7/7 London bombings - the inquest
Discussion
A 5 month inquest will get underway at huge public expense to achieve what? It's not as if MI5 are about to lay out all their intelligence (or lack of it) for public scrutiny.
If I was looking for "savings" in public spending I'd start right there. The money that's frittered away on long criminal trials and lengthy inquests beggars belief.
If I was looking for "savings" in public spending I'd start right there. The money that's frittered away on long criminal trials and lengthy inquests beggars belief.
52 families lost loved-ones. I would guess that they'd like to know what happened; how it happened; whether their deaths were preventable; what, if anything, could've been done to save them; and what, if anything, is in place to ensure it doesn't happen again to someone else.
Or, you know, forget about it.
Or, you know, forget about it.
bigandclever said:
52 families lost loved-ones. I would guess that they'd like to know what happened; how it happened; whether their deaths were preventable; what, if anything, could've been done to save them; and what, if anything, is in place to ensure it doesn't happen again to someone else.
Or, you know, forget about it.
Sadly none of these things will come out of this inquest. We already know what happened, how it happened, and what things could have been done differently. We wont ever know anything new that we (or those in power) dont already know about it. Or, you know, forget about it.
It'll end up costing millions, and nothing will come from it.
Its like all those inquests into IED victims in Afghanistan. Pointless. Yes if theres an accident (like the APC rolling into a canal) then there should be an inquest. But when someone dies because he stepped on an IED and got turned into red mist, then we dont need a coroner to decide what happened.
I don't know, maybe I'm looking at it differently. If I were a relative of someone who died, I would want to know how they died. We know that there were many life or death decisions made that day by the emergency services; I would want to know whether that decision affected the survival (or not) of my relative. Personally, I don't believe that things can just be swept under the carpet because 'shhhh, it's a secret' or that since a verdict of unlawful killing is pretty much inevitable that we shouldn't have a full and frank investigation.
Gaz. said:
Corsair7 said:
bigandclever said:
52 families lost loved-ones. I would guess that they'd like to know what happened; how it happened; whether their deaths were preventable; what, if anything, could've been done to save them; and what, if anything, is in place to ensure it doesn't happen again to someone else.
Or, you know, forget about it.
Sadly none of these things will come out of this inquest. We already know what happened, how it happened, and what things could have been done differently. We wont ever know anything new that we (or those in power) dont already know about it. Or, you know, forget about it.
It'll end up costing millions, and nothing will come from it.
Its like all those inquests into IED victims in Afghanistan. Pointless. Yes if theres an accident (like the APC rolling into a canal) then there should be an inquest. But when someone dies because he stepped on an IED and got turned into red mist, then we dont need a coroner to decide what happened.
the problem is that these enquiries have no teeth. no bite. they cant MAKE people testify eg the terrorists wife
and once all the recommendations are made the concerned parties will send out a press release saying we've already implemented all these changes 2 years ago.
Not 100% sure where I stand on this but am leaning towards the idea that an 'enquiry' should be held (it has already for sure) in the public domain of some sort.
HOWEVER, a simple (or so it seemed at the time) Court case I am involved in appears to have an estimated defence bill of £95K!!! If it goes to trial....
The total of both sides legal estimates are around the same as the amount in question.
Why don't we just publish the 'inside' details that are allowable and then have personalised meetings with the families and explain things under a secrecy clause of some sort?
Allow the families access with caveats but let's not wash all of our laundry in public?
HOWEVER, a simple (or so it seemed at the time) Court case I am involved in appears to have an estimated defence bill of £95K!!! If it goes to trial....
The total of both sides legal estimates are around the same as the amount in question.
Why don't we just publish the 'inside' details that are allowable and then have personalised meetings with the families and explain things under a secrecy clause of some sort?
Allow the families access with caveats but let's not wash all of our laundry in public?
This won't focus on those people it will focus on ripping people who were trying to help apart. It will all be maybe, maybe maybe, if if if and possibly. It wasn't an accident it was planned. I'm sure that the intelligence services have already analysed where they went wrong but that won't come out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff