Last Chance Hotel?

In my humble opinion, a public enquiry would not stop discussion of 'who said what to who' on web forums. It would also be a gross waste of the taxpayers money - the only real question that could be investigated in the public interest is "did the Ffestiniog Railway use the grant money it was given to rebuild the Welsh Highland Railway?". The answer to this is, of course, "yes".


Charlie

 

Please can we put an end to this Public Inquiry nonsense? I suggest people read this http://www.publicinquiries.org/determining_the_need_for_an_inquiry . I fail to see how a disagreement between two small organisations comes anywhere near to exhibiting the sort of characteristics that can be identified in public inquiries that have taken place.

 

I think you should re-read the first line. The fact that this dispute has extended out from FR/WHHR into the wider community explains the need for a enquiry. I don't beleive for one second that the threads posted on this forum have done anything to help the situation moreover a chance either to down one side or the other.

 

Can you please drop this whole 'public inquiry' nonsense? No one else seriously believes that it would be useful, practical or even possible and would result in nothing more than dragging the reputation and public image of all 3 railways through the mud - neither do i see how it has extended out into the wider community at all, except for the occasional report in the local press.

If the only reason you want one is because the apparent self-styled 'experts' like myself (?) disagree with you - go and find out yourself whats been going on! The last 10 years of WHR e-group and forum posts should give you a pretty good idea of whats happened from the viewpoints of people working on all 3 railways.

Chris

 

Perhaps you'd care to advise us which of the following might apply then :

"Certain characteristics can be identified in those public inquiries that have taken place:

•Widespread loss of life
•Threats to public health or safety
•Failure by the state in its duty to protect
•Failure in regulation
•Shocking events"

 

I happen to be on the WHR e-group. Secondly, i did find out for myself. Thirdly, i don't need a lesson and lastly i believe an inquiry with an enquiry is what's needed. My opinion.

 

Perhaps you'd care to advise us which of the following might apply then :

"Certain characteristics can be identified in those public inquiries that have taken place:

•Widespread loss of life
•Threats to public health or safety
•Failure by the state in its duty to protect
•Failure in regulation
•Shocking events"

 

The first line states: Naturally, the categories of events that may lead to the establishment of a public inquiry are not closed (end). Due to the complex nature of the dispute and the fact that it has extended into the general community i believe the time has now come to bring it to an end, otherwise it will continue to give fuel to those who take themselves for experts.

 

Am I alone in reading positive signs into this http://www.isengard.co.uk/#News

Should we shut this negative thread and start another. Or have a 2 week moratorium.

(And I am frustrated at sitting in an office and not at Port)...

 

If you do know whats going on, why do you want a very expensive, very damaging public enquiry to tell you? ...and you still havent said how it extends into the wider community.

Chris

 

Frankly, you've just run out of ideas. Im not so bigheaded enough to think that the public inquiry is for me, as for the public community, you know as well as me. Lastly, i don't consider the public inquiry as damaging, to have a firm decision in justice will end this dispute and will become a good solid base for the future of all those concerned.