Judge to head fingerprint inquiry

Pat A. Wertheim · Post by **Pat A. Wertheim** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:23 am

I figured the part of the world's most famous Scotsman, Iain McKie, should be played by the world's second most famous Scotsman, Sean Connery. For me, I like Tommy Lee Jones -- it's the Texas drawl that does it. And the tired but tenacious look on his face would fit this situation, don't you think? After all these years of trying tenaciously to get the truth out, we are all tired.

David Fairhurst · Post by **David Fairhurst** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:44 am

More casting suggestions...

Shirley McKie - Kelly MacDonald, Claire Grogan
Marion Ross - Dame Maggie Smith
Dave Grieve - Bruce Willis
Allan Bayle - Mark Williams
David Asbury - Euan MacGregor

Daktari · Post by **Daktari** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am

Aye very funny.
But what about a title?
Since the producer made The Flying Scotsman maybe he should call this one The Lying Scotsman
And then McKie coukld play himself!

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:55 am

So let me get this right.

Iain McKie is a liar.

You told the World you wanted to get him into Court under oath and an Employment Tribunal would do.

And now? Will he be a witness? Appears not! But if he is such a liar, and you wanted your pound of flesh, then this would have been a wonderful unmissable opportunity to "expose" his lies before the Public Inquiry!

But now this apparent liar is now irrelevant, despite your need to start a thread regarding this very subject!?!?

Clearly he was offering his services since it was you yourself who wanted to cite him!

I suggest you go back to smelling the coffee as opposed to any other substances which are affecting your logic and memory.

Makes you wonder why the sudden fear of this "liar" to the Tribunal?

Who is the coward, and who is the liar????

Iain McKie · Post by **Iain McKie** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:59 pm

On the run up to the judicial enquiry I will be providing a weekly update at www.shirleymckie.com

http://shirleymckie.com/documents/Thatw ... 3.4.08.pdf

Daktari · Post by **Daktari** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:03 am

Taggart says

So let me get this right.

Iain McKie is a liar.

So far so good, but,

You told the World you wanted to get him into Court under oath and an Employment Tribunal would do.

Let me help you to get this right.
I will have no say over who gets cited and who does not. I would love to get the chance to put a few questions to the McKies under oath.
Unfortunately, I simply don’t see how anything Iain McKie has to say would be relevant or why he should be called.
Unless he wishes to correct me………..

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:29 am

Daktari,

I will have no say over who gets cited and who does not. I would love to get the chance to put a few questions to the McKies under oath.

You may have no say who can be cited, but you did tell us who does have that power!

Now that Fiona McBride is free to bring an unfair dismissal case (in the UK an Employment Tribunal has the same legal status as a Lower Court) I wonder who she'll call to give evidence under oath?

And the you told us:

It's about getting the McKies into Court and under oath. That's what we (that word again) all want I would have thought. Whether a Criminal or Civil, even an Employment Tribunal will do.

An Employment Tribunal would do? Really? And it’s Miss McBride’s decision who to call?

Unfortunately, I simply don’t see how anything Iain McKie has to say would be relevant or why he should be called.
Unless he wishes to correct me………..

But YOU have stated an Employment Tribunal would do, so it must be Miss McBride you are criticising?

How would you know what is or is not important to her Tribunal?

By your earlier postings it is clear to me you wanted Iain McKie under oath in court and an Employment Tribunal would do?

But now? Nothing more than hot air. You said a Tribunal would suffice, but now you have down a 180 degree turn.

Miss McBride clearly does not agree with your views. Have you told her your thoughts? Why does she think his evidence would be irrelevant when you obviously thought it would be?

Is it the fact he would expose her antics at the Royal Concert Hall, and expose her desperate antics?

Is it because he would do her serious harm?

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:15 am

While you are busy wondering how to avoid my questions can I add another one to the ever growing list?

I think it shows the considerable interest there is in the McKie case to this day, and the fact Iain was given two pages of a National Newspaper is evidence of this.

I remember Miss McBride telling us last year that she turned down £70,000 so she could get her story out.

Other than The Herald article where she made this claim, can you give me the links or links to the magazine or newspaper articles she chose to get her "truth" out?

Or was it like the previous interview she gave to a newspaper who knew legally they were unable to print her "story"?

Of course this was an unpublished interview given to a journalist while she was STILL in employment at SCRO, despite not having the approval of her employers to give such an interview. My source tells me she had company at that interview. Some one still employed in Glasgow?

A link to her "truth" would be appreciated.

Or was this more hot air???

Daktari · Post by **Daktari** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:41 am

Of course this was an unpublished interview given to a journalist while she was STILL in employment at SCRO, despite not having the approval of her employers to give such an interview.

Maybe you're getting mixed up with Gary Dempster from the Grampian Bureau who, along with Bayle and MacLeod, falsely claimed the Glasgow Bureau had misidentified the Sutherland mark. He was disciplined for an unauthorised interview. Anybody know what he’s up to now?