"Where law ends, tyranny begins." ~ John Locke 1690.
It is understood that the Prime Minister has ruled out a public inquiry
into the four explosions that occurred on the 7th of July. How then
will the truth be established as to who perpetrated these atrocities
and with whom were the guilty possibly connected?
A public enquiry could be set up for each of the four explosions using Section 17a of the 1988 Coroner's Act. This was designed for the investigation of multiple deaths when there was a common cause – for instance a train crash. Duplication is avoided and distress to relatives lessened. It has been invoked at least five times - twice for the sinking of the trawler Gaul. It was last used for the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly. An ad hoc inquiry by Lord Hutton was set up the day he was found, and the Section 17a vehicle added later and inappropriately given it was a single death.
A public enquiry could be set up for each of the four explosions using Section 17a of the 1988 Coroner's Act. This was designed for the investigation of multiple deaths when there was a common cause – for instance a train crash. Duplication is avoided and distress to relatives lessened. It has been invoked at least five times - twice for the sinking of the trawler Gaul. It was last used for the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly. An ad hoc inquiry by Lord Hutton was set up the day he was found, and the Section 17a vehicle added later and inappropriately given it was a single death.
Would use of Section 17a ensure the truth and finality that the loved
ones and the country require for these terrible crimes? In the case of
Dr Kelly there was a conflict between the coroner's duty to establish
the cause of his death, and the Hutton inquiry which was charged with
looking into 'the circumstances surrounding his death'. When the
coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, re-opened the inquest in March last
year, most people believe that he gave a verdict of suicide and that
the inquest was closed.
Instead the inquest was adjourned indefinitely and thus there was no verdict :-
Mr Grieve: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the status is of the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.
Ms Harman: On 16 March 2004 the Oxfordshire coroner decided not to resume the inquest which he had adjourned pending Lord Hutton’s public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.
In these bombings, there would be no reason for any conflict between the usual duties of the coroner/s and those spelled out by the the Lord Chancellor for a 17a inquiry.
There is a possible fatal flaw in this proposition and that is the Public Inquiries Act 2005. This was the creature that crept under the portcullis after Parliament was prorogued. This draconian bill allows the relevant Minister to decide which parts of an inquiry are heard in camera, what papers are made available, what gets published etc. This was allowed through with a few others after private discussion between party representatives!
This Act might have nullified the 17a provision, but it is not easy to find out.
But without resort to 17a , how will the coroner/s deal with the massive amount of forensic evidence and without duplication in each case?
There are two rules for us. In the case of the killing of Jean Charles Demenes and the disgraceful four day delay in giving the IPPC 'possession', we have been told to stop asking questions and cease speculation. And it is right in this tragedy that we wait for the IPPC report, as well as wishing for it to be prompt.
The other rule applies to the bombings of the 7th and 21st of July. Every few days more 'evidence' is displayed on TV – a 'still' CCTV picture of four men here, and a veiled widow with baby 'speaking' to Channel 4 there. Some weeks ago we were shown a picture of a man in Boots at Kings Cross. One doubts whether much, or any of this would be admissible in a court of law. What is the purpose of all this, apart from seeking to prove the story and the guilt? It is certainly helping to feed the ignorant with anti-Islamic urges.
There must be a plan to bring these bombings before the law in the most proper and effective manner.There must be fact rather than supposition and inference. There must be law, which cannot be let to wither more.
Instead the inquest was adjourned indefinitely and thus there was no verdict :-
Mr Grieve: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the status is of the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.
Ms Harman: On 16 March 2004 the Oxfordshire coroner decided not to resume the inquest which he had adjourned pending Lord Hutton’s public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly.
In these bombings, there would be no reason for any conflict between the usual duties of the coroner/s and those spelled out by the the Lord Chancellor for a 17a inquiry.
There is a possible fatal flaw in this proposition and that is the Public Inquiries Act 2005. This was the creature that crept under the portcullis after Parliament was prorogued. This draconian bill allows the relevant Minister to decide which parts of an inquiry are heard in camera, what papers are made available, what gets published etc. This was allowed through with a few others after private discussion between party representatives!
This Act might have nullified the 17a provision, but it is not easy to find out.
But without resort to 17a , how will the coroner/s deal with the massive amount of forensic evidence and without duplication in each case?
There are two rules for us. In the case of the killing of Jean Charles Demenes and the disgraceful four day delay in giving the IPPC 'possession', we have been told to stop asking questions and cease speculation. And it is right in this tragedy that we wait for the IPPC report, as well as wishing for it to be prompt.
The other rule applies to the bombings of the 7th and 21st of July. Every few days more 'evidence' is displayed on TV – a 'still' CCTV picture of four men here, and a veiled widow with baby 'speaking' to Channel 4 there. Some weeks ago we were shown a picture of a man in Boots at Kings Cross. One doubts whether much, or any of this would be admissible in a court of law. What is the purpose of all this, apart from seeking to prove the story and the guilt? It is certainly helping to feed the ignorant with anti-Islamic urges.
There must be a plan to bring these bombings before the law in the most proper and effective manner.There must be fact rather than supposition and inference. There must be law, which cannot be let to wither more.
