shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

Well Done Allan!

it is not everyday the police are forced to apologise to anyone.
BUT WILL THEY REOPEN THE CASE?

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

Freethekillie2 -

Thanks for that, Much appreciated.
Thats taken 10 years of pulling the wool over our eyes, and 2 Independent reports requesting that the Chief Constable should and must Apoligise.

But will he meet with us and apologise ?? We wont hold our Breath.

Reopen or Reinvestigate the case?? Doubt it. They would rather let Kevins killers roam the streets than admit they were wrong, which would be of greater Embarassment to them.

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

Again Well done.
your family has took on a system that does not care and YOU have backed them into a corner, let that be a light for us all.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/focus/display.var.1870642.0.0.php

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1876172007

IT SHOWS IF YOU FIGHT THEY WILL GIVE IN!

WELL DONE FIGHT THEM ALL THE WAY TO FIND WHO KILLED KEVIN !

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

Hi Allan

Some redress at last but the report falls short of saying the police messed up big time.
What gets me is the open verdict issue.
lets hope at least they are beginning to realise their mistakes and Maybe Just Maybe they will be more open and honest in the future.
As you say though you are not holding your breath.
I am interested to know what your MSPs thoughts are on the matters you have raised.
Keep us all posted please

Best wishes

Wullie
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

Big Wullie, Thanks for your kind comments.
With regards to your question about MSPs thoughts on the case, my letter today in the local paper, I believe will answer that question.
Thanks again to everyone on this forum for your continued support.

Politicians have failed to support family's campaign
Published: 30 November, 2007

SIR – I read with great interest the letter from Laurel Bush in the Groat of November 23 on the issue of an MSP's lack of response to a constituent.

I too could not believe the total lack of interest and response from Highlands and Islands MPs and MSPs from all political parties, including Robert Maclennan, John Thurso, Mary Scanlon, Charles Kennedy, Maureen Macmillan and John Farquhar Munro who, in relation to their code of conduct and duty to their constituents, failed to provide help or support in any way whatsoever regarding my family's 10-year campaign against Northern Constabulary and its gross dereliction of duty regarding both the botched murder inquiry into my nephew Kevin McLeod's horrific death and our subsequent complaints.

At the beginning they all, of course, wanted to jump on the high-profile publicity bandwagon, promising their full support and commitment, but in reality disregarding any communication or correspondence from the constituent. They do not want to rock the boat when the chief constable is involved.

If an elected representative wants a bus stop erected or removed from outside a constituent's house they will fight tirelessly, lobbying our local council leaders until the object is either placed or removed. However, when a constituent has a problem with the police, MPs and MSPs from all parties undoubtedly carry a preconceived notion that our police forces are whiter than white and can do no wrong. Thus there is no impartiality – it is one-sided from the outset. The poor constituent is then out in the cold without the slightest hope of any conciliation with the authority in question. Result: conflict. In the case of Kevin McLeod, for over a decade.

If MPs and MSPs want to be respected, they have to earn the public's trust and respect. Elected representatives should be honest, accountable, impartial and forthright in their determination to offer their professional help, without prejudice to a constituent and without prejudice to the subject of the case – even if it means taking on an issue against a police force or a government agency. If an elected representative knows something is wrong, or untoward, they must stand up for what is right.

It appears it has become a normal condition amongst MPs and MSPs in the Highlands and Islands that when one asks for help they will write to whoever on your behalf, seek publicity, gather up the newspaper articles and paste them in their albums; thereafter the constituent becomes a pest.

People in the Highlands and Islands have the right to expect impartiality, openness, accountability and the highest standards from their elected representatives in dealing with their interests. MPs and MSPs must meet those expectations by ensuring their conduct is above reproach and worthy of trust.

Allan McLeod, Firhill, Alness

Bryan · Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 28

Allan
You've said it all. I hope you now persue Mr McAskill to have this dreadful case re-opened.
Fondest regards
Bryan.

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 262 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Allan,

Without the tireless effort of yourself and your family this breakthrough would never have happened.

The tragedy is that some people for various reasons cannot fight the good fight as effectively and are sentenced to a lifetime of regret, anger and frustration.

I doubt if Latimer will resign unless there is pressure from his Police Board. Is this likely?

Good luck as you press for Kevin’s death to be properly investigated and the guilty parties brought to justice.

Please pass on my best wishes to all concerned and thank you for your contributions to this forum and for your support for our future plans.

Best wishes,

Iain

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

Allan

I am sure without your persistence the police and MSPs would all have forgotten all about Kevin (Keep up the presure)
Just for the sake of it and because of your comments i will link some info for the public and readers of this forum.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/conduct/index.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/conduct/coc-v2-s7.pdf

MSPs do have a duty to present their constituents interests at All Costs

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

Alvin Lee Sinclair

Quite clearly the Scottish executive also have a duty not to breach convention rights.
The following is extracted from the above appeal to Privy Council in the case of Sinclair:

37. As I said at the outset, section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to do any act so far as it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. As Lord Rodger of Earlsferry observed in R v HM Advocate, 2003 SC (PC) 21, 73, para 155, it is not open to the court if this subsection is breached to assess what the consequences of any particular violation of an individual’s Convention rights should be. Parliament has decided that members of the Scottish Executive, including the Lord Advocate, should have no power to do acts that are incompatible with any of the Convention rights. In this case that means that the Lord Advocate, having proceeded to trial without having made Pamela Ritchie’s statements available to the defence as article 6(1) requires, had no power to continue with it and seek a conviction without making these statements available to the defence as soon as it became apparent that she was changing her evidence. But it could equally well be said in this case that the failure to disclose the statements was a failure to act by the Lord Advocate which was incompatible with the appellant’s article 6(1) Convention right: see para 1(e) of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998. The right to a fair trial is an absolute right which cannot be compromised: Brown v Stott, 2001 SC (PC) 43, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill at p 60A-B; see also p 74B. If the accused has not had a fair trial the verdict cannot stand and the conviction must be quashed.

38. In my opinion the appeal should be allowed. I consider that it would be appropriate in this case for the Board, under article 4(1)(a) of the Judicial Committee (Powers in Devolution Cases) Order 1999, SI 1999/1320, to exercise the powers which have been given to the High Court of Justiciary by section 118 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by setting aside the verdict of the trial court and quashing the conviction on the ground that there was a miscarriage of justice. I would remit the case to the High Court of Justiciary to consider whether authority should be granted to the Crown to bring a new prosecution in accordance with section 119 of that Act.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

Bryan · Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 28

Big Willie
What are you talking about?
Bryan.