Some decisions are so obviously outrageous and open to ridicule that the only explanation for them seems to be that government is relying on apathy, the fait accompli syndrome, the "we can't do anything about so what's the point of complaining" mindset.
That appears to be behind the decision by Gordon Brown, on the advice of Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary and standard-bearer for the "quiet life" brigade, to hold the long-promised inquiry into the Iraq invasion behind closed doors.
After the genuine (though perhaps predictable) criticism from, among many others, this reporter who has followed the matter closely for many years, you might have thought debate about whether or not the inquiry should be held in private or not would simply go away.
Not a bit of it. A head of steam is building up for an open inquiry, or at least for most of it to be held in public. Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary whose committee in 2005 criticised the way intelligence was used in the run-up to the invasion, is at the time of writing planning in a Lords debate later on Thursday to accuse the government of "putting its political interests ahead of the national interest".
He is reported to take the view that the inquiry, to be chaired by former senior civil servant Sir John Chilcot, must do more than "learn the lessons" from the war. There must be a "truth and reconciliation" element to it as well.
Butler criticises ministers for failing to get the agreement of the opposition parties and approval of parliament for the membership, remit and format of the inquiry contrasting that approach with that taken by Margaret Thatcher when she set up the Franks inquiry into the Falklands war.
Lord Hutton, who chaired a 2003 inquiry into the death of Iraq weapons scientist expert David Kelly, is also in favour of most of the evidence in the latest inquiry being heard in public.
But particularly angry are defence chiefs, still seething about the way they feel their political masters let them down. General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army at the time of the invasion, has said he would have "no problem at all" in giving his evidence in public. Holding all the hearings in private would simply feed the current climate of "suspicion and scepticism" about government, he said.
Major General Tim Cross, deputy chief of the authority charged with rebuilding post-war Iraq, said the public would remain "suspicious" if the inquiry was private. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it's important that most of these issues are raised in public so that people can assess the reasons that were given and all the debates that went on."
The current head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said he had not been consulted about the arrangements for the inquiry and saw "a lot of merit" in having some sessions in public.
Damning criticism has come from former chief of defence staff, Lord Guthrie who told the Times newspaper that the inquiry was unlikely to examine Gordon Brown's role, as former chancellor, in failing to equip troops properly. "Although the equipment is excellent now, initially and subsequently in Iraq, it was very poor, and if Gordon Brown as chancellor had been more sympathetic, it would have kept people alive," said Guthrie.
Senior MoD officials have admitted that decisions to order equipment for British forces were delayed so as not to give the impression that the Blair government had already decided to prepare for war while diplomatic activity was being pursued in the UN.
That is one scandal the military want explored and suspect it may not be, or not be given the gravity it merits, because of the absence of any military figure on the inquiry team.
There is an option open to those angered by the nature of the Iraq inquiry proposed by Brown. That is to draw up a legal challenge by demanding a judicial review of the decision based on a number of principles enshrined in the European human rights convention. They include the right to life, the right to independent and impartial inquiries, and the right to freedom of expression.
Brown late this morning showed signs that he was realising he might have made a mistake, his spokesman saying it had never been "an issue of theology" for the government whether hearings were held in the open or behind closed doors.