shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Does anyone think Bill Aitken as convener of Justice 1 Committee is well placed and a proper person to be voicing his opinion of behalf of the Scottish Public ?

Exactly what qualifications does he possess that gives him this right to speak on behalf of Scotland ?

I feel a complaint coming on against this dreadful man.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

I have quite a bit of free time at certain times. Smile

I will make an online poll which will take a few minutes just to satisfy my own curiosity on what people think about these two cases in particular. I am an awful nosy woman on things like this Laughing

I haven't worked out yet what form a survey would take. All suggestions to that are welcomed. I think Wullie will have some good ideas.
Probably in the middle of the mad Christmas shoppers it would not be such a brilliant idea.

The online poll might give us some idea on what opinions are. I too would love to know what people think about this.

Would actually be good if some newspaper did a poll like this.

Wullie

No I dont think Mr Aitken is the proper person to be giving his opinions on behalf of the public.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Here is copy of E-Mail I have just sent to Bill Aitken:

Comments Re Press Megrahi, Mitchell.‏
From: wullie beck (wulliebeck@hotmail.co.uk)
Sent: 05 December 2008 18:07:38
To: bill.aitken.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Dear Mr Aitken

I note your comments in todays press regarding the cases of Al Megrahi and Luke Mitchell which I find extremely Distasteful and Inappropriate given the fact that they have pending appeals.

Quote:
Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken MSP said last night: "I don't think the demonstrators did themselves any favours having these people at the march.

"I doubt if ordinary people think Luke Mitchell and Megrahi are victims of in justice and I don't think this demonstration has any credibility at all."

I wonder also what qualifications you possess to make such expert comments on behalf of the scottish Public.

Exactly what evidence do you have for the basis of these commennts apart from media hype ?

Have any members of the public asked you to voice their concerns about any of these cases ?

As convener of the Justice 1 Committee I find your comments "liable and defamatory" given the fact the SCCRC have referred the case of Megrahi back to our Appeal courts suggesting there might have been a Miscarriage of Justice you should retract such defamatory statements and apologise to all concerned.

Lastly could I just ask what evidence you have of guilt in any of these cases ?

Yours Concerned

William Beck

PeterCherbi · Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 167 Location: Edinburgh

I have nothing against Mr Aitken personally of course, I simply report legal issues & suchlike, but I did recently run a couple of articles relating to Mr Aitken which you may be interested in reading here :

http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2...ecretary-accountable-for-law.html
&
http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2...s-politicians-who-left-scots.html

The first article deals with Mr Aitken's apparent refusal to take matters further regarding the leaking of jurors names by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a move which those who leaked the documents will welcome, but a move which many potential jurors might think is a bit of a cover up to say the least.

The latter of the two articles features a video clip of Mr Aitken praising a former Law Society Chief Executive who lied not only to Holyrood's 2006 Justice 2 Committee but also under questions from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney.

I would respectfully suggest such words of praise for individuals who themselves have caused many cases of injustice, and acted as they did before parliament, merits a retraction at the very least ... but we are dealing with something of a monster which the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have become as Big Wullie points out in another post .. something which shows fairly clearly there is little interest in the actual fabric of the nation, more so in maintaining positions of power.
_________________
My blog on issues of injustice in Scotland A Diary of Injustice in Scotland by Peter Cherbi

Injustice Scotland Campaign website : Injustice Scotland

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 146

Here's a copy of the email I sent to MacAskill following yesterday's event. Of course, I don't expect a response, but I was so mad, I just had to do something.

Dear Sir,

With reference to yesterday's event, I was extremely disappointed that you declined to meet (or send someone on your behalf to meet) the people who had come together to protest quietly, and with dignity, at the treatment many of them have received at the hands of Scottish "Justice." I was also very shocked to read comments attributed to you in the media, to the effect that you had no knowledge of the event. We both know that this is completely untrue, and that you had been contacted on numerous occasions prior to the Walk taking place. Are you now willing to acknowledge that these comments were not an honest representation of the facts?

It seems to me that you have, perhaps, either forgotten or misunderstood your role as Justice Secretary. First and foremost, you are a servant of the people, entrusted to represent the interests of the people. As Justice Secretary, that role demands that you address the concerns of ordinary people with particular regard to issues of justice, or take steps to ensure those concerns are addressed by other appropriate ministers. Unless you are prepared to argue that injustice is not an issue of justice, then can you please explain your refusal to meet with representatives from yesterday's event, or many of the individuals who have been in contact with you concerning their particular cases?

A Justice Secretary who is "too busy" to communicate properly with the people he is supposed to represent and serve should not be a secretary of anything. A Justice Secretary who is prepared to tell lies, or to have lies told on his behalf, in an attempt to explain away behaviours that others find inexplicable at best, and inexcusable at worst, is a disgrace to the position.

