Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Welcome to secret Scotland

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
08 March 2007
More than 500 Scots forced to appeal after knockbacks Almost two-thirds of appeals successful Information Commissioner's report calls for more progress on FoI requests
Key quote:
"I want to know whether there will be a new FoI culture, rather than just waiting to be asked about things and, as far as I can see, we are still waiting for that to happen." - Kevin Dunion, Information Commissioner

Story in full SCOTLAND'S public life remains shrouded in secrecy despite the Executive's flagship Freedom of Information Act, campaigners and experts warned last night.

They spoke out as it emerged that more than 500 people had been forced to appeal to the information watchdog last year after having their requests for information turned down by public authorities north of the Border.

That is twice as many as in England, per head of population, a figure which campaigners said suggested Scotland's public bodies were not as ready as they should be to divulge information.

Most of the appeals to Scotland's Information Commissioner were submitted after public bodies refused to hand over information, claiming they had a right to keep it secret. Yet, when the commissioner examined the details, he ruled in favour of the applicant (in whole or in part) in almost two-thirds of the cases.

Often, requests to public bodies seem quite innocuous, but they are not always treated that way by the authorities. Grampian Police refused to say how much taxpayers' money it had spent on new Range Rovers for the chief constable and deputy chief constable - until forced to do so by the commissioner.

The Fisheries Research Service declined to say which fish farm had been responsible for an escape of salmon; Fife Council refused to reveal why the high street in Dysart had not been traffic-calmed and Edinburgh University failed to provide information on fire safety.

All the figures and the details of the appeals were contained in the annual report of Kevin Dunion, the Information Commissioner, published last night. Mr Dunion said yesterday that some progress had been made, but he was clear that there was still considerable work to be done.

He said that while most public bodies were now operating within the letter of the law and were complying with many Freedom of Information requests, they had not changed their cultures to embrace the spirit of the law.

Christine Grahame, an SNP MSP, who has been frustrated on many occasions in her attempts to extract information from the Executive, said: "The culture of secrecy has not gone away, it has got worse.

"Structures are now in place and practices are now in place to make sure that, even if you are successful, the information you want will not be there; they will have discussed it in places where it is not recorded or minuted and the worst offenders are the Scottish Executive."

Bill Welsh, a campaigner on autism, said: "Every government department now has an information officer - maybe they should change the terminology to a 'you are not getting the information officer'. They have been erecting the barricades since the Freedom of Information Act and it's still very difficult to get information from government departments."

Lindsay Scott, of Help the Aged, said: "In many public services, there is an 'us and them attitude' and they forget they are there to serve the public.

"It is not made easy to get information and there are plans afoot to make it more difficult. That has to be resisted because it is a step forward to able to get information we have always been told is none of our business."

Mr Dunion said that compliance with the act was now good, but he queried whether the culture within government had changed sufficiently.

He said: "Beyond compliance with the law, are we going to do things differently? Are we going to make decisions differently? Are we going to minute meetings differently?

"I want to know whether there will be a new FoI culture, rather than just waiting to be asked about things and, as far as I can see, we are still waiting for that to happen."

Mr Dunion said he was still coming up against public authorities which refused to divulge information because, they claimed, if they did, it would inhibit the actions of future civil servants.

The commissioner said he rejected this excuse every time but said it was symptomatic of a reluctance to change within the civil service.

He said that all public authorities should change their way of working, collating all information and minuting all meetings with an eye to the Freedom of Information Act.

During 2006, 511 people appealed to Mr Dunion in a bid to get information from public authorities.

The commissioner ruled on 252 cases and intervened to force bodies to reveal information in 144.

In 22 per cent of all cases Mr Dunion found entirely in the applicant's favour and in 35 per cent of cases he ruled partially in their favour.

Margaret Curran, the minister for parliamentary business, said that much more information was available now than had been in the past.

She said: "Release of information does ultimately require, in some instances, a change to a culture of openness. But that does not necessarily mean that the starting point was a culture of secrecy.

"FoI is delivering genuine benefits to the people of Scotland, providing greater access than ever before." - details about their local hospital, for example."

She added: "Since the introduction of the act, the Executive has routinely published more information than was previously available, and we are continuing work to build upon the success to date. In such a short space of time, FoI has broken down many barriers."

There is strong evidence to suggest the public is much more attuned to the scope of the new laws, with 65 per cent of all applications for appeals last year made by members of the public - up from 55 per cent the year before.

Questions, questions ... but not too many answers

HERE are examples of Freedom of Information requests that were denied. They include requests lodged by the public and The Scotsman. Some of the rulings were later overturned.

• Q) "How much has it cost Grampian Police for new Range Rovers for the chief constable and deputy chief constable's use?"

A) "We can't tell you," said the police.

The information commissioner had to order the force to publish details.

• Q) "How many Labour Party and personal events have been held at Bute House, the First Minister's official residence?"

A) "That information is not held by the Executive," said Executive officials.

• Q) "What tenders did Dundee City Council receive to re-roof former council properties?"

A) "We won't tell you - it would compromise trade secrets," said the council.

This decision was overturned on appeal.

• Q) "Which fish farm accidentally released salmon on Orkney last year?"

A) "We won't tell you," said the Fisheries Research Service.

It was eventually forced to do so by the commissioner.

• Q) "Why was Dysart High Street excluded from local traffic-calming measures?"

A) Fife Council refused to give this information.

The applicant appealed, successfully.

• Q) "What was in the early drafts of the Executive's sexual health strategy?"

A) "We do not have to publish information on the formulation of government policy," said the Executive.

• Q) "What was in an Executive-commissioned report on financial independence for Scotland?"

A) This document has still not been released, 11 months after the request, and is not likely to be published before the election.

• Q) The Scotsman asked how many complaints of bullying or harassment NHS Borders had received from employees after an incident involving another member of staff, in the period 1999-2006.

A) "There is no central record of incidents and it would be too expensive to go through staff records," said NHS Borders.

• Q) The Scotsman asked for details about how many cases of Clostridium difficile had been diagnosed in NHS Highland hospitals between 2000 and 2006.

A) "While the lab at Raigmore Hospital has the number of C. difficile toxin-positive stool specimens, this is not equivalent to the number of patients diagnosed," came the reply.

• Q) The Scotsman asked what was in reports submitted by casualty notification officers in the military (the officers nominated to tell a family a loved one has been killed).

A) The Ministry of Defence issued flat refusals.

• Q) "How many dawn raids have been carried out in Scotland in the past five years?"

A) "The information is not available," claimed the Home Office.

• Q) Every local authority in Scotland was asked how much it spent on meals for the elderly in residential homes.

A) Stirling, the Shetland Isles, Perth and Kinross, North Ayrshire, Falkirk, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire were unable to give figures, although every other council was able to provide an answer.

• Q) Hunter Watson, a campaigner on the rights of the elderly, asked the Scottish Executive to reveal details of the legal advice it had received on legislating to prevent surreptitious medication.

A) The Executive has so far refused to release the advice, which could shed light on the debate over whether hiding drugs in the food of elderly residents with dementia is against human-rights laws.

• Q) Scotland's police forces were asked by The Scotsman how many serving officers had criminal records.

A) One force, Fife Constabulary refused to provide the information, claiming that it would be "too expensive" for staff to extract the data from its files.

• Q) The Scotsman asked local authorities how many children were not given a free nursery place.

A) Some councils simply failed to provide the information. Others suggested there was no waiting list, despite parents being refused a place.

• Q) East Lothian Council was asked by The Scotsman how many women were on the homelessness register.

A) "This information will take too long to find," came the reply.

• Q) Michael Foote asked Aberdeenshire Council for a copy of the agreement with Tesco over the sale of land and property at Canal Park, Banff.

A) The council refused and said it was confidential. The information commissioner agreed.

• The following exchange - between Scotsman reporter Eben Harrell and a police control room - is not an FOI request as such, but demonstrates the difficulties in gleaning even basic details.

EH: "We've heard there has been an arrest in Edinburgh."

Police: "We can only confirm there has been an incident."

EH: "Can you tell me if there has been an arrest?"

P: "We can only confirm there has been an incident."

EH: "Was it a man or a woman that was arrested?"

P: "We can only confirm there has been an incident."

EH: "How many police officers were involved?"

P: "We can only confirm there has been an incident."

EH: "Were there any armed units involved?"

P: "We can only confirm there has been an incident."

Etc, etc.

• Q) Stephen Harte wanted information on fire safety from Edinburgh University.

A) The university failed to respond.

Eventually, when prompted by an appeal to the information commissioner, it provided the information requested.

• Q) Sheila Murphy asked West Lothian Council how much Jackie Bird, the BBC presenter, was paid to host a dinner in 2006.

A) The council refused to provide the information but was overruled.

• Q) Sir Tom Farmer asked Edinburgh City Council for information on the sale of land known as the Lochend Butterfly.

A) The council refused, claiming it would prejudice its commercial interests and would cost more than £600 to get the information.

The commissioner ruled against Sir Tom and in favour of the council.

LOUISE GRAY AND HAMISH MACDONELL

Scots vow no new charges for official information

RESTRICTIONS on the Freedom of Information regime planned for England will not be applied in Scotland, ministers have promised.

Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, wants a new charging regime for England, which would include the time spent by ministers and officials deciding whether to release the information requested - as well as the cost of collating the information itself.

This could effectively give every official the go-ahead to play for time and refuse any request that might prove embarrassing.

But Executive sources made clear last night that, while there might be some "tinkering around the edges" of the FoI regime in Scotland, ministers would not introduce new charges or make it more difficult for people to access information.

The Freedom of Information regime is already more generous to applicants in Scotland than to ones in England.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 March 2007 1:21 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Freedom of information
 
1

Bill, Dunblane,

08/03/2007 01:43:21

I'd ask a question, but I'm afraid there would be no reply.................

2

,

08/03/2007 01:47:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 426124, Article id was mapped to record!
3

Faye,

Scotland 08/03/2007 01:58:31

#1 and 2. Oh I have asked the questions but you wouldn't believe the run around.

Dodging that's what I now call it.

Freedom for Information Act?

Ask for some historical information and then you will understand the run around culture which abounds this so called Freedom of Information Act.

4

Faye,

Scotland 08/03/2007 02:05:33

Welcome to secret Scotsman. Every article I've wanted to comment on, is off bounds.

5

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 08/03/2007 02:06:51

.. and all the crooked stuff, the Executive fights to keep secret at any cost to the taxpayer ... such as this : http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/resources/media/pressr...
which has already cost the taxpayer £25,000 for a few days of Richard Keen QC's time for the Executive .. then theres the cost of Dunion's QC ... etc ... and not forgetting the childhood leukaemia deaths in Dumfries & Gallloway - which the Executive & NHS will go to any lengths to keep from the public ... http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/resources/media/pressr...

What a lot of public money being spent on defending stuff like information on crooked lawyers to statistics on deaths ... surely not something to be expected from a 'transparent Scotland' ?

6

Wisnaeme,

08/03/2007 02:08:06

comment 2. mev.

Aye, I've been doon that well beaten path a few times. Still with the help of a few disgruntled or obliging civil servants it is surprising what sees the light of day and sod commercial confidential laws by the way. If public funds are involved in these scams then the public have a right to be informed of what is being spent in their name ,by whom and for what purpose.Vested interests not withstanding.

7

bill inch,

edinburgh 08/03/2007 02:24:43

Is it any surprise. All the promise of open goverment being eroded, not least because there expenses have been published. Now they are voting for no accountability, because thats what they do at Westminster. Remove this drain on the taxpayer as soon as you can folks, as the next few generations of these people will be driving up special lanes on the roads, while the public will be standing in the rain wondering what happened. they have aready begat a political upper class, reprobates all.

8

Pelon,

NM USA 08/03/2007 02:31:26

And they'd give a reply, if they could only understand the questions!

9

heather fae the hills,

08/03/2007 07:14:35

Q) What happened to the money given to Perth and Kinross social work department in April 06, that was earmarked for Community Care for the Elderly, but had all vanished by August 06?

A) No response from council.

10

Citylocal Fife,

North of the bridge and right of(f) Jack McConnell 08/03/2007 07:23:28

I'm not going to be poular by saying this, but some of the requests need a lot of research to fnd the answers - as the information cannot be naturally extracted from the various formats they are held in.

To supply the information on 'everything' will require the public sector employing more & more people. with a huge increase in taxes to pay for it.

However, on the other hand, as a taxpayer I fully agree that the more secretive aspects and consequences of the tax and squander strategies practised by Greedy Grabbit Gordon and Jack McConnell and the like, should be available for inspection.

I hope to see the exposure of the full extent of the PFI debt which is steadily building up, and which is cunningly hidden by some 'prudent' and creative accounting by the chancer of the exchequer.

Hopefully we will soon actually have an 'open and honest' Government in place in Scotland', which will nnot hide the information in the first place, thus negating the need to apply for information retrospectively - perhaps those in Westminster wll take notice and follow suit.

Roll on May 03rd!

11

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 08/03/2007 07:36:32

Asking the Crown Office for the statistics on criminal convictions of members of the legal profession drew a "we dont keep those statistics" response - and no wonder, since they would have to count several Fiscals charged in sex offence cases, including child porn on thsir pcs ... can't have that one revealed now, can we ... but they were happy enough when the Police had to admit the numbers of Police officers with criminal convictions ...

I also noticed this, which refers to what I posted before on the Executive keeping legislation out of use which would have allowed more than lawyers & advocates access to the Courts : http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1255&id=36741...

Sadly, that's nothing to do with secrecy, as I could have told the Scotsman myself - its more to do with the Law Society & Faculty of Advocates lobbying first, the Tories, then Labour, to hold back those parts of the Law Reform Misc Provisions Act 1990 which would have of course, affected the legal profession's monopoly on courtroom representation - protecting business markets and money - certainly nothing to do with any benefit to the public as anyone who goes up against the legal profession knows ...

Try asking another one ... why the small claims limit has been held back in Scotland for years - no response from the Executive, but in reality - lobbying from Messrs Digby Brown (Douglas Alexander's old legal firm) has pegged this one back - at the expense of - yes, the Scottish public again ...

Secrecy certainly does seem to go with fiddling business markets & protecting the nice little earners some have become used to ...

12

BigRed,

accurateEast 08/03/2007 07:45:31

There is a point to this story - but as so often with Scotsman stories the figures have been spun or misunderstood. The Info Commissioner fully backed the public body 43% of the time, and partially backed them a further 35%. So only one in 5 complaints were found to be fully justified. The point is the public bodies involved need to get that 1 in 3 figure, and the 1 in 5 figure, well down.

The comparison with England may well not stand, since Scotland has had FoI a year or two longer.

13

David MacVicar,

web 08/03/2007 08:03:40

Many of the questions asked were purely to get access to existing documents easily located but where the information is kept secret.

What was the commissioner doing about: ‘Q) "What was in an Executive-commissioned report on financial independence for Scotland?" A) This document has still not been released, 11 months after the request, and is not likely to be published before the election.’?

