How anyone can even contemplate knowing the personal opinions of those involved in running the enquiry beats me. They are all highly qualified advocates, barristers and a very senior Judge. Their master is always their brief and they leave personal views at home.

Accusing them of being lockdown supporters is the kind of nonsense we get from Trump in the USA when he attacks those who uphold the law. They aren’t. They are doing their job.

Another view to be dismissed.

[Link]

Reading between the lines is the excuse of the conspiracy theorist. You can justify anything like that. Most things are what they seem to be. Quacking ducks being ducks.

Who said anyone is beyond reproach? I am quite everyone involved in the enquiry has something they would be ashamed of in the shadows.

What I said is what is true. They are professionals, bound by codes of conduct so strong that a transgression would result in the end of their career. Whatever your personal opinion may be it is set aside when meeting your brief. How do you think the obvious dregs of society find a barrister to represent them? Because the barrister is corrupt or because they are not allowed to refuse a brief?

You quote from this source quite often don’t you? It’s not either the most objective or reliable.

Suggesting that the enquiry has a predetermined agenda and has already reached its conclusion before it has hardly started its work, let alone published a report, is ridiculous.

Not only is it not its function to hold or express opinions on the merits of lockdowns it is disrespectful to the professionals involved that they might. Their brief is to investigate how we responded to the pandemic, whether our preparations were sufficient, what went well, what went badly and where systems can be improved so any mistakes identified can be reduced if something similar happens again.

I doubt whether an opinion on lockdowns will even be included in the report. This isn’t a post-mortem on the Covid pandemic and whether another would require a lockdown would depend on a lot of parameters which cannot be foreseen. The report, in my opinion, will concentrate on how, and when, decisions are reached and not on the decisions themselves. It will look at our preparedness and the availability of blueprints for a variety of scenarios to assist the decision making.

It's an opinion piece so surely equally as valid as anyone else's. I quote from them because they often cover points being discussed and it's easier than cherry picking points.

Apart from the BBC who else is on the list of objective sources?