All members of the Scottish Parliament, without exception, are answerable to the people of Scotland. They are elected to represent, not dictate to, the people of Scotland and they are answerable to all of the people, even if the questions asked by some of those people are not to ministers' liking.

Concerns regarding injustice in Scotland are growing daily, and are not going to go away. The people pressing for answers and explanations are growing in number and they, too, are not going to go away. Refusing to address these concerns, to release legitimately requested information, or to conduct proper investigations will not make them go away - in fact, every refusal strengthens the resolve of those seeking justice to continue their fight.

I would be interested to receive your thoughts on the growing crisis of confidence in Scottish Justice.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

W.Roughead · Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Posts: 120 Location: Scotland.

Just a thought on the earlier comments about polls and surveys.

Generally speaking, it's hard to get much sense out of people at this time of year because Christmas is looming. I was thinking a better time for something like this is just after the New Year.

Just a thought.
_________________
“Send not to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.” John Donne.

Al · Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Excellent letter to MacAskill...

An excellent letter, Angeline, and all very true of course.

But knowing MacAskill as I do, I think you are quite correct and he will just ignore it.

I heard he didn't appear yesterday because he knew he was going to be brought to task publicly over certain cases he was personally involved in for many years ... but did nothing other than protect the people involved and bury a file a foot or more deep in his offices. I could be wrong, but that's what I heard was the main reason why he didn't appear.

I just wish some brave editor would pick up on that and take him to task about it once and for all. Or are all our newspapers and media outlets in Scotland so feart of Scotland's INjustice Secretary and his master, King Alex?

As I said, it came as no surprise that he didn't show face yesterday and at least many others are now starting to see the man for the charlatan he really is ... and I've known that for many years ... long before Salmond gave him his Cabinet Secretary FOR JUSTICE portfolio last May 2007.

The question now is : What can we do to expose him and get rid of this man? ... who, as Peter rightly points out in his excellent article re the Silent Walk today, is not a man who will bring his fellow Scots who have suffered, or are still suffering, injustice any truth or justice whatever ... and who has no concept of the words inscribed on the Mace at Holyrood either ... along with most of the rest of them there too :

"Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity".

What a bunch of fraudsters most of them really are.

Reminds me of the play on the lawyers joke :

What do you call 129 MSPs at the bottom of the North Sea? A bloody good start!

_____________________________________________________________

Justice Secretary MacAskill turns his back on Scots injustice victims from Edinburgh 'silent walk for justice'

http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2...ecretary-macaskill-turns-his.html

Silent Walk for Justice News

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=...+for+Justice&btnG=Search+News

Annie Borjesson News

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=...ie+Borjesson&btnG=Search+News
_________________
Do not be afraid of them therefore. For everything that is now covered will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. What I say to you in the dark, tell in the daylight; what you hear in whispers, proclaim from the housetops.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

As much as I hate the contempt MacAskill is showing the Scottish people I cannot agree all MSPs are the same.

My own MSP bill Kidd cannot do enough for me and has advanced my case in so many ways and never tires of asking questions on my behalf.

Comments like Als above do nothing to gain respect from any MSPs at-all and believe me when fighting this lot we need all the good MSPs we can muster, Please do not chase them away nor Tar them all with the same Brush.

I agree with you Al when you say MacAskill is not fit for Office but I need to disagree on the joke.

There is good and bad in every walk and every job in life, Please do not chase the good away.

Anyone who feels their MSPs are not representing their interests have fairly legitimate ways of airing their complaints to Parliament and should in the first instance make complaints direct to:

The presiding Officer found below:

Code of Conduct for MSPs

8.12 Enforcement
8.12.1 Any complaint against a Member (including one about their staff or others working for them) in respect of this section should in the first instance be made to the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will, as appropriate, contact the Member or Members involved and, if necessary, their respective Party Business Managers. Where the matter cannot be resolved informally in this way, where the matter is of sufficient seriousness to warrant a more formal investigation, or where any MSP directly involved remains dissatisfied the Presiding Officer will raise the matter with the Convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. The Standards and Public Appointments Committee would then consider the matter as it judges appropriate in accordance with its procedures and its remit to consider and report on the conduct of members in carrying out their Parliamentary duties. It is fundamental to the success of this section that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee will as a matter of course, treat all breaches of these principles with the utmost seriousness. Members should not raise matters in any way other than that described above (in particular via the media) to avoid any suggestion of prejudging the issue.

The presiding Officer can be found here:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/po/index.htm

Best Wishes To All Fighting For Justice.

http://bigwulliebeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

Al

Hi Wullie

This is nothing more than a difference of opinion and we can agree to disagree about certain things...

Yes, we are agreed about MacAskill not being fit for office and how he should never have been appointed as Cabinet Secretary FOR JUSTICE 19 months ago in May 2007. I always argued that from vast personal experience with him and his covering up of the case he was involved in from August 1999 ... over 9 YEARS AGO. Still he remains silent about it; not properly challenged by any politicos in his own party or the opposition benches; and let off the hook thus far by the cowards in the Scottish and wider media.

I fully accept that we should not tar all within certain professions with the same brush, but the bad apples are often left to rot for far too long and can eventually rot the rest in the barrel. I have not seen any of the other 128 MSPs calling MacAskill to account for his lack of appearance at the Silent Walk and, as Angeline, Peter and I previously pointed out, for apparently LYING about not being informed about the event as far back as September and being repeatedly told about it from Guje, Maria, myself and many others up to the very day. Nor did any other MSP come out publicly to support the vigil and the aims and objectives behind it. That in itself speaks volumes to me about how good the good in the rotting barrel of bad apples at Holyrood really are.

Angeline's excellent letter and Peter's damning article have summed up MacAskill and the kind of man he really is perfectly and I, of course, agree with their comments entirely. You too are in agreement about him not being fit to hold the very high office he does and that he should be out the door of that office asap. But, as much as Bill Kidd or any other SNP or opposition politico has supported you, they will NEVER challenge MacAskill over certain cases and issues to the point of calling for him to resign or to be sacked by Salmond ... it is simply not in THEIR INTEREST to do so it seems.

If we take what Karen quotes...

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all." Elie Wiesel Nobel Prize for Peace in 1986.

And what Iain quotes...

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." Abraham Lincoln

... then I would suggest that there are 128 very silent, indifferent cowards at Holyrood today.

So, as far as I'm concerned the barrel at Holyrood is now indeed well and truly rotten and the bad apples have been allowed to rot the good.

Within the very exclusive club that is the world of the Holyrood politico, there are very few that will publicly condemn other MSP colleagues unless they are caught doing something that is a criminal offence ... and get found out and exposed about it in the first place of course.

Looks like that the Scottish public are stuck with a Cabinet Secretary FOR JUSTICE who should never have been appointed into that very important high office in the first place and who treats his 5 MILLION fellow Scots with utter contempt and disdain. Or will Bill Kidd and / or any of the 128 other politicos call him to public account now and call for his head? I think we know the answer to that.

All the very best to all the regulars to this forum and who are fighting injustice in Scotland today. I think, as Peter rightly says, the TRUTH and JUSTICE won't be found at the doors of MacAskill, Salmond or this SNP administration ... 19 months in power (corrupts... ) has now proved that beyond any doubt.

"Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity"?

Don't make me laugh!

_____________________________________________________________

Justice Secretary MacAskill turns his back on Scots injustice victims from Edinburgh 'silent walk for justice'

http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2...ecretary-macaskill-turns-his.html

Silent Walk for Justice News

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=...+for+Justice&btnG=Search+News

Annie Borjesson News

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=...ie+Borjesson&btnG=Search+News
_________________
Do not be afraid of them therefore. For everything that is now covered will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. What I say to you in the dark, tell in the daylight; what you hear in whispers, proclaim from the housetops.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 146

I have a couple of concerns with para 8.12.1 as posted by Wullie.

Firstly " ..or where any MSP directly involved remains dissatisfied.. " - this doesn't mention what happens if a member of the public remains dissatisfied. I'm wondering if this paragraph refers to complaints raised by MSPs about other MSPs?

Undoubtedly, there are good MSPs as well as bad, but if you need to use an MSP to make a complaint against an MSP, isn't that just another layer of bureaucracy that needs to be got through in order to bring individual MSPs to account? Also, if your local MSP is the one you want to complain about, to whom do you turn? I've seen lots of people referred back to the MSP for their particular area when they have tried to contact one from elsewhere.

Finally, while I'm all for holding on to all the "good" MSPs we can, I don't actually think it's about individuals. The system seems geared to protect those who are not up to the job, so no matter what the good MSPs do, at the end of the day, the system will close ranks if any one of its number is heading for trouble.

To me, it's very similar to the police - there are some good officers, undoubtedly, but they are working within a system which has developed into a closed organisation which will protect its own in the event of any adversity.

The last sentence also worries me a tad - "..Members should not raise matters in any way other than that described above (in particular via the media) to avoid any suggestion of prejudging the issue."

This is the line used by so many defence lawyers who are not doing their job properly. The media clearly has its faults, but there is an almost pathological terror amongst authorities of wrongdoing being raised in the media.

While I agree that prejudging is a huge danger with using the media (how many cases have we seen which were clearly trials by media?), if authorities don't, or won't investigate wrongdoing within their ranks, then exposure in the media surely has to be an option?

If my understanding is correct, and we put the two issues together, then an ordinary member of the public with a "bad" MSP has nowhere to go for redress.

_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone