Today I take a closer look at one of the most fascinating aspects of the Public Inquiry – not the evidence itself, but how that evidence is presented. When does advocacy become narrative building? How are facts framed, emphasised, minimised or reinterpreted? And what should third parties be listening out for as the Inquiry continues? In this episode: How barristers shape narratives without necessarily disputing facts The difference between facts and interpretations of facts Why omitted context can be as important as what is said The debate around cultural and intangible heritage Community consultation – what happened and what didn't The role of commissioners in cutting through competing narratives Support from government departments and local councils for third-party concerns Call to Action If you're finding these daily Public Inquiry updates useful: Follow the podcast on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts Share the podcast with friends and family Help bring these conversations to a wider audience #PublicInquiry #SaveOurSperrins #Dalradian #CulturalHeritage #PlanningInquiry #EnvironmentalJustice

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related