A good point about the split Home Office...
'The Liberal Democrat's Nick Clegg [Shadow Home Secretary] also highlighted what is believed to be the underlying politics of the decision, claiming it is being rushed through by Mr Reid and Tony Blair before Gordon Brown - thought to be lukewarm, at best, over the proposal - becomes prime minister.
He also noted the fact that an inquiry into the 7 July bombings had been rejected on the grounds it would distract attention from the fight against terrorism.
Would not, he asked, the time and effort taken in arranging the department's split be greater than holding a public inquiry would have taken up.
There is a suspicion already running around Westminster that Mr Brown may want to take an entirely different approach to the Home Office' (BBC)
David Davis the Tory Shadow Home Secretary came out for a 7/7 inquiry at the weekend. And we know that the Lib Dems support an inquiry too. Hmmm. Is Mr. Brown receptive, I wonder? It would be wonderful if he was, if he at least listened with an open mind, which I believe he may very well do, to an issue of such public interest and concern.
I have been privately informed about precisely who has blocked a public inquiry into 7/7. A few weeks after it happened, he gave his personal assurance to Eliza Manningham Buller that she needn't worry about one happening. No consultation with cabinet or Parliament. Just, presumably, the usual ''trust me''.
Now, with the expected imminent departure of the two key stakeholders in NOT having an inquiry, plus forthcoming revelations ( oh, hurry up, Jury!) when reporting restrictions are off, strong support for an inquiry from the Tories and Lib Dems, the picture is very different to when that wink was shamefully tipped.
An inquiry into 7/7 is above politics. Especially above that sort of sofa-special, off-the-record, know-who-your-pals are, play-'Presidential' politics. Ugh. Sooner he departs, the better.
Come on Mr Brown, help us out?
He also noted the fact that an inquiry into the 7 July bombings had been rejected on the grounds it would distract attention from the fight against terrorism.
Would not, he asked, the time and effort taken in arranging the department's split be greater than holding a public inquiry would have taken up.
There is a suspicion already running around Westminster that Mr Brown may want to take an entirely different approach to the Home Office' (BBC)
David Davis the Tory Shadow Home Secretary came out for a 7/7 inquiry at the weekend. And we know that the Lib Dems support an inquiry too. Hmmm. Is Mr. Brown receptive, I wonder? It would be wonderful if he was, if he at least listened with an open mind, which I believe he may very well do, to an issue of such public interest and concern.
I have been privately informed about precisely who has blocked a public inquiry into 7/7. A few weeks after it happened, he gave his personal assurance to Eliza Manningham Buller that she needn't worry about one happening. No consultation with cabinet or Parliament. Just, presumably, the usual ''trust me''.
Now, with the expected imminent departure of the two key stakeholders in NOT having an inquiry, plus forthcoming revelations ( oh, hurry up, Jury!) when reporting restrictions are off, strong support for an inquiry from the Tories and Lib Dems, the picture is very different to when that wink was shamefully tipped.
An inquiry into 7/7 is above politics. Especially above that sort of sofa-special, off-the-record, know-who-your-pals are, play-'Presidential' politics. Ugh. Sooner he departs, the better.
Come on Mr Brown, help us out?
Labels: 7/7 inquiry, 77
posted by Rachel at 8:05 am
Except that many of the answer to questions about what happened will go - "Well, the Treasury told us to cut spending by x%"....
Not sure that Gordon will like to hear that.
By the way, if one more idiot brings up the Bloody Sunday Enquiry as a reason not to have a 7/7 enquiry, I shall be rude. The Bloody Sunday Enquiry was carefully designed never to find out anything (by simply taking any testimony and not drawing any conclusions) and to report as far into the future as possible.