THERE was a time when independent reports were the last word in an argument.

If you really wanted to put an issue to bed and it was important enough to warrant the time and expense, call in the experts.

Men and women with letters after their name and titles before them would deliver words of wisdom from on high and the losing side would be expected to back down with grace.

As in so many ways, society has changed. Modern man now sees it as his – or her – birthright to question authority, whether that be a doctor’s diagnosis or the ruling of a States department, judge or police officer.

Experts in their field (or at least consultants) cannot hope for meek acceptance that they are right. Instead, the battle-cry of the losing party is attack, attack, attack.

First assault over the ramparts is to question the independence of the report’s authors. Many are paid for by one side and are considered tainted goods as a result. The tobacco industry has to bear much of the blame for this one.

Second line of attack is to doubt the experts’ professional credentials. In particular, question whether their field of expertise lies elsewhere and their experience is too limited. That was Deputy David De Lisle’s main thrust this weekend as consultants Mott Macdonald delivered bad news about Emas.

Third, wilfully misunderstand the report’s conclusions. This was seen to good effect after the tribunal of inquiry into the airport firefighters’ dispute where attacks one and two were non-starters.

Lastly, just ignore it.

This has been the States stock response whenever an ‘independent’ report criticises its non-functioning structure. If the message is not what was wanted (vis a vis the Robinson report, the Audit Commission, the WAO – the list is long) it is best simply to sweep it under the carpet and walk away whistling.

A cynic might suggest that the only time a report gets acted upon is when it confirms the ideas the States department had in the first place.

Which brings us back to Emas.