Controversy around the Manchester bombing inquests show our intelligence services must be more accountable
How does anyone know that failings and embarrassment around the attack are not a bigger reason for secrecy than any genuine risk to national security?
The Conservative Party conference was not the only place in Manchester where urgent behind-the-scenes discussions were going on this week. Something similar was happening, if rather more quietly and confidentially, in and around the coroner’s court.
More than two years after the bombing at the Manchester Arena, which killed 23 people and injured more than 100, a controversy has erupted about the form that the inquests – which are required by law – should take, what evidence should be heard, and how.
It is a controversy that is all too predictable. It centres yet again on the balance that has to be drawn in any democratic, law-governed, country between accountability and transparency, on the one hand, and the requirements of national security, on the other.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies