|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 17 Jan 10:43
You would expect someone in this lofty position to have presence, speak with authority, put their case convincingly etc but Dorothy Bain answering questions in Holyrood on the Post Office scandal was anything but
Stumbling, fumbling, hesitant and totally missing the point by insisting on a business as usual approach to case by case reviews which could take years to resolve.
She even makes dopey Angela Constance, who was sitting beside her, look good. How on earth did she reach such dizzy heights in the legal profession? One of Sturgeon’s sycophants no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 17 Jan 12:16
Nothing like a wee bit of narcissistic jealousy, eh? 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 17 Jan 15:13
Parboiled`s obsession with Nicola Sturgeon knows no bounds. If she was able to control the legal profession couldn`t she have controlled the police too and stopped their investigation into the SNP`s finances? That`s two and a half years now and still no smoking gun apparently. How much has it cost so far? I don`t suppose the new Chief Constable cares judging by her behaviour so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 18 Jan 10:17
Patience Eck, all that SNP stuff will end up on Bain’s desk sometime.
Meanwhile Scoot’s brother in law has been in court, rearrested on another charge leaving court, and Scoot himself has a conviction for driving without insurance.
Scots Sopranos so they are…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 18 Jan 10:59
I have to say I admire your persistent diligence in unearthing information about certain Scottish politicians. It really does seem to be an obsession or do you apply it to all parties throughout the UK?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 18 Jan 12:57
It seems that the COPFS (and presumably various justice ministers) were aware that many convictions were unsafe, and yet nothing was done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 18 Jan 14:44
Bain said that each Scottish case in the Postmaster scandal would need to be reviewed individually, today in Holyrood Scoot said he would seek to cooperate with Westminster on a blanket pardon.
They can’t both be right, and Scoot seems blissfully unaware Crown Office is entirely responsible to the Scot Gov, and Westminster cannot pardon anyone or interfere in any case up here. Such a blithering idiot, a gift to Yoonism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 18 Jan 15:33
Yeah, let`s hear it for the Union.
Infected blood scandal
Windrush scandal
Hillsborough scandal
Grenfell Tower scandal
Metropolitan police scandals
Feel free to add to the list.
When Westminster politicians boast that the UK is the best country in the world, what do they actually mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 18 Jan 16:35
Old folk with Covid dumped into care home scandal
Ferries scandal
Salmond prosecution scandal
Death star hospital cover ups scandal
Bifab scandal
Gupta scandal
Now Scoot invites Turkish President to Scotland next time he’s in UK -delusions of importance scandal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 18 Jan 17:08
The point is that you cite any `scandal` in Scotland as demonstrating the case against independence. If you applied the same argument to Westminster we wouldn`t have any government at all. Ever since I`ve followed politics governments have been involved in scandals and misjudgements. They`re not confined to one particular party.
My objection to the Union is that it means the policies followed are dictated by the biggest partner in the Union and aren`t necessarily appropriate to the needs and wishes of the smaller participants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Thu 18 Jan 17:47
Interesting that Humza`s brother in law gets more mentions than Mourdant`s brother!🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 19 Jan 19:51
I think the main point here is that the COPFS could have followed a different path but chose to follow the Westminster Government route instead. As a result, it appears that many innocent men and women were prosecuted, many in the knowledge that previous prosecutions could be unsafe.
Previous Justice ministers must have known about this, but presumably were satisfied.
As I said questions should be (and have been) asked. I’m not sure we are getting many answers though.
The subsidiary point about any devolution of power is that it enables different decisions to be made and different policies to be followed, in the belief that these would be more appropriate, better informed or more reflective of public opinion. There is a price to be paid for this, and there can be arguments over the level to which certain areas could or should be devolved. For example, national defence is usually thought to be better decided at a national (or pan-national) level rather than say a Parish council level.
It’s a different question as to whether one group of people is naturally better (either morally or in terms of competence) than another. Some appear to make that argument with regard to birth, or upbringing, or party membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 19 Jan 21:14
I`ve always thought the distinction between reserved and devolved responsibility somewhat arbitrary in some areas. It makes sense for Defence matters to be decided at UK level but we can see the confusion that can be caused over something like drugs policy where some aspects are reserved and some devolved. There`s no logic to it at all. On the deposit return scheme we`re still waiting to hear why glass should be excluded from the UK scheme which hasn`t even been launched yet.
I`ve no idea what you`re on about in your final paragraph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
