Thu May 13, 2021 12:05 pm
#1846702
I'm surprised there is a little criticism already when the public inquiry's composition and terms of reference are yet to be decided. I have been involved in a number of government (health) inquiries (including Shipman) and I considered them to be highly effective as well as highly independent. And highly expensive!
The real problem with inquiries of all shapes and sizes is implementation of the recommendations even when accepted by the Government. It is failure to implement the recommendations effectively that leads to history repeating itself - and those who fail to learn the lessons of history are forced to relive them.
Personally I am not in favour of public inquiries - at least where all the evidence is given in public. The problem is that people who fear criticism, justified or otherwise, will be attending with their lawyers. If part of the hearing is in private, where people can give evidence without fear of being misinterpreted or their evidence being taken out of context, then much more can be learned. But the problem is that for many people the purpose of an inquiry is not to learn the lessons so we do much better next time, but rather to point the finger of blame which benefits no-one, with serried ranks of lawyers/claims handlers ready to pick up on anything they can use to make a claim.
I like the 'Yes Minister' quote, @paultheparaglider. I hadn't seen that before, although it is a basic rule of cross-examination that you do not ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
Best wishes
Mike
The real problem with inquiries of all shapes and sizes is implementation of the recommendations even when accepted by the Government. It is failure to implement the recommendations effectively that leads to history repeating itself - and those who fail to learn the lessons of history are forced to relive them.
Personally I am not in favour of public inquiries - at least where all the evidence is given in public. The problem is that people who fear criticism, justified or otherwise, will be attending with their lawyers. If part of the hearing is in private, where people can give evidence without fear of being misinterpreted or their evidence being taken out of context, then much more can be learned. But the problem is that for many people the purpose of an inquiry is not to learn the lessons so we do much better next time, but rather to point the finger of blame which benefits no-one, with serried ranks of lawyers/claims handlers ready to pick up on anything they can use to make a claim.
I like the 'Yes Minister' quote, @paultheparaglider. I hadn't seen that before, although it is a basic rule of cross-examination that you do not ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
Best wishes
Mike
Beagle Pup G-BAKW at EGKR