'higher authority' that i might one day have to answer to.
Each to their own tho...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff