The chamber chose the criminal process over a second public reckoning: No won by more than two to one. The striking imbalance was in the debate as much as the ballot, with the case being made almost entirely against an inquiry.
The floor’s most-respected No arguments treated a public inquiry as an obstacle to prosecution, not a route to truth. One argued that “the police need to do their job properly”, while another insisted Tate should have “their day in court just like any other British citizen”, with cost and delay recurring as the practical objections.
The sole Yes intervention supplied the debate’s sharpest counter-story, arguing that “his arrest seems like a witch hunt” and linking Tate’s public profile to a possible political motive. That case found little company here; No voters answered that an inquiry would bring “unnecessary cost” and more attention, rather than clarify the allegations.
The two sides were therefore arguing about different kinds of accountability. No voters trusted a trial to expose what needed exposing, while the dissenting voice suspected that the prosecution itself required scrutiny; even the least-respected No argument said there was “more going on here than meets the eye”, suggesting unease without converting it into support for an inquiry.
The room’s conclusion was brisk: establish the case in court first, and judge the wider handling only afterwards.
13 Opinions
Providing the right outcome based on the evidence is achieved from a prosecution, why waste more taxpayers money on a public enquiry? It will all come out in the wash in the court case and, being high profile, much of it will end up in the public domain with heavy media coverage.
We need him prosecuted and hopefully jailed. Not sure what value an expensive and drawn out enquiry would provide
They don’t need any more media attention, making it public would just cause further division + unnecessary cost.
Let the law run it's course.
NO There's no need to waste money on an unnecessary public inquiry. Let them both have their day in court just like any other British citizen, they'll be either found guilty or not, at which point they should either pay for their crimes or walk away free people
Waste of time. Let the criminal case proceed . Decide after verdict. Still doing Pakistani rape and pedophile enquiries. Should be tracking them down and locking them up too.
My take is that there is more going on here than meets the eye. UK govt had Romania hold them on an Interpol notice for months yet could not provide any evidence of criminal wrong doing. They have obviously upset some very powerful people - find out who and things will be clearer.
A public enquiry is not necessary however whatever the trial finds must be acted on.
Get on with their extradition, trial and consequences. Public Enquiries seem to be a good way of avoiding taking responsibility by postponing action whilst - waiting for the findings to arrive (often in a subsequent Parliamentary term). The costs and timescales are ridiculous!
Why do we need an enquiry? The police need to do their job properly, finding proof, and trying to disprove the proof. An enquiry will not help, it will cost more and take more time for this to get to court.