At minimum there should be a campaign by newspapers such as the Scotsman to get this released. Whether the information is better for unionists or nationalists doesn’t matter this is clearly in the public interest, specifically prior to the election. It is also strangely common that it is SNP or independent politicians asking the hard questions both North and South of the border. If the SNP get a majority in May I hope they will practice what they preach in terms of open government, though I have my doubts.

Given that many cases were won outright, just getting the information is not enough. The persons behind the suppression of information need to be held responsible. This is obviously not the case and explains why more info is being suppressed. Those responsible should lose their jobs and possibly face criminal charges (though I am unsure of legal aspects of FOI act). Unless there is fallout this situation is just going to get worse.

14

open,

LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS 08/03/2007 08:03:58

kEVIN DUNION has a cheek to suggest he is helping remove secrecy in our country.Our group have made a number of requests to his office and almost all of them have been refused.

His office is staffed almost entirely by LAWYERS who have been blocking requests that relate to anything to do with the courts or Law society of scotlands membership.Indeed anyone using FOI to his office the first people to find out who is requesting that information is a lawyer .

The Law society of scotland can very quickly find out who is asking awkward questions about legal matters and in most cases Kevin Dunion will support the secrecy they operate under even if they are being publicly funded through legal aid.

Also despite being funded by public moneys via legal aid the FOI legislation did not include the Law Society of Scotland as they have immunity .
THIS IS AN UTTER DISGRACE as most of our groups problems stem from inadequate legal services or in many cases the theft of land ,business or property using criminal collusion and monopoly powers .

If Kevin Dunion is truly concerned about removing secrecy he needs to remove the barriers we have between Scotlands people and those who control
our courts and legal institutions and especially our secretive chief constables.


LJPR LEGAL JUDICIAL POLITICAL REFORMERS

15

HBOS Customer,

home 08/03/2007 08:18:30

A very one-sided report. While Mr Dunion may have had 500 appeals to his office, I would expect that public authorities in the same year responded positively to over 50000 requests, with many more people helping themselves via council web-sites. Mr Dunion does not mention that while others get 20 working days to respond, he can take as long as he likes, with many taking over a year in his hands. He only completed half the appeals last year.

Many journalists are becoming lazy and using FoI on fishing trips. This costs all of us tax payers money. Examples of questions from journalists include "how many music files are on all your computers?" and "what is the average income of beggars in your city?"

Playing with your stats you can see that in 43% of cases he found for the authority, in 22% for applicant and in 35% he rules partially each way. So in 78% he found totally or partly for the authority.

16

Franklin,

08/03/2007 08:24:18

I've tried to get some info through the FoI act and they had me jumping through hoops - and still got nowhere. How come PIs and reporters and anyone from certain organisation can get info at the drop of a hat? Where am I going wrong?

17

Dayvan Cowboy,

08/03/2007 08:28:26

Wheres scottwebb ? he will be sitting with his troosers and pants down at this one.

18

ddmc,

08/03/2007 08:32:40

the one i find difficult to swallow is when contracts between public bodies & service providers like reliance are deemed off limits becuase of contract or company confidential information ?, if the tender & contract is already awarded how can the details of this then be confidential, surely we have a right to know details of the contract !. It's just another smokescreen used by our public bodies & officials to hide their ineptitude.

19

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 08/03/2007 08:38:54

I'm with (6) on this one. If you are asking for information about anything involving our money, the Scottish Exec almost automatically cites the "commercial sensitivity" excuse not to provide it.

20

morris,

edinburgh 08/03/2007 08:51:14

Debating freedom of information in Scotland is an insult to our intelligence.
The McCrone Report confirms this and then some!
If you want freedom of information you have to rid yourselves of pro Westminster politicians and candidates who in standing for election are guilty of treason against the electorate they claim to wish to represent.

21

Airds,

Castle Douglas 08/03/2007 09:00:00

A good example of how delays in the process are undermining its effectiveness is the request by the Association of Dumfries & Galloway Accommodation Providers for details of the contract between VisitScotland and the PPP eTourism Ltd (AKA visitscotland.com) which was first referred to the commissioner in December 2005. (See our campaign website www.reclaimvs.com.) No estimate of when a decision will be made can yet be obtained, some 15 months afterwards.

22

GP,

08/03/2007 09:04:10

What stupid fools thought that FOI actually meant freedom of information?
Oh dear how the sheep are so easily managed.

23

Dayvan Cowboy,

08/03/2007 09:10:08

Hardly earth shattering stuff , more an indication that certain authorities do not wish to co-operate with the media , and who can blame them.

24

Alberto.,

08/03/2007 09:15:00

From what I have read here, and from a small attempt at dealing with the 'FOI institution' myself, it is evident that the 'Truth' is a foreign tongue to the political set, and possibly much of the main Bureaucratic set up as well, and which they very much fear!

How can such behaviour and attitudes be allowed to prevail in a Democracy by ‘our’ elected ‘employees’ that seem to be being allowed to run amok with their self inflated egotistical attitudes of ‘Do as we say!’

This 'Controlling' situation, speedily being endorsed, and introduced by them is now more akin to the 'tail wagging the dog!'

It must be taken in hand before it’s too late - for all of us!

We must ensure they are fully aware that, if necessary, and it seems now is the time - the 'Dog' can and will bite, perhaps ferociously if the occasion calls for it!

These people, politicians etc. with their attitude of ‘we are at the top of our well protected tree', must quiver in their boots at the sound of the word 'Truth' - whenever it's mentioned, particularly from the mouths of the concerned members of the electorate (the irritant group they have, unfortunately, to contend with!) as they know such a mention of this archaic, and almost obsolete word in their World – usually means trouble for them!

Until such time arrives, if ever, that those in these positions of allegedly running 'their' shows are compelled to accept full responsibility for their 'errors' and be 'awarded' meaningful penalties accordingly, things will never change!

Their self adopted and fully controlled Secrecy alliance, combined with the facility of not having to respond to some of the FOI requests, puts it all in the same classification as the 'Official Secrets Act' - the best authorised 'cover up document' the Politicians and their like have, and is the best weapon in their political armoury - based on the rule of fear and allegedly, mainly to protect the State but mainly gives tremendous advan

25

nic,

helensburgh 08/03/2007 09:27:46

Many requests are frankly from mischief-makers and simply tie up people who should be doing other things. I know personally of one organisation which had to deploy a small team to cope with not very important inquiries from MSPs with little better to do with their time. The principle is a good one, but as ever it gets abused.

26

,

08/03/2007 09:31:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 426708, Article id was mapped to record!
27

Paul Voltaire,

www.paulvoltaire.spaces.live.com 08/03/2007 09:40:26

This is nothing new.
Politicians the world over are famous for their inability to give a straight answer about most subjects.

28

Alberto.,

08/03/2007 09:42:13

Post 24 - further!


– another useful political ‘threat or weapon’, as displayed and exercised, in the Westminster Assembly Rooms in fairly similar circumstances not so long ago!

29

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 08/03/2007 09:54:50

I asked them to show me their Lord of the Rings collection. They said they don't have those figures.

30

Dr. James Wilkie,

08/03/2007 10:04:04

Some years ago I requested access to certain information from the then Scottish Office, because I had reason to believe that there had been criminal behaviour by a senior official. The information I received was that all the relevant records had been destroyed in order to save space. The man in question was the head of the department concerned. No criminal proceedings were ever taken against him, presumably because the evidence no longer existed, but I believe he was quietly disposed of with an early pension.

