Friday, June 18, 2010


After spending over a hundred million pounds to reach a pre-determined verdict the Saville Inquiry is being treated as though it actually uncovered any new information.

We know now what we knew before, that the soldiers claim to have believed that they were under attack before they shot the protesters whereas the protesters say that the paras fired without provocation.

Nothing has changed as a result of Lord Saville declaring that he believes the latter version of events.

All the talk about whether the soldiers involved will be prosecuted ignores the fact that whilst the Saville Report is portrayed as being definitive and unarguable, it is extremely unlikely that the evidence could be considered to prove the guilt of anyone beyond reasonable doubt.

In fact official inquiries are a useful way of throwing the authority of the law behind a particular version of history without actually subjecting it to the rigour the law usually requires.

See also.

No comments: