If an ordinary member of the public commits a criminal act; they are tried by 12 good men and true; via a jury; drawn from ordinary people.
Instead of a paliamentary enquiry; all sorts of governement quangos; why aren't the public called to judge in cases like this ?
Any enquiry will smack of the Fox looking after the Hounds; they're obviously not independent; it's a deep quagmire of intrigue, deceit and duplicitous/incestous arrangements etc. Why should the public pay for an "enquiry" at great cost. It wont be believed. What's wrong with the Electorate; ordinary people judging the evidence ?
I agree. I also notice that in far too many cases a resignation does instead of a prosecution. I somehow doubt if I get caught committing a crime that I can escape punishment by saying I will give up my day job.
YABU There have been people arrested over the scandal and there will be more people arrested before it's over. They will be judged in court on the basis of the evidence. The Commons select committe hearing, in the meantime, is a more immediate means to put the people responsible in front of our elected representatives and face questions, rather than wait for the full judicial process to grind slowly into action. The committee is made up of MPs from across the house, so it is both representative and independent. A judicial inquiry is planned because the effects of the scandal are far-reaching and, as with other major events, we need to not only prosecute the guilty but also understand what went wrong and how that could be rectified in future. No idea where you get foxes looking after hounds from. Very silly thing to say
Cogito (I understandtherefore sometimes)??? Both political parties are implicated in this scandel. Both politial parties have party interests and agendas. ERGO.(therefore).... Mp's of either party (Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour) have interaction or interset. They are not the people to judge. Their public are.
It should be the people who judge this. Just 12 poeple chosen at random. Ordinary people. If we're good enough to elect them; we're good enough to judge them. I quote "No idea where you get foxes looking after hounds from. Very silly thing to say" (sic).
If you had any knowledge of the snobbery and nomeclature that exists in England, you would know that what I said isn't silly. "Fox looking after the Hounds " is a derisive phrase for many years. It means a lot of things. Many silly.
Again I say. Why should we pay a public cost for this enquiry ?