Yesterday I wrote something for the New Statesman on the Grenfell Inquiry and the political fearmongering over the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick.
The piece can be found here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/grenfell-inquiry-critics-martin-moore-bick-are-dabbling-fearmongeringp
Difficult. My extensive experience of working class people, one of whom is my wife, is that they are, largely, devoid of the kind of sophistry more-or-less assumed among the ambitious. I would be saddened were the victims of this monstrous calamity attributed with such a character. It seems to me possible that the legal profession, although much more aware than most of the predisposition of humans for human nature, might be unaware of the character of those beyond its experience, those within it being perhaps unrepresentative.
Those outraged by the alleged ‘moaning’ of the victims should perhaps reflect on the fact that, had they been those considered to be more typical residents of the borough, a legal process claiming, in all probability, a ten-figure sum would by now be in full swing.
I’d agree, fault/cause at Grenfell is going to require unravelling the passing of responsibilty and design authority along a web of sub-contractors and interested parties. And how each of those transactions affected the governance of the construction regulations. A commercial law specialist is surely ideal for this. As for the other supposed disqualifiers, are there any Judges who can realistically e described as “Working Class”?