Feedback on the news
from Daily Mail Comment
Blair must face his day of reckoning
1st November 2006Fearful and flustered, the Prime Minister goes on the offensive as the Conservatives call for a public inquiry into his gross mishandling of Iraq.
Accusing them of nothing short of treachery to our servicemen, he asks through his spokesman: 'When troops are serving overseas, in whose interests is it to make such an announcement?'
Well, we all know who would stand to lose most from public scrutiny of the Government's conduct - and we don't mean British troops, struggling bravely to do the impossible job with which Mr Blair has saddled them.
No. There is nothing remotely unpatriotic about David Cameron's demand for a thorough investigation into every aspect of the war.
True, he and his party backed the invasion - an honourable position at the time, although one with which this paper profoundly disagreed. But there is no inconsistency about voting for the war then and insisting on an inquiry now, when the Government's handling of it has been so disastrous.
Indeed, it is a sign of political maturity that Mr Cameron is seeking to loosen the Tories' attachment to a foreign policy virtually dictated by the White House.
The truth is that the case for a truly independent inquiry is unanswerable.
It must look into the abuse of the democratic process, which saw parliament and people deceived by a 'sexed-up' dossier put together by a spin-doctor.
It must examine how and why the Government fell totally under the spell of Washington. It must investigate what appears to have been a complete lack of planning for equipping our troops or reconstructing Iraq.
Above all, it must find ways to ensure that a catastrophe like this misbegotten war can never happen again.
Last night the Commons rejected the call for an immediate inquiry. But now even Defence Secretary Des Browne is forced to admit there must be one 'when the time is right'.
Mr Blair's day of public reckoning is coming.
Freedom to differ
This newspaper has long campaigned for an end to the secrecy that shrouds our family courts, whose decisions to remove children from their parents so often cause anguish and despair.
We therefore applaud Lord Justice Wall's call for wider Press access to the courts, so that the public can see how these heartbreaking cases are decided.
But it is profoundly disturbing that this senior Appeal Court judge goes on to suggest the authorities should have the right to pick and choose which newspapers should be admitted.
In his speech to a conference on family law, Lord Justice Wall cites his disapproval of the Mail's reporting of a case in which an Essex couple had their children removed by social workers and put up for adoption after a secret hearing.
As the court heard, the parents were 'entirely decent and respectable people', who loved their baby son and four-year-old daughter, keeping them well-fed and well-dressed. The children were removed only because their mother was considered too slow to care for them properly.
We thought then - and we still do - that the court's decision was cruelly wrong. Even the Government agrees our coverage highlighted concerns over how such rulings are reached.
Are newspapers to be blackballed for bringing such injustices to public notice?
Lord Justice Wall appears to have difficulty understanding the concept of Press freedom. Let us explain. It means the freedom to draw public attention to the truth as we see it - whether judges happen to agree with us or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment