Just over a week after the tragedy of Lammy, the agencies are now busily at work to try to minimise the trauma of that event on the community.

It makes good sense that much care is taken to ensure that the children are debriefed, as far as possible. Efforts must be made to neutralise, for the children's sake, the often gory and explicit details that have been circulating as to the tragedy. For whereas the world media has moved on to other things, the shock and horror of what happened in No 4 Lammy Crescent are only now beginning to sink in for many people in that area. Parents have been noticing the absence of the children from the playground and some people have told community leaders of feeling unsafe in their own homes.

But whereas the various agencies are now acting to reassure the community, there has also been an unseemly rush by some of those bodies charged with the protection of the community, and the McElhill family, to draw a curtain across their actions - or inactions.

Indeed, one public representative is so concerned by the behaviour of the authorities that he has called for a public inquiry. There is little prospect of a public inquiry, but the victims of this tragedy do not deserve any less an inquiry than any member of this community would demand for their own families.

It is imperative after any disaster or tragedy, that the facts are opened, that errors or oversights are identified so that moves can be made to ensure that there is no recurrence. However, if some of the agencies are overly concerned with their own self-preservation - the fear is that lessons may not be learned.

The Lammy case is an unspeakable tragedy, but the question being asked increasingly by people in the community is, 'was it avoidable?' Sadly, it seems that the ingredients for this disastrous event were not seen for what they were.

Did the protocols fail disastrously? It is early days, and certainly when the immediacy of the tragedy has passed more searching enquiries may answer all of our questions. Suffice to say, that from the interim information that has become available, it would seem that there is a massive divergence between what the public feels are acceptable risks and what the authorities feel are acceptable risks.

The purpose of many of the agencies involved is the protection of individuals and the protection of community, when that purpose is subordinated to preserving the reputation of this department or that agency, no one is afforded any protection.