I think the author is being rather coy in his final assessment about being “unsure” whether or not the Inquiry might achieve a balanced view, when virtually every single point he makes prior to that indicates the opposite. He seems pretty sure that it won’t, and given the opening salvoes, the Inquiry very much seems to be starting from the wrong place – especially considering the “three questions” remit.
What a waste of time and public money.

The purpose of the inquiry is to exculpate all of those responsible. It will succeed.
You can develop the most sophisticated form of constitutional government in the world, but if you people it with charlatans….

Lockdown was a disaster for the United Kingdom, its population and its economy. We all know this, and we all know why. But the Great and the Good don’t agree.

So they are now going to spend £500 million further enriching wealthy, be-wigged lawyers, to get a woman who is called a “Baroness” to tell us that we are all wrong, and the Great and the Good were, after all, absolutely correct in shutting down the country, its health and education systems, and its economy – for a new strain of flu.

The fact that that amount of money, used well, could build between one and two thousand houses for those in real need, is irrelevant to the Great and the Good. For them, it is more important that their “Baroness” tells us that they were right.

I don’t know about anybody else. But I have now just about had enough. I wonder what it will take for the English people to rise up and put an end to this insanity.

“ We may assume scientists will be more neutral and balanced.”

This made me chuckle.

The opening statements stressed the experience of bereaved families who lost loved ones to Covid. An emotionally charged film of their grief and suffering opened the inquiry. 

After acknowledging a vigil outside, Hallett stated that the inquiry was for the “millions who suffered and continue to suffer in different ways as a result of the pandemic,”

Do people remember the start of the Grenfell Inquiry, when relatives were allowed – encouraged, even – to express their grief and anguish, before people buckled down to the business of reviewing policies and investigating facts? I don’t think it used to be like that. The main purpose of inquiries is a form of “speak bitterness” campaign, where people queue up to complain about the government and the systematic disadvantages they have experienced. Either this is a cynical ploy by the authorities, who know that allowing people to ventilate grievances will allow them to get away with doing little; or those authorities lack the fortitude to refuse victims and interested parties a role in a status-degradation ceremony.
Governments used to make sure things worked, and inquiries were about “Just the facts’ Ma’am!”. Now they are about undermining their own authority to make decisions.

An inquiry setup and staffed by elite technocrats is unable to consider any evidence that elite technocrats might have made mistakes. What a shocker.

The outcome of the enquiry should be noted by anyone considering upping sticks. It will be the blueprint for the next government (Labour or Conservative) to point to. If a verdict of “not locking down quickly or harshly enough” is upheld it will give extra weight to the authoritarians when (not if) the same thing happens again .

It took the Hillsborough families three decades of hard work and persistence to get justice for their loved ones, and overcome the unwillingness of those in charge to admit errors and wrongdoing. This, time, though it wasn’t just a police force that got things wrong and lied to themselves and to the public; it was a large majority of the public themselves who demonstrably, publicly, and bought into the untruths pushed by our worse than useless, pliable politicians – who themselves were gulled and manipulated by corporations and political actors on the global stage, who stood to gain much power and treasure.

Collectivisation of guilt on this scale is, in this country, without precedent. Any public inquiry run by the guilty for the guilty can only return one verdict: not guilty.

Baroness Hallett may end up being one of the most damaging of Boris Johnson’s many disastrous appointments. This will be expensively dragged out for years to allow the media to drive home all the wrong lessons. A retired judge with a generous pension could hardly be more insulated from the financial, economic, educational, healthcare, and psychological damage caused by lockdown.

This inquiry will be an expensive farce that will determine absolutely nothing of any consequence.
It has already got off to a completely unnecessary and embarrassingly ‘mawkish’ start.

Have we already forgotten the wretched Saville Inquiry* so soon? An Inquiry to overthrow a previous Inquiry**, that came to the wrong conclusion?

Saville’s effort ran for 12 long years, yes 12! The cost? Estimated at upwards of £200 million, a veritable Lawyers feast!

But absurdly it did overturn the previous Inquiry as planned, thus making a complete mockery of British Justice.

Is there even the remotest chance things will be any different this time? No!

(* Bloody or Good Sunday depending on your viewpoint.)
(** The Lord Widgery Inquiry Feb-April, 1972.)

Never fear, a way will be found to blame Boris for everything and let Fauci, Danszak, Michie, Ferguson et al off the hook.

Really… who cares. What can you possibly learn from this inquiry that you don’t already know thanks to the Hancock’s whatsapp message and today the video about the party at Tory HQ? What else do you REALLY need?

To quote Philip J. Fry from Futurama:
“I am shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.”

Quelle suprIse….

Most of us intuited most of the facts at the start and soon proved right. This inquiry will keep a lot of poshies in knickers for a good long time and will conclude that no one was to blame and lessons have been learned.

For those who’s view is already fixed the mere existence of the Inquiry will generate anger and indignation. For rest of us I suspect as it picks up pace it’ll raise and provoke fundamental questions for how a Country prepares and manages something like this in the future. An open mind for a little longer doesn’t cost much.