Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Iraq war inquiry to be held behind closed doors.
An independent inquiry into the Iraq war will be held in private, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has told MPs.
Can we trust it to be completely independent, and whatever happened to transparency in Government?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8100432 .stm
Can we trust it to be completely independent, and whatever happened to transparency in Government?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8100432 .stm
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is such a highly emotive subject which, no matter the decision, was bound to create a massive stir.
Those who have lost loved ones will understandably be outraged and deeply disappointed but they cannot be held to be the most objective people for very obvious reasons.
There was always going to be an element of secrecy because of security concerns and that is only right and proper. National security is paramount.
We have no guarantees that the enquiry will satisfy everyone, indeed wouldn't that be impossible? And as far as "transparency" goes, the only thing I can deduce is that the definition of that word to a politician differs radically to what any reputable dictionary would have us believe it should.
The dilemma was therefore that the remainder of the information could be viewed as a "halfway house" with large chunks missing, hence I suppose some of the rationale behind the enquiry being held in public.
It may also be that witnesses might be more forthcoming to a closed door enquiry rather than have their every word masticated and scrutinised to the nth degree by our avaricious media?
I do find it somewhat convenient for Mr Brown, though, that the findings will not be revealed for over a year, by which time of course he and his Government may well no longer be in power. Now, wouldn't that possibly get him out of a potentially damaging and embarrassing situation should the enquiry find against those politicians who actually had a part in sending our troops to Iraq in the first place?
Those who have lost loved ones will understandably be outraged and deeply disappointed but they cannot be held to be the most objective people for very obvious reasons.
There was always going to be an element of secrecy because of security concerns and that is only right and proper. National security is paramount.
We have no guarantees that the enquiry will satisfy everyone, indeed wouldn't that be impossible? And as far as "transparency" goes, the only thing I can deduce is that the definition of that word to a politician differs radically to what any reputable dictionary would have us believe it should.
The dilemma was therefore that the remainder of the information could be viewed as a "halfway house" with large chunks missing, hence I suppose some of the rationale behind the enquiry being held in public.
It may also be that witnesses might be more forthcoming to a closed door enquiry rather than have their every word masticated and scrutinised to the nth degree by our avaricious media?
I do find it somewhat convenient for Mr Brown, though, that the findings will not be revealed for over a year, by which time of course he and his Government may well no longer be in power. Now, wouldn't that possibly get him out of a potentially damaging and embarrassing situation should the enquiry find against those politicians who actually had a part in sending our troops to Iraq in the first place?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
In these compensation mad days, shouldn't employers think twice before employing certain workers in their companies.
Perhaps they should ask certain searching questions before employing them? But then they can't can they? because they would be breaching the numerous discrimination laws.
Incidentally she looks quite happy wearing the said dress.
In these compensation mad days, shouldn't employers think twice before employing certain workers in their companies.
Perhaps they should ask certain searching questions before employing them? But then they can't can they? because they would be breaching the numerous discrimination laws.
Incidentally she looks quite happy wearing the said dress.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
As the decision to go to war was decided by sofa government there's not a hells chance of finding out unless Campbell, Blair or Scarlett turned evidence.
Examining the evidence over 7 years just clouds the issue, its just the 6 month period before the war and the questions are fairly simple.
1. Why did Blair over-ride Hanz Blitz who said more time was needed for the weapons inspectors.
2. If Bush said he did not need British involvement in the invasion why did Blair still go along with it.
3. Why did Blair lie about Iraqs capability to attack Cyprus.
4. Blair's foundation to bring religions together. Why when he has created divisions so huge between religions it will take centuries to unravel.
5. Why did Blair change his tune when he initially supported the use of weapons inspectors but then changed it to regime change.
Examining the evidence over 7 years just clouds the issue, its just the 6 month period before the war and the questions are fairly simple.
1. Why did Blair over-ride Hanz Blitz who said more time was needed for the weapons inspectors.
2. If Bush said he did not need British involvement in the invasion why did Blair still go along with it.
3. Why did Blair lie about Iraqs capability to attack Cyprus.
4. Blair's foundation to bring religions together. Why when he has created divisions so huge between religions it will take centuries to unravel.
5. Why did Blair change his tune when he initially supported the use of weapons inspectors but then changed it to regime change.
Much as I pains me to say it, I don't think it matters that Gordon has chosen to hold this inquiry behind closed doors.
My reason for saying that is the Inquiries Act 2005.
This piece of legislation was enacted (by shear coincidence of course...) one month before the 7th July bombings in London.
It has been pretty much ignored by the media but has been vilified by independent organisations and individuals as being a tool by which the government can control any inquiry.
For example, Amnesty International has said, �... any inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions.� and has asked members of the British judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act.
The Candian Judge, Peter Cory, has said, �... it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible... the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation...�
I think the sad fact is that even if this inquiry was a 'Public Inquiry' we would never really get to the truth because of this Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_200 5
My reason for saying that is the Inquiries Act 2005.
This piece of legislation was enacted (by shear coincidence of course...) one month before the 7th July bombings in London.
It has been pretty much ignored by the media but has been vilified by independent organisations and individuals as being a tool by which the government can control any inquiry.
For example, Amnesty International has said, �... any inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block public scrutiny of state actions.� and has asked members of the British judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act.
The Candian Judge, Peter Cory, has said, �... it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible... the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation...�
I think the sad fact is that even if this inquiry was a 'Public Inquiry' we would never really get to the truth because of this Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_200 5
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Bbc Admits Hamas ‘Civilian’...
News28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.