As Emily Dickinson had it:”Hope is a feathered thing that perches in the soul”. There is as I believe an obligation to hope and there is a serious mischief to be countered when the cynics or more charitable the sceptics demand to know of your evidence to justify hope. That is, again in my view, to miss the point. If the need arising is of a pressing and vital kind in the public interest then everyone with the relevant skills and convictions has a clear duty to strive for better. To be frank, I have so far been impressed by the judge or former judge chairmanship of the current handful or more high profile inquiries. The Lords Committee under Lord Norton seems to be on very much the right track and governments really must be held to account if remaining inactive notwithstanding sound recommendations and especially ones that have been accepted by them- or their successors. Some auditing mechanism and some heavy influencing or even compelling measure should be on the agenda.
Surely the idea is either a demonstration of the oft claimed definition of insanity or a demonstration of just how gullible Government (of all persuasions) assumes people are. Your comments suggest the first possibility? Perhaps it is the latter relying on the public's tendency towards gullibility allowing problems to be shifted to some undefined future date when the public outcry/demand for change will be replaced by the next outrage? Should I be worried by the hint at optimism found in this write-up notwithstanding your obvious concern about the history of inquiries?
As Emily Dickinson had it:”Hope is a feathered thing that perches in the soul”. There is as I believe an obligation to hope and there is a serious mischief to be countered when the cynics or more charitable the sceptics demand to know of your evidence to justify hope. That is, again in my view, to miss the point. If the need arising is of a pressing and vital kind in the public interest then everyone with the relevant skills and convictions has a clear duty to strive for better. To be frank, I have so far been impressed by the judge or former judge chairmanship of the current handful or more high profile inquiries. The Lords Committee under Lord Norton seems to be on very much the right track and governments really must be held to account if remaining inactive notwithstanding sound recommendations and especially ones that have been accepted by them- or their successors. Some auditing mechanism and some heavy influencing or even compelling measure should be on the agenda.
Surely the idea is either a demonstration of the oft claimed definition of insanity or a demonstration of just how gullible Government (of all persuasions) assumes people are. Your comments suggest the first possibility? Perhaps it is the latter relying on the public's tendency towards gullibility allowing problems to be shifted to some undefined future date when the public outcry/demand for change will be replaced by the next outrage? Should I be worried by the hint at optimism found in this write-up notwithstanding your obvious concern about the history of inquiries?