Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
When Mahon's report goes to 5 of his peers and 3 of them have conflicts of interest, two conflicting reports that end up in the Privvy Council, etc etc etc, I think there's a problem that needs to be resolved.
TWO of them had alleged conflicts of interest. All of them agreed he'd overstepped the mark, Messrs Woodhouse and McMullin went further with their language. Why do we discount the other 3 who didn't have a conflict?