31

Angus Ogg,

Leaving On A Jet Plane 08/03/2007 10:05:11

#14

You may have a valid point about FOISA and the Scottish Legal Beagles. If you look at the SACL website would be horrified and appalled. So I agree with your comments about the legal profession.

However, I would strongly disagree with your comments about Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner. Anyone who reads his work must see how fiercely independent the man is. Just get hold of a copy of his book: Troublemakers.
Jack McConnell pulled a rare masterstroke in appointing Kevin Dunion, as it would have been more than helpful if the government had appointed a sympathetic quango stooge. Instead McConnell literally appointed a Troublemaker to stave off any allegations of installing a government placeman.

Number 14, before you counter, I write as one who actually, and factually appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner, and had the appeal turned down. The fact of that matter was that Kevin Dunion did the most thorough job I had ever seen of an investigating officer. I have seen a lot of investigations as I used to be a police officer. For me, the sheer detail and thoroughness, and impartiality that Kevin Dunion showed in investigating my FOISA complaint was reassurance enough that the man had come to a fair conclusion, even if I didn't entirely agree with him overturning the appeal.

There are very few government organisations I have respect for nowadays, and that includes the police, a lot of lawyers, and large tracts of the legal profession. However, I would take exception on the postings of number 14 above if the intention was to impugn the reputation of a scrupulously objective and fair government official.

There are very few of them about, and the good ones deserve to be commended.

32

Shireman,

Kilspindie 08/03/2007 10:05:22

What was the commissioner doing about: ‘Q) "What was in an Executive-commissioned report on financial independence for Scotland?" A) This document has still not been released, 11 months after the request, and is not likely to be published before the election.’?

Like the earlier post regarding this, I dont care who this report benefits or doesn't but it surely needs to be public before May. The fact that the Excecutive openly plans to keep this under wraps till after May suggests it wont help their case for re-election much if its released now. Come on Journalists of the world, DEMAND this information is made public loudly and proudly from your front pages and in so doing revive a little faith in your profession.

In the end nothing will change unless WE change it. The rotten corrupt bodies with so much influence over our lives will remain rotten and corrupt until we tear it all down and build something better.

33

.,

08/03/2007 10:14:19

When did the Home Office become part of Scottish government? I was always under the impression this was linked to Westminster...

34

Duncan,

ALBA GU BRATH 08/03/2007 10:25:11

I have always been attracted to Swedish models, but this one seems to be particularly attractive. Just think of the money saved on expensive public enquires, like Fraser on Holyrood. All the information would be in the public realm.

Sweden
In Sweden, the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 granted public access to government documents. It thus became an integral part of the Swedish Constitution, and the first ever piece of freedom of information legislation in the modern sense. In Swedish this is known as Offentlighetsprincipen (The Principle of Public Access),[28] and has been valid since.

The Principle of Public Access means that the general public are to be guaranteed an unimpeded view of activities pursued by the government and local authorities; all documents handled by the authorities are public unless legislation explicitly and specifically states otherwise, and even then each request for potentially sensitive information must be handled individually, and a refusal is subject to appeal. Further, the constitution grants the Right to Inform, meaning that even some (most) types of secret information may be passed on to the press or other media without risk of criminal charges. Instead, investigation of the informer's identity is a criminal offense.

35

I'm no really here,

08/03/2007 10:29:02

Surely there is some sort of screening system that can be used to filter out stupid messages. Are they not capable of responding that some of the information may already be available from other public sources, and indicate where those sources are, and if they are on-line, what the addresses are. It seems, as someone has said, that some of the requests are because people are lazy and don't want to do the research work themselves. Just because something isn't neatly tied up on one website, does not mean the information is not available.

36

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 08/03/2007 10:30:06

Welcome to secret Scotland
HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR (hmacdonell@scotsman.com)
More than 500 Scots forced to appeal after knockbacks
Almost two-thirds of appeals successful
Information Commissioner's report calls for more progress on FoI requests
Sir. This is indeed a bad publicity. How can you put this in your paper?
And to think Scotland Yard was/is the best Police like CIA and FBI or KGB. This is Scotland. Shame on all the commentators.
HAMISH MACDONELL and what are you doing being in the picture?

37

Conner_Mcleod,

Ex Wellington NZ 08/03/2007 10:54:33

The masons are everywhere these days!

38

weeshooie,

Livingston 08/03/2007 11:02:59

#26, you beat me to it!!!

it should be enshrined in law that any expenditure of public money (which is what all Government money is) should be made available without question. that goes for local authorities as well.

God knows how much West Lothian spent on signs promoting themselves after being awarded council of the year 2006. that figure is not in the public domain because it would have to include all the self serving celebrations they had at our expense; all the parties at our expense; all the trips to promote themselves at our expense.

the people of Scotland are demanding open Government because we don't trust any of them. Ministers and local authority employees think the people are there to give them titles, whereas they are there to provide for the people of Scotland. that has been lost in self serving politics.

by the way, I gave up my job of 12 years and I want £20, 000 now and a party; and a final salary pension, and get to keep the company car I was driving; and keep everything that was bought for my office; and a medal for putting up with this corrupt regime.

39

Pushkin,

08/03/2007 11:25:01

12. Big Red, the Act came into force at the same time in Scotland and England.
35, contained within the Act is a duty to be helpful to a requestor. If the information is readily available elsewhere a public authority should inform where it can be found. Whether they all do is another matter of course.
Interesting that this article puts a negative spin on the story, whereas in other papers its a positive spin.

40

westies,

aberdeen 08/03/2007 11:28:07

I think Mr Dunion and his staff are carrying out an excellent job under very difficult conditions.I am presently awaiting a decision regarding a request for a copy of an 'independent' police investigation into Grampian Police's handling of a rape case.I do not expect to get a copy of this report because of the strong opposition from the ACOPS even although it has been established that two of the Police officers involved in investigating the complaint of rape lied under oath and the head of the Professional Standards of Grampian Police has been found in breach of the Data Protection Act.I only hope I am sucessful in obtaining a copy of this report to expose the behaviour of these Officers and help prove that there has been a miscarriage of Justice.

41

Linda Gordon,

Grampian 08/03/2007 11:36:15

I disagree with the statement in relation to England being slightly behind Scotland in terms of FOI legislation. Over seventy countries around the world have implemented some form of freedom of information legislation, which sets rules on access to information or records held by government bodies, the oldest being Sweden's Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. Many more countries are working towards introducing such laws, and many regions of countries with national legislation have local laws - for example, all states of the US have access laws as well as the national legislation. In general, such laws define a legal process by which government information is available to the public; In many countries there are vague constitutional guarantees for the right of access to information, but usually these are unused unless specific legislation to support them.

These laws may also be described as open records or (especially in the United States) sunshine laws (alluding to "letting light shine" on the process). A related concept is open meetings legislation, which allows the public access to government meetings, not just to the records of them. In many countries, privacy or data protection laws may be part of the freedom of information legislation; the concepts are often closely tied together in political discourse.

A basic principle behind most freedom of information legislation is that the burden of proof falls on the body asked for information, not the person asking for it. The requester does not usually have to give an explanation for their request, but if the information is not disclosed a valid reason has to be given. I do not consider a member of the public's request to establish what OUR REPRESENTATIVES spend on our behalf as too "sensitive" to disclose after completing the private and confidential screening, tendering and award process.

What have these 'control freaks' got to hide?! The Shirley McKie case is a good illustrating

42

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 08/03/2007 11:37:13

Welcome to secret Scotland
Well well well what do we have. The shout for freedom from UK and call this secret!!

43

Jokes to Miracles,

Scotland 08/03/2007 11:44:40

Dayvan Cowboy #17

Best comment yet ... I'm still laughing.

44

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 08/03/2007 12:34:24

Of course the real ... real .......... secrets are the files closed for 100 years on the SDunblane issue regarding serving ministers alleged involvemnet

45

Border Comment,

South of Scotland 08/03/2007 12:40:41

When the FOI was introduced Official Bodies were encouraged to immdiately reject any request for information using one of the exclusion factors as reason even if they didn`t really apply. This was to weed out individuals who didn`t know any better.
Its only when you appeal against a decision from the Local Authority or whatever that they start to take you seriously and appreciate that they have a time limit to respond.
Dependig upon how awkward the authority wants to be it will stone wall you again, forcing you to make a complaint to the Commissioner.
Anyone who has had to take the Local Authority to the Information Commisioner will know just how twisted, and obstructive the authorities can be when they want to be ae.g will not openly admit to failing to keep records and the like.
The FOI, is a good thing and we should resist all attempts by the Scottish Executive and Local Authorities to have it amended or watered down, as they want to go back to the bad old days where decisions were made in secret, with secret gentleman`s agreements, and lack of, openness , honesty and accountability. In fact the act should be extended giving more access with no Council meetings held in secret.

46

Brandon,

08/03/2007 12:58:39

The Scotsman has been the one paper that is completely biased against the Freedom of Information Act - due to its own political allegiances.
Look into this on your own, and you will see that this newspaper reports a bias against the act in nearly every article...
Also every FOI request has to be looked at from many points of view - concerning individual rights, trade secrets, public interest, and cost of releasing the information...
Take this one for instance...

Q) The Scotsman asked how many complaints of bullying or harassment NHS Borders had received from employees after an incident involving another member of staff, in the period 1999-2006.

A) "There is no central record of incidents and it would be too expensive to go through staff records," said NHS Borders.

This is a failing of the NHS for not keeping central record of these incidents - not the commission's fault for not providing the info.
Do you want your tax money spent on tracing "every" event of this nature in NHS staff records for the past 7 years? Would you want to be the person/persons going through these records? How much would that cost to do? Think about it...
Also these are "staff records" would you want someone willy-nilly going through your personal employment records searching for information just so the scotsman can put a pie chart together and have a soap-box rant to sell more papers? There are so many legalities to consider here in just this "one" case... (and this is just off the top of my head)...

We need to protect this act as it comes under fire from politicians and local authorities who do not want this kind of scrutiny on themselves. We wouldn't know about msp's expenses for instance...

47

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 08/03/2007 13:26:12

#45. Border Comment, South of Scotland

certainly with you on that one.

The way to get round obstructive organisations such as local authorities when it comes to FOI is to leak it to the media.

From my own experience in the Borders, SBC has plenty to hide, especially in some of those secret council meetings (which sometimes suffer from leaks themselves) ... there's always a way .. just takes a little more time to expose the crooked behaviour .

#46 Brandon ...

NHS Borders ... oh - they are good at keeping stats off the books they dont want publicised, but quick to pull complainants medical records to be used agains them in bullying face to face meetings ...

48

morris,

08/03/2007 13:51:04

13
If you study the system employed for Holyrood you will soon realise that the chances of anybody gaining a majority are zero!Thats why it was employed. Labour cant govern Scotland without the help of at least ONE party,but the SNP cant do it either without a coalition wth one of the UNionist parties.
I think before you criticise the record of the SNP in office you should first make it possible for the SNP to achieve office.Thats the difference between the democratioc credentials of the Unionists and Nationalists!
ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN ETERNITY !

49

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 13:53:03

#14 LJPR
Totally Agree.
Crown office i have been told is exempt from this Joke They Call FOI.
I was charged and convicted in 1982 of assault & Robbery, Have continually protested my Innocence.
Most recently to SCCRC since 2001 and still await their final decision.
I asked crown office to reveal Crown witness statements and have been told they are never Recoverable, Is this the openess spoke of by Angiolini??
I asked for copies of the two ID Parades that crown office sent to SCCRC.
Crown office now say they did not retain any copies of what was sent to SCCRC in 2002, Despite their letter to SCCRC claiming they were enclosing COPIES.
SCCRC have tried to claim they only recieved one ID Parade report. What a crap attempt to cover up that the police that Identified me as one of the Robbers also Identified someone at the second Parade to which i did not attend.
Apparently He Picked a Stand-In.
I wrote to Justice Minister, Who couldn't intervene?
I wrote to Dunion What a Joke, Wanted me to keep letter Private and Confidential, No Chance. I will be publishing every aspect of my fight for Justice.
Crown Office can when it suits them release imformation, infact i will include link to cases were Lords Hardie and Bracadale only in December Held crown in Contempt and postponed crucial murder trials until Crown released witness statements so what is the problem with releasing mine.
Freedom of Imformation i am told does not cover Public interest Tests or Data protection. See next posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

50

Border Ian,

Borders 08/03/2007 13:59:32

To my mind Dunion's report underlines the essential culture pervading the Scottish Executive and other official organisations, namely a culture of secrecy. We need an open Scotland, where officials instinctively should seek to respond positively to FoI requests whenever possible. But this only reflects what is a severely protective self-interest. Roll on Independence and a fresh start, i hope.

51

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 14:07:03

Data Protection

This Crown Office Lackeys say Allows them to withhold imformation.
I argued that since i have held every witnesses names and addresses since 1982 and every statement since 1982 Which include a large Number of Crwon Witness statements (Confirmed by Crowns Mr Pattison) Data Protection should not be an Issue, Antway they would be entitled to withhold and Edit any Addresses.
It is also unlikely that these witnesses will still live at the same addresses.
I know the policeman Muckle now live in Mid Calder along with Kenneth Ashford The Chemist Their addresses are readily available on the voters Roll, Should this mean their data protection is no use to them in this argument???
SCCRC released to me the Minutes of my Trial Sanctioned by Tom Higgins High Court and these contain not only witnesses names etc they Contain THE JURORS Names and ADRESSES, Surely there is more of an issue in protecting the JURORS names and addresses??????????????????????
Crown Office should release without delay all documents relevant and Pertinent to my Appeal To SCCCRC Their reluctance to do so is Not Compliant with Section 6 of Human Right to a Fair Heraing and is only serving to Hinder my APPEAL
Please view all comments on link to you-tube below


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_GPX41Yt9U

52

Ron Finlayson,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 14:08:08

Agree with #15

And for #17. Scotwebb must be on holiday!

53

Miss Jean Brodie,

08/03/2007 14:09:48

Freedom of Disinformation!

54

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 14:18:56

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

This was applied to DUNBLANE and even this was lifted and Not held to the Hundred Years it was destined for.
My case was only for Assault & Robbery Why apply the Public Interest Test to it?????
The only Reason available is Maybe the link Of The QC Taylor who also defended the Lockerbie Bomber who i Believe also complained of Taylor Unexpectedly Closing the defence case without calling Crucial And Key EVIDENCE likely to have a Material Bearing on my case, For instance he never called crucial Forensic Evidence to which SCCRC have refused point blank to answer???????? Why???

See link Below for Lords Hardie and Bracadales comments on the withholding Crown Witness Statements

http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=859&id=18...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

55

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 14:24:20

SCCRC and Crown Office.

I told SCCRC the name of a friend of mine that was placed on second ID Parade and who told me that someone was picked positive.
They refused to interview him but interviewed the policeman to allow him to claim he was a hundred percent sure it was me.
Is this what they call Independent, Impartial and robust investigation they give to every case accepted for review?????????????
The Sole Sponsors for SCCRC are Justice Department, Does this make them Independent and Impartial from Our Courts System?????

56

Debbra,

USA 08/03/2007 14:49:11

A Freedom of Information Act can be positive, but 'across the pond' it has turned into pure %%%, because ALL information about "civilians"-non-politicians is at almost everyone's disposal, however, those politicians, elected and appointed-there's NOT one thing "we the people" have access to. Us "civilians" find information the government ONLY has, being "stolen" and end up with charges on our credit cards, bank cards, and even when we go to retire some illegal has been using our credit to buy homes, cars, etc. Be very careful in what you are asking for. The secrety you are facing is because of none other than Bush and Blair-2 of the biggest hypocrites known to mankind! Once you get that party Blair is involved with OUT OF OFFICE, you will find are less secret government. What they are doing is hiding the paper trails they have left behind. What other way than to declare "NO INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE" wth THIS DEPARTMENT. It is a merry-go-round and the SOONER you get it fixed the less damage it will cause the "commoners"="the people". Believe me it is not something you want to let go of without fully having ALL of your questions answered COMPLETELY, not just adequetly.

57

Linda Gordon,

Grampian 08/03/2007 14:55:11

the public is oblivious to Big Wullie's fight and it is more than apparent that there has been a failure to disclose evidence which may have represented 'reasonable doubt' as to ID- he had the right to compete on an 'equality of arms' consideraion basis but this potentially exculpatory material was suppressed. In light of the Ice Cream Wars and Steven Johnston/Billy Allison MOJ and shirley mckie fiasco with the police having egg on their faces, it is beyond believe that a Police Officer's word suffices and a member of the public for line-up duty is discarded. As per "Westies" quote earlier, these officers are even immune from prosecution after committing perjury!!!! All we get from Angolini and Jamieson is spin - are they underhanded rogues? What about the Nat Fraser farce? another example of state secrecy and trying to play judge and jury when they advocate independence.The SCCRC wage bill is paid by the Scots Executive. In the same way Mr Dunnions' wage bill is - be under no illusion, these cronies all stick together and feather each others nests in the same way 'brother' police officers look out for each other. We now live in a police/ nanny state regardless of how Jamieson wishes to dress this up.

58

A Sweet Old Lady,

monatomic particles are the key to many places 08/03/2007 15:07:00

Comment@17/43 I'm sure if that handsome devil was here, he'd be laughing at that one :)

59

Guje, Annies´ mother,

Sweden 08/03/2007 15:12:38

Thank you for this article!

How is it possibel that a law that is said to serve the public with information is restricting it!? And how do we get it changed? This is what happened to my family.

Dec 4, 2005 my daughter Annie 30, was found dead in Scotland. At the time she lived in Edinburgh but was found dead on the shore in Prestwick, probarbly drowned, about 100 kilometers from Edinburgh.

She was found at a walking distace from the airport in Prestwick from where she always travelled home to Sweden. Annie was found dressed, except from her jacket. That and her bag were found on the same spot as her body and in her bag she had her Swedish passport and two library books to return to a Swedish library. She had also made an appointment with her hairdresser in Sweden Dec.5.

The days before Annie died she also called home and it then got obvious that she was under a threat. Due to these and several other very strange circumstances as well as Annie's personality, we her family and her friends are convinced that Annie was murdered. Yet the Scotish Police have not been investigating Annies´ death as a crime, but as a suicide!

It has now been more than a year since Annie was found dead and the investigation about her death now is closed by the Strathclyde Police. The desicion was made by Crown Council, by whom we are not allowed to know and we are denied to take part of the documentation!

We now have got to know that Annie's case is hold secret according to the law Freedome of Information. And we are not allowed to take part of the investigation because there is an exeption for deaths saying; it would not be in the interrest of the public! Well, we think there is! And it is certanly in the interrest of our family!

We have now been struggling for more than a year to get to know what happened to Annie and still know nothing. Not only have we lost a lovely daughter, sister and friend but we are also denied a proper investigatio

60

Sanny,

Portugal (until May) 08/03/2007 15:23:17

Let’ cut to the chase! The information is held by Public Servants and as the name suggests, they are appointed to serve the Public – That’s you and me. Our MP’s are elected by us and hold their office in trust for the electorate. The funds these people spend are ours and the information of all public bodies is ours. We have the undeniable right to examine it. There are a few exceptions but I doubt if that covered a 0.01 % of the whole.

We have an election coming up soon and you can expect the candidates to be knocking on your door. Ask them their opinion on Open Government and what they are prepared to do to achieve it. If their answer doesn’t satisfy then tell them (regardless of party) that you will vote against them. If their answer is positive tell them that you will follow what they do and challenge their record at the next election.

We should Tell our politicians that we require that ALL Meetings involving public servants including MP’s to be recorded – failure should be considered a criminal offence. Destruction of a public record to be a criminal offence and all perpetrators to be banned for life from ever holding, or contracting to, a Public Office. All records to be available unless in the opinion of a panel of three independent judges this would not be in the public interest.

If an MP can guarantee that will press to enact such legislation then that individual has my vote. Any Civil or public servant that stands in the way of such legislation should be sacked without compensation.

Under these rules; Mr. Blair with his hidden email server and the staff involved in the shredding activity would all be enjoying a free holiday at “HM’s Pleasure”. Isn’t Mr Blair heavy into free holidays?

61

Linda Gordon,

Grampian 08/03/2007 15:30:20

As for 59, its a sad state of affairs when a mother cannot establish what happened to her daughter or at least get access to information. I am sure a vast majority of the Scots Public support you geeting access to information despite public servant obstruction. There was a similar case involving the death of a man where his parents were not satisfied with the verdict - reputedly, what emanated was the Police not trying to dent public confidence due to the sub standard policing involved. I believe this case is on the FOI decisions website and sets a precedent?! in terms of your access. Do not let these insensitive back-covers to get away with not giving you access to this information.

62

Sanny,

Portugal (until May) 08/03/2007 15:46:12

48. morris:

I totally agree with you on the Holyrood version of PR. It was specifically designed to ensure that the SNP, or any other party that might be hostile to Wesminster, could not form a government in their own right. A new version of divide and rule!

This said it is possible, although improbable, that the SNP could poll enough votes to obtain a majority. It will require the Scottish Electorate to see through the manipulation of the electoral system and the manipulation of information by a “bought and paid for” press. Then if they vote in sufficient numbers for the SNP we would have a government tha would be empowered to change the system and free us from week government and even the claws of Westminster.

63

Sanny,

Portugal (until May) 08/03/2007 15:56:49

59. Guje, Annies:

I suggest you deal with this through you own country’s Foreign Office. A request made at government level would receive more attention. I would also try to interest the MP who represents you at government level.

This is indeed a sad case and you have my sympathy. I'm certain all posters in these columns would wish you every success in your search for the truth.

Is there a lawyer on this board who can help this grieving mother?

64

Sanny,

Portugal (until May) 08/03/2007 16:21:15

Morris and all Scots: -
I strongly suggest that you visit this site and read the Business Week article on this Labour Government:
We must show these currupt politions both North and South that they are not above the law.
Let's first Kick them out of office then bear down on them with the full force of the law. And I include Lord Goldsmith in this for as the gurdian of our law his treachery has been the greatest.

I doubt if this post will remain long!!

65

Guje, Annies´ mother,

Sweden 08/03/2007 16:28:24

Dear 61 and 63.

The local MP where Annie lived is Mr. Alastair Darling. I have written to him and this is the reply I got from his office;

"Thank you very much for your e-mail to Mr
Darling. I am sure you are in touch with Strathclyde Police who are are the best people to help you otherwise you might want to get in touch with your own representative who in turn would be
able to give you some advice as to how best to pursue this".

As you can see Mr. Darling's office advice me to contact the Strathclyde Police. This however I have already done with no result at all, since they do not want to investigate my daughtes case any further. I have also made a complaint of the Investigation to a department within the Police, this however has led to nothing, since they are satisfied with the Police work.

What is ment by "my own representative" I do not understand, can anyone please explain? Regarding the Swedish Foreign Office, they say they can do nothing!! Since this is a Scotish investigation! So honestly, I do not where to turn. My daughter is murdered and nobody cares!

Sincerely, Guje, Annie's mummy.

66

Sedov,

Scotland 08/03/2007 16:29:10

Do not kid yourself that independence will lead to a more open government. In fact the very word nationalism conjures up a small nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, so secrecy could be the watch word to protect oor wee island.

67

,

08/03/2007 16:30:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 428122, Article id was mapped to record!
68

Duncan,

08/03/2007 16:56:42

SEDOV your ramblings are becoming more irrational and rabid each time you manage to get on this forum. I think it's time for you to see Matron again about your medication, it clearly needs to be increased.

69

Grahamalba,

Europe 08/03/2007 17:04:02

If the Press asked me a question over the phone I would not answer them either.

70

Alberto.,

08/03/2007 17:09:32

Is Scotland unique as a Country insofar as the 'Rot has set in!'

Such activity usually starts at the bottom, but from the comments and points raised here the reverse seems to apply to Scotland - and it seems to be gathering great speed downwards and infecting the whole system ferociously, under the 'guidance and direction of the current regime' - and I cannot help thinking it will continue after May, regardless!

I sincerely trust I am wrong, but the future does not look very 'Orange' - as it is said nowadays, but more and more depressing as time goes by!

A 'Brand new style of Broom' is definitely required if the existing situation is to be swept clean, and then, perhaps, but only perhaps, Morality and Principle may both show their faces again - apparently, along with truth, they are the greatest threat to Political life, as we are currently experiencing!

71

morris,

edinburgh 08/03/2007 17:22:20

66
Firstly it would be nigh impossible to reach a less open system of government than we currently have at WEstmonster,
Nationalism applies to every nation state (thats what it means)irrespective of size,eg United Condom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which you presumably support).YOU ARE A NATIONALIST !
The planet is composed of wee nations and there are hundreds of them.None want to be ruled by an imperialist master.None want to return to colonial status.
So that destroys your argument before you even make it!
They dont come much more narrow minded than you, trust me!
You defeat your own argument.We dont need to!

72

Sambo,

The deep south 08/03/2007 17:38:01

#52 Ron
scottweb was taken from his home in the middle of the night to an undisclosed location. Last I heard he had been sentenced to fifty lashes with a wet carp on the shores of Loch Ness.
Upon further inquiry, the local councillors at Ft. William said, "they have no information on the subject"

73

_higgy_,

08/03/2007 18:28:37

hello

74

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 18:36:47

Corrupt SCCRC.

Clearly QC Taylor conceded that the evidence of the Lawyer Saying( the police had Number 2. out his mouth before turning to view the parade) would certainly have raised a large question Mark of the policeman's evidence Why then did he not call this evidence.
His answer to me in 1982 was that he did not want to be seen to be calling the police LIARS (They Are Liars) Note the one from the same station the other day only got 73 days.
Was it not his job to call him a liar??????
This Lawyer has provided SCCRC with a statement and he has claimed that: His big IMPRESSION was that the policeman KNEW PRIOR to coming INTO the ROOM EXACTLY WHAT POSITION I HAD ADOPTED.
tHIS IS AFTER TWENTY FIVE YEARS THIS LAWYER CAN REMEMBER THIS.
What other evidence does SCCRC need to refer a case?????
They at SCCRC allowed Taylor QC to even claim he did not know of this lawyers evidence despite his ID Parade Report being available and despite the Lawyer being Cited as a Witness, WHAT A JOKE.
How can he claim he did not know of his Evidence????????????????????????????????????????
The SCCRC should refer on this alone.
Please take some time to view all comments on both videos linked below


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

75

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 19:01:44

Corrupt SCCRC

Thay agreed that the conduct at my ID Parade was not acceptable by todays STANDARDS but these changed sometime after my conviction.
(Bull---t) I asked them exactly when this changed, They never answered me.
It never changed as far as i know in 1982 the Arresting officers should not have been involved in running the ID Parade At-All
In my case the Two Became involved with ONE ASSISTING with WINESSES and the Other Present in the room.
I asked SCCRC to Apply their current Law to this Ground and to this they never replied????????.
I will link their current law Policy for all to see.


http://www.sccrc.org.uk/legislation/sccrc-current-law.htm

76

juvii,

Colorado 08/03/2007 19:15:15

After reading the story and all of the postings, " I can only confirm that there has been an incident"!!! Oh Lisa of Perth where are you when we need some humor?

77

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 19:17:14

Corrupt SCCRC

I supplied them with copy of Crown witness statement (Which is never Recoverable according to crown)Saying the driver was forty years old with brown hair and Moustache, (Which is exact description of one of the People I claim Committed this Robbery)
At the time of my arrest i was only twenty and still today would find it hard to grow a Moustache, and have Jet Black Hair, Always have.
Taylor said he never saw this at the time of my trial so did Keegan but it was Keegan that gave it to me after my trial (Because i had sacked him he had to give me them for my appeal) So anyway the two deny seeing this exculpatory Statement which leaves me no alternative but to claim Crown Failed to disclose this.
It is also evident that Crown will not release these to me now so would not have done so in 1982 either.
Mr Taylor suggested that i extracted them from the Lord Advocate in the process of my Appeal in 1982.
This is not the case Keegan gave me them in 1982 the exact date i have supplied to SCCRC by way of a Letter extracted from National Archives By SCCRC themselves.
Either way this evidence should have been heard and is clearly capable of casting doubt on the other two positive Identifications of me, One of whom just happened to be the (Lying) Policeman Muckle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_GPX41Yt9U

78

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 19:26:41

Corrupt SCCRC

Surely you would think if they agreed that the Judge Misdirected the Jury then they should refer your case, No Your Wrong????
They said it would only take half an hour to travel from Livingston to Glasgow Cross.
his is despite them Knowing the car was chased from Livingston to Newbridge then abandoned in Kirkliston next to the Graveyard.
From Livingston to Glasgow Cross was never an issue and SCCRC dont say if they got expert timings on this issue.
It would be impossible to do now never mind twenty five year ago, What a Joke

79

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 20:00:15

Corrupt SCCRC

I submitted fresh grounds on advice from my legal team and one was as follows: The Judges charge served to Equiparate proof beyond reasonable doubt with the concept of being reasonably certain.
SCCRC never answered this and were interimly refusing to refer, and answered this with an old ground raised in 2001-2003.
I have asked them again to review this and await their reply with anticipation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_GPX41Yt9U

80

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 20:24:41

# 57 Linda Gordon. Grampian

Linda thank you very much, your comments are much Appreciated.
Our Judicial System really need to wake up and Smell the Coffee.
Even the nat fraser case as you say has been allowed because of Crowns Failure to Disclose the exculpatory Statements saying the rings were in the house initially.
My case though is linked to Megrahi unfortunately for me, however so was the McKie case and look what happened when Crown tried to cover this up???
It is also linked to someone who sat on the board of SCCRC while they investigated my grounds which included complaints of his incompetence and negligence in the way he handled my trial.
He only resigned when Megrahi's appeal was accepted for review and his reason was to allow SCCRC to remain Independent and Impartial in their robust Investigation. What a Joke they never even started to investigate my grounds and when they did it was only to see how they could cover them up?????????????????.
The cases of Gair, Kidd etc etc referred on only disclosure or failure to disclose are nothing to the issues i have raised yet my case is covered up.
Then there is the case of Jamie Orr referred on his sister saying she overheard a witness saying he had Lied about her brother Oh Is This Not Hearsay?No Said SCCRC
Thats what they told me when i said i had three witnesses saying they heard Mr Hamiltons evidence at my wife's trial, This is HEARSAY Say SCCRC, Not one witness saying in the Orr case. Three witnesses saying in my case.
SCCRC should be investigated without delay if this is the way they are to continue to investigate Miscarriages of justice.
Public opinion is a strong thing and SCCRC were set up to be seen to be Curing these Miscarriages which cannot be said in my case.

81

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 08/03/2007 20:38:45

Ron. I'm a Finlayson myself. Are you one of our Coatbridge mob? Feel free to keep this information to yourself, if you like. You never know what skeletons are lurking in that dark, damp closet they call...Coa'brig!

82

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 20:59:48

Corrupt SCCRC

Sorry Folks for not posting the links to the cases of Kidd and Gair Please find them enclosed with this posting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4274043.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4634309.stm

83

an american girl,

USA 08/03/2007 21:51:04

I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE WHAT SCOTTWEB HAS TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.

84

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 22:18:26

Corrupt SCCRC

I told SCCRC that the evidence of the other Key Witness, Ashford Was contradictory to the evidence he gave at Court.
They Refused to entertain this Ground although they claim to refer cases on Conflicting and contradictory Statements of a material nature.
His evidence in court was that he never ran into Raeburn Rigg (Which My Defence Team Never Questioned at Trial) and the next thing he saw was the car coming out of the Riggs, There was nothing suspicious about this car and nothing to attract his attention to it (But he wrote down the Reg No of it) and he identified me as the driver.
Now i Have his statement which is totally different and contradictory and is supported by other Crown witnesses.
His statement say's he ran into Raeburn Rigg and someone was standing in front of the car shouting to stop it and the reg No, This would be more in line with why he wrote down the Reg No, But wait a minute even Stevie Wonder could see that if he ran into Raeburn Rigg then he would not have been able to claim he was round the corner and saw the car passing him, Therefore he would not have been able to claim he saw the driver.
You dont need to be a rocket scientist to work this out and even SCCRC should be capable of this one???
However they have chosen to ignore this argument and continue to cover up my Issues and Arguable grounds hence the posts on these pages to get my points out.
Every point raised with SCCRC has been twisted or swept under their carpets.
At one stage they even tried to claim that i agreed with them. What a JOKE.
Not once have they referred to Kidd or Gair but at one stage they said i could not rely on English cases then they do it themselves and even refer to Irish ones.
What Country did our Human Rights act section 6. Originate????
Please read all comments on both videos linked below to see how corrupt SCCRC are

Report Unsuitable

85

Linda Gordon,

Grampian 08/03/2007 22:21:46

Re.80 - When is a disclosure not a disclosure? when they wish to stitch you up! The Fernieside 3 had several witnesses individually or collectively not deemed credible nor reliable by the SCCRC but this body found a person caught red handed credible - bizarre! They took SCCRC to Judicial Review & still lost. Keep up the fight look at the Ice Cream War police could remember & forget all the same things - impossible!!

86

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 08/03/2007 22:28:11

Corrupt SCCRC # 84

To make matters worse SCCRC would not entertain issues of material Nature with this Ashford Guy.
For instance he said he was chasing someone with a Jerkin on and a Balaclava but when the car passed him he could not be sure if this was the person he had been chasing. He also stated the person he was chasing was carrying an attache' case 18ins by 18ins and he could not be mistaken on this, even though it was mailbags it was stolen.
Every other witness said that the two robbers were wearing snorkel type jackets with balaclavas under their hoods.
If this is not conflicting and contradictory material changes then what is?????.

87

Ken M,

Stenhousemuir 08/03/2007 22:45:10

Dear Scotsman, Can you tell me why the Comments Removed have been removed?

88

www.scottwebb.co.uk.,

08/03/2007 22:49:04

:)

89

www.scottwebb.co.uk.,

08/03/2007 22:53:38

I have not posted for the last few days because I'm cheesed off with the manipulation of comments by the pseudo intellectuals in The Scotsman's editorial staff who profess to represent free speech. What THEY forget is that their actions ARE being noticed and questioned by more and more people........while their credibility as impartial is going down the toilet :)

90

Ken M,

Stenhousemuir 08/03/2007 23:21:08

Scottwebb. Never got back to an earlier post when I offered to upload a couple of songs to your website.

The offer still stands. One song for the Union, one song for Independence.

91

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 08/03/2007 23:23:06

#87 I agree! I thought censorship was a thing of the past, or is it now just differently expressed as 'political or cultural correctness'? Who exactly is it who determines what is politically and culturally correct?
Bill & Ben? Floggabopp Weeeeed?

92

Faye,

Scotland 08/03/2007 23:49:24

Nice to see you back Scottwebb. I understand your concerns. Others are also showing signs of being unhappy. I noticed Maxie was having a problem on another thread.

93

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 08/03/2007 23:50:03

While I'm on the subjest, which may appear to digress but to my mind (bearing the time difference "cause I've just got out of bed and desperately need a cuppa coffee) is quite releveant.
If one can only express oneself in the alloted terminology suggested by these 'wowsers' (an Australian term) then it certainly curtails the use of a any 'risque' sense of humour. Furrinstance. An Australian Aboriginal person can be called an Aborigine, an Indigenous person or even a 'Blackfellah' (observant, huh!)- the term which the Aboriginal people themselves prefer and therefor, of course entirely correct. but you can't go around calling them 'Abos', as this is deemed incorrect.
So if you want to make a humourous comment about any 'Blackfellah' or their situation, it has to be made to someone you can trust with the same humour - including 'Blackfellahs' or whisper it under your breath, preferably behind closed doors. What I'm trying to say is, there appears to be plot afoot to suppress freedom of - not only speech - but expression. I'm gonna have that coffe now. I hope you mob are all nicely tucked up in bed - oorroo!!!

94

,

08/03/2007 23:54:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 428931, Article id was mapped to record!
95

The Wizard,

OZ 08/03/2007 23:56:22

#93 Jimbu

But you are still allowed to call someone from the UK, a POM.

96

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 09/03/2007 00:20:03

Exactly right Wizard. I've heard every derogatory Scottish joke known to mankind. Nobody shuts those eejyits up. It's not the jokes, water aff a duck's back...it's being called a POM that really gets on my goat! Talk about racial vilifacation! I'll get around to that coffee in a minute.

97

The Wizard,

OZ 09/03/2007 00:30:42

I;ve heard them all as and if there is two things that I cant stand, it's racial predudice, and foreigners.

Enjoy the coffee

Wiz

98

Pelon,

NM USA 09/03/2007 00:32:15

#89 S-W...

Howdy!

Well, it sort of figures, doesn't it, with the subject of the article. Hmmmm?

Might they be exercising a little brash humor here?

99

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 09/03/2007 00:36:34

#85 Linda Gordon Grampian

Linda you are absolutely correct i have read all their appeal were the police allowed this girl to chage her evidece and anyway who are SCCRC to decide Reliability and Credibility shoud his not be down to Appeal court to decide?
They have done the same with me only they didn't even bother to interview my witnesses to see if their vience was credible or reliable, they just said their evidenc was hearsy and not admissible in court, But we all know it is admissