3 ms·

> 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 m

> 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
  I think this is a great point — these are fundamentally political judgements, and that’s probably how it should be
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    The Supreme Court reversed another triumph of political judgements - the indemnity of the Sacklers - so unfortunately, things seem to be trending away from pragmatic, politically driven solutions to problems and more towards the RNG of the Supreme Court. The US is basically governed by playing Yogg-Saron now, and Clarence Thomas is the premium illustration.

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
I think this is a great point — these are fundamentally political judgements, and that’s probably how it should be
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  The Supreme Court reversed another triumph of political judgements - the indemnity of the Sacklers - so unfortunately, things seem to be trending away from pragmatic, politically driven solutions to problems and more towards the RNG of the Supreme Court. The US is basically governed by playing Yogg-Saron now, and Clarence Thomas is the premium illustration.