Chinahand Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Typical of this government - they aren't willing to accept a public enquiry. BBC Link Cowardice - the idea that a public enquiry couldn't sit in camera when it touched upon National Security Issues is simple rubbish. Brown just doesn't understand that people expect transparency not private backroom spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Brown just doesn't understand that people expect transparency not private backroom spin. He probably does, he just doesn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 nu labour nu rules nu day same bullshit. i am surprised he isnt hanging blair out to dry tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 It will start next month and take at least a year, Mr Brown said. It will not aim to "apportion blame", he added. So it's private and won't "apportion blame". It's an inquiry! That's what they do, find out if something or someone was at fault. Waste of time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Does it really matter? Most interested people's minds are long made up about it. If it recommends anything less than the entire 2003 cabinet being put before the Hague there will be substantial numbers of people who will think it was just a whitewash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Brown once again puts two fingers up to the electorate !! A general election is needed to get rid of this pathetic excuse for a PM and elect someone else (anyone) or please labour party do it for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Rather fitting that a war built on a lie is subject to a secret enquiry. God forbid the truth should actually see the light of day. Consistency is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I am staggered by some of Brown's reasoning behind a private enquiry most notably in order that witnesses could be 'as candid as possible' in other words they might tell the truth in private but not in public !! FFS And also 'damage national security', personally I think our participation in the whole sorry affair has done more damage to national security i.e. made GB near the top of the extremists target list than a public enquiry could ever do. To those families who have lost sons and daughters in the middle east how dare brown play politics with the reasoning behind their loss. Labour Govt shower of sh1t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 Opposition to holding it in private is very broad ranging - link, link2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Opposition to holding it in private is very broad ranging - link, link2. Even Brutus Balls wants it to be in public. Can't Broon get ANYTHING right? You can tell that his instincts are always to dissemble. There hasn't been such a deeply flawed PM since Lloyd George. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilligan Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Some people think an issue like this is quite serious, can people actually do anything to make Brown make the inquirey public, or does Brown decide what goes no matter what the people want? Is it 100% democracy? Yes we/they can vote, but shouldn't the people get more of a say as to what happens. As soon as we've voted, thats it for the next x years. The decisions are then made by the government even if the people don't want it. The best example I can think of is the 10p tax law. No one wanted, but the government still did it (for a bit). If we live in 100% democracy, then surely if the people wanted the inquirey to be public, then it should be made public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Some people think an issue like this is quite serious, can people actually do anything to make Brown make the inquirey public, or does Brown decide what goes no matter what the people want? Is it 100% democracy? Yes we/they can vote, but shouldn't the people get more of a say as to what happens. As soon as we've voted, thats it for the next x years. The decisions are then made by the government even if the people don't want it. The best example I can think of is the 10p tax law. No one wanted, but the government still did it (for a bit). If we live in 100% democracy, then surely if the people wanted the inquirey to be public, then it should be made public? I don't know what a 100% democracy means to you, but no the UK is not a 100% democracy nor even a democracy. I think the best term for it I have heard is a 'deformed polyarchy'. Given the current way things work it is not the case the what the public demands can be made carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Rumour now seems to suggest it was Blair who wanted it to be private ! I would not be suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Poor Gordon. He seems to insist on doing something HIS way only to keep on having to back down. One get's the impression that he is unable to talk with those around him before he decides what to do. The worrying thing is that he does not seem to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.