Some Civic Facts of Life

 Several 'Inquiries'  by the NBC have been held over the course of this year.  It is important for residents to know the difference between an a hearing or an Inquiry and a judicial exercise. 

If an inquiry is not judicial, it generally means that it is not governed by the formal rules and procedures of a court of law. This distinction has significant implications for the quality of evidence presented:

  1. Less Rigorous Standards for Evidence: In a judicial inquiry, evidence must meet strict legal standards, such as relevance, reliability, and admissibility. In a non-judicial inquiry, these standards may be relaxed. Evidence that would not be admissible in court, such as hearsay, opinion, or circumstantial evidence, might be allowed in a Hearing or Inquiry.
  2. Broader Scope of Evidence: Non-judicial inquiries may accept a wider range of evidence, including anecdotal accounts, unverified documents, or expert opinions that have not been subjected to cross-examination. This can allow for a more comprehensive exploration of issues but may also result in less reliable conclusions.
  3. Reduced Formality: Non-judicial inquiries often lack the formal processes of cross-examination, strict rules of evidence, and protections against self-incrimination. While this can make the inquiry more flexible and faster, it also means that the evidence might not be as thoroughly tested.
  4. Potential for Bias: Without judicial oversight, there is a greater risk that the evidence could be selectively presented or interpreted. The absence of a neutral judge or the possibility of appeal can lead to conclusions based on incomplete or unbalanced evidence.
  5. Public Perception and Influence: Non-judicial inquiries, such as parliamentary or administrative investigations, may be influenced by political, social, or organizational pressures. The evidence presented might be tailored to suit the objectives of the inquiry, rather than to meet the impartial standards of truth that judicial inquiries strive for.

Overall, while non-judicial inquiries can be valuable for fact-finding and addressing public concerns, the quality of the evidence presented is generally lower due to the lack of formal legal scrutiny.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppies and Cut-outs

  People might have noticed the poppies and the cut out metal figures placed in the village for Armistice Day in November.   It was suggested by Councillor Owen that metal figures be purchased and   placed on the Village Green. Poppies would be displayed through the parish on lamp posts etc. These were paid for from the Parish Council Funds (£350 for the cutouts plus 20 plastic poppies at £5 each).   At the November meeting I asked if there was a reason that no poppies had been placed in Wrinehill since the account had been paid from Parish Council funds.   I did not receive a satisfactory answer but I was accused of making a ‘complaint’ (the only person not to praise the display, it seems).   But it was not a ‘complaint’ only a question based on an observation. The upshot is that an email was sent to all Members of the Council   suggesting that as a result poppies and cut out figures would be purchased -3 sets of figures and 40 more poppies).  ...
Read more

Clarification

 It has been noted in the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 Minute 5 a statement made about this blog 'by a member of the parish council'- 'that  any comments submitted to the author of the blog which questioned the factual accuracy of the contents of its reports were ignored and not published'.  This is an assumption (yet another) not a fact.   It also seems to be yet another example of attempts to undermine the integrity of the blog (and its author). The blog, it has been noted, presents another view point which often differs from the 'standard'/'official' view presented via the Minutes particularly, where statements are made and treated as if they were universal truths rather than just  'a view' of a group of people. It needs to be pointed out here, therefore, that all comments received are read and considered, even though they come from a very small pool of anonymous, in the main, individuals, some with obvious agendas and with mali...
Read more

Business as Usual?

 At the last meeting of the Parish Council in February,  the Chair directed Councillor Head to report back on the issue of the S106  agreement monies for the former Wrinehill garage site.  The contribution of £11,500 has been deposited with the Borough Council.  Residents feel that this money should be spent primarily in Wrinehill, given that the S 106 proceeds of the last two developments were not.  (£45,000 the Commuted sum for the Bluebell development went to Knutton, also a sum (not known) from the Saw Mill development  was allocated for Laudy Croft, but it is not known if that happened, we are told). It is unclear why a councillor for Betley village is reporting on this matter unless ....  It had been mooted way back that the S106 money should be spent on resurfacing the Village Hall  car park.   Needed it is true but the Village Hall could raise funds from other sources not to mention its own reserves, which are not insubstant...
Read more