4 ms·

> what good are these inquiries that span years until they fade out of public interest That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries. They very slowly and

> what good are these inquiries that span years until they fade out of public interest That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries. They very slowly and methodically move forward until the public are either forgetting about the issue or "let bygones be bygones". Until then anyone who should be held accountable (criminally or politically) can answer that they cannot comment on the matter while the inquiries are ongoing. (which is in itself a way to ice the discussion while making it appear as if the person asking the question is out of order, and not the person not answering them) It is a delaying tactic by powerful people against less powerful in the society. Change my mind if you can.

petesergeant 2y ago
> That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries Strong disagree. I’d say these drip drip disclosures are swaying public opinion and we’ll end up in a position where the public are clamouring for blood.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  In the event that happens, it does not rule out krisoft's hypothesis about the purpose of these inquiries. I would point out that if criminal proceedings are a possibility, the presumption of innocence will have the consequences listed in krisoft's post, and while these consequences are convenient for the people and institutions directly and tangentially responsible, it does not follow that this convenience is the inquiry's only purpose. Is there a serious possibility of criminal prosecutions arising from this inquiry? if not, then conducting them as if that possibility existed might itself be seen as a delaying tactic.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions. If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      I imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?
      - petesergeant 2y ago
        Nothing springs to mind, and I’m too lazy to research it, but in lieu, here’s an interesting adjacent article: Why the next Westminster scandal is already here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-westminster-scandal-is-already-here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-we...
- krisoft 2y ago
  > we’ll end up in a position where the public are clamouring for blood I would like to be as optimistic as you are. Simply the history of these things is not making me so. Grenfell Tower, a terrible fiasco 7 years ago. The inquiry is still plodding on. Who went to prison for that one? Some folks who tried to scam compensation money for themselves. But nobody from the companies who sold the flammable insulation. Contaminated blood scandal happened in the 70s and 80s. By the time the inquiry finishes (if ever) everyone who will be implicated has long retired. Undercover Policing Inquiry? Still ongoing 9 years on. No end in sight. Again if it ever finds anyone responsible will there be any repercussions for them? In the case of the Hillsborough disaster the police leaders were not prosecuted until 2017. 28 years after the incident. Justice delayed is often justice denied in practice.
  - masfuerte 2y ago
    The Bloody Sunday inquiry reported 38 years after the event. I'm sure there are others we are forgetting. And then there's the inquiries that haven't even started yet. Our security services colluded with America's post-911 international kidnap, torture and murder program. David Cameron promised an inquiry when he became prime minister. I guess he found out that ministers were complicit and changed his mind.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      You need public and political will to have any inquiry, though. I don't think pointing out that there wasn't the political will to have a real Bloody Sunday inquiry more recently than the 38 years it took is the same as the original point which is that inquiries are a stalling tactic to delay (or avoid) trials.
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    It’s interesting. The BP oil spill in the US: it was basically determined, in a 15 minute meeting between maybe 2 politicians and a businessman, that BP would be fined massively, by a certain amount they would decide, but not destroyed. Then there was 2-4 years of process to perform that for the public. Like at the end of the day, in reality, a judge with a law degree and very limited life experience doesn’t really know what should happen. The decision for big public fiascos - the oil rig said BP on it, the oil came out when it wasn’t supposed to, what is there to investigate? - is political. The delayed justice here was not denied. You have to wonder, what is the downside of coming hard on a flammable cladding manufacturer?

petesergeant 2y ago

> That appears to be the purpose of these inquiries Strong disagree. I’d say these drip drip disclosures are swaying public opinion and we’ll end up in a position where the public are clamouring for blood.

mannykannot 2y ago
In the event that happens, it does not rule out krisoft's hypothesis about the purpose of these inquiries. I would point out that if criminal proceedings are a possibility, the presumption of innocence will have the consequences listed in krisoft's post, and while these consequences are convenient for the people and institutions directly and tangentially responsible, it does not follow that this convenience is the inquiry's only purpose. Is there a serious possibility of criminal prosecutions arising from this inquiry? if not, then conducting them as if that possibility existed might itself be seen as a delaying tactic.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions. If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    I imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      Nothing springs to mind, and I’m too lazy to research it, but in lieu, here’s an interesting adjacent article: Why the next Westminster scandal is already here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-westminster-scandal-is-already-here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-we...
krisoft 2y ago
> we’ll end up in a position where the public are clamouring for blood I would like to be as optimistic as you are. Simply the history of these things is not making me so. Grenfell Tower, a terrible fiasco 7 years ago. The inquiry is still plodding on. Who went to prison for that one? Some folks who tried to scam compensation money for themselves. But nobody from the companies who sold the flammable insulation. Contaminated blood scandal happened in the 70s and 80s. By the time the inquiry finishes (if ever) everyone who will be implicated has long retired. Undercover Policing Inquiry? Still ongoing 9 years on. No end in sight. Again if it ever finds anyone responsible will there be any repercussions for them? In the case of the Hillsborough disaster the police leaders were not prosecuted until 2017. 28 years after the incident. Justice delayed is often justice denied in practice.
- masfuerte 2y ago
  The Bloody Sunday inquiry reported 38 years after the event. I'm sure there are others we are forgetting. And then there's the inquiries that haven't even started yet. Our security services colluded with America's post-911 international kidnap, torture and murder program. David Cameron promised an inquiry when he became prime minister. I guess he found out that ministers were complicit and changed his mind.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    You need public and political will to have any inquiry, though. I don't think pointing out that there wasn't the political will to have a real Bloody Sunday inquiry more recently than the 38 years it took is the same as the original point which is that inquiries are a stalling tactic to delay (or avoid) trials.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  It’s interesting. The BP oil spill in the US: it was basically determined, in a 15 minute meeting between maybe 2 politicians and a businessman, that BP would be fined massively, by a certain amount they would decide, but not destroyed. Then there was 2-4 years of process to perform that for the public. Like at the end of the day, in reality, a judge with a law degree and very limited life experience doesn’t really know what should happen. The decision for big public fiascos - the oil rig said BP on it, the oil came out when it wasn’t supposed to, what is there to investigate? - is political. The delayed justice here was not denied. You have to wonder, what is the downside of coming hard on a flammable cladding manufacturer?