CLPEX Chat Board

Mr Dastardly,

As I stated "...central and local government funding for SCRO 51-49% later changed to 100% central...." That means the Scottish Executive, via the SPJB, paid them. The Executive pay for every police force in Scotland. They also pay for all the common police services such as the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency. You are implying that because of a court argument about liability the staff at a common police service suddenly are exempt from the Act? It is a strange thought.

The Act is for life. Once you sign it, you're obliged to it. Lastly, for the Act, it is a UK Act, not a devolved Scottish matter. It is irrelevant who you work/worked/contracted for, you are obliged for life.

I have to agree that if the experts were gagged, it won't be to do with the Act. But I didn't make that point, nor tried to defend it.

I joined the thread with two points - a bit of info on our Official Secrets Act for the non-UK reader, which you attempted to undermine, I think abysmally, but I'll leave it at that. And to ask why one side has been reportedly gagged, when the other side has not. That was it.

I concur with you that the experts be invited to present their position. As I have said in previous threads there is only one correct venue for that: a Judicial Enquiry with a remit that is proper, so that we might get a chance to go back to the very start and find out just what has happened since. Our energies might be better spent working towards that.

Regards
O

Observer:

I had assumed that you had associated yourself with adroit's statement that the OSA was the cause of the "gagging". (I note adroit has gone silent here. Maybe he is a dinner lady serving pies to the Chief Constable).

I simply wanted to point out that there was a denial of employment by the Police Board, it having been suggested that the SCROs were in fact employed by the Board and therefore were bound by the Act. I can only assume that the Board would know if they employed someone and their denial was accepted by the Executive.

We seem to be agreed that the OSA cannot apply to the SCROs. So again, I come back to the question at the outset. Why did they lately agree to a gagging order? Was it money that was offered or threatened to be witheld? And if it was either of these, is it not a case of sacrificing principles for money, the very thing that Shirley has been accused of?

I don't really expect a constructive answer. I do agree that a judicial inquiry is the only way forward. I assume that all posting here will vote SNP who have made it a pledge to hold that inquiry.

Dave Charlton asks quote]Are you afraid Daktari of the possible outcome?[[/quote]. It's not the outcomes that I am afraid of it's the way that the outcomes are used.
If the McKie case has done anything it has merely shown what many of us suspected That is that too many so called scientists and other alleged experts are willing to jump on a band wagon a) to promote their own causes or b) to damage other experts whose reputation far exceeds their own.
The problem is that a certain tautology sets in. Some clown comes up with a theory that may be used by TeamMcKie in their vicious and vindictive campaign. McKie and his supporters then promote this with almost evangelical enthusiasm, it finds its way into the media through McKie’s contacts, then McKie posts the piece on his website under Media Reports or Official Correspondence to give, what is essentially rubbish, a certain credibility. If you want a specific example I cite Allan Bayle.