We welcome the letter from the academics published in your paper on September 17. As a family who lost a loved one in this tragedy we have now waited nearly three-and-a-half years to get answers as to why our sister died.
Despite the legal proceedings that saw ICL Plastics and ICL Tech Limited fined £200,000 each, we are little further forward in our search for the reasons as to why nine people left their homes on the morning of May 11 never to return. We welcome the independent report from the authors of the letter and the contents reflect much of the discussion that we had with the survivors in the weeks and months following our loss.
There may be those who chose to be critical of this report, but at least we have a document that highlights issues that we would expect to be considered at any public inquiry. We do not believe even an FAI with the broadest remit could ensure these issues are properly considered, along with the yet unpublished evidence.
The court proceedings raised more questions than answers and clearly there is a substantial amount of evidence still to be made public. As the academics rightly state, that evidence may well have implications for public agencies stretching across the Holyrood and Westminster governments. Therefore, any inquiry has to be in a position to consider both devolved and reserved functions and make strong recommendations if necessary to ensure that other families do not suffer the pain and heartache that ourselves and the other families have had to endure.
Additionally, anything other than a public inquiry will result in the ludicrous situation where families may have to consider abandoning their quest for answers owing to being unable to afford legal representation.
Is this right?
Ian and Pauline McKenzie, c/o STUC Glasgow, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article