Yes, of course we should. Until we change it for one we prefer. That is both our right and our duty.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I got the BS response from the government sounds like appeasement to me and we all know what happens when you appease people give an inch...

I would like to know who in government / civil service is with holding this and while their at it they should publish the Russian report they been sitting on as well.

One more point

Those responsible now are dealing with things now, as they are. Not as they might have been. Or how they would prefer them to have been. I have little doubt that the report will have examined everything, identified failings and weaknesses, so as to try to improve things for the future.

Deciding not to release the report to everyone has nothing at all to do with that. That decision will be taken on an assessment on whether the reaction would help, or hinder the work needed. If the conclusion is that the work is detailed and urgent and that a public release would divert resources and delay the needed action then it makes sense not to publish.

I have little doubt that a large outcry from those who don't trust the "establishment" was anticipated. So I am personally glad to see that, if the assessment is that it ought not to be released has been made, that it has not been swayed by the expectations of those wanting to wallow in a murky pond of hindsight. I also expect the Police to want to have to avoid the prospect of public order offences whilst they try to deal with the C19 crisis.

This has nothing whatsoever with "covering anything up". It only has to do with the most effective ways to resolve problems. None of us know what's in the report. We are all making assumptions. We don't have to make the decisions so it's easy to criticise.

If you believe that ALL information ought to be made public then you will end up with a situation in which things are deliberately not investigated and swept under the carpet. We need to trust those we elect to do this work for us, both in government and in committee. If we don't then we need to elect those we do.

The answer, as always, is in our own hands.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It's in the title to be discussed. If it isnt involving politics how should it be discussed.
Or maybe just ignore what happened,will happen and is no doubt happening still. They deserve it I suppose.

Presumably this opinion ends criticism of Donald Trump’s administration as well? Oh, wait.

The scale of Labours defeat is still to be truly grasped. And they are not even enjoying any kind of 'bounce' will Starmer.

I am now convinced that Starmer was part of a deliberate plot for Labour to lose in 2019. Perhaps not quite on that scale but their defeat was a nailed-on certainty once they adopted their second referendum stance. It was insanity that made no sense given all the evidence available based on where the election was going to be won or lost.

And Labour can now only rely on its Muslim vote in the North of England with perhaps places like Liverpool. The real story is the collapse of the Labour vote in places such as Newcastle where Ian Lavery saw a 10,000 majority collapse to just over 800. A pattern repeated over and over again.

I think a reasonable political bet would be on Labour to not be challenging in 2024 in a recognizable form.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.