Maxwellisation is the process in which a person criticised by a public inquiry is given the chance to respond.
Maxwellisation is what is slowing down the completion of the Chilcot Report on the Iraq War. There are a few very public figures who might be heavily criticised in the report. They are given the opportunity to give their version of events. How many versions or rewrites?
The name Maxwell conjures up corporate greed and recklessness. Maxwell robbed the pension funds of his employees to subsidise his lavish lifestyle. Does this connection taint the process with a flavour of powerful people trying to get away with something they shouldn’t?
How did this word maxwellisation stick to a serious legal process which is meant to have transparency, integrity and respect to a sceptical public? Is this a cynical media invention so that public inquires are not to be believed?
However this came about it is a very clever deceit or truth? Perhaps it reminds us that nothing can be written transparently. There is always the bias of the author to influence the meaning of the writing. Whatever the outcome of public inquiries, they always support the author. The powerful political elite.
The suspicion of vested interests delaying the publication of the Chilcot Report does nothing for us – the general public – in believing the truth and transparency of its content and recommendations.
Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2015
All rights reserved Disclaimer:
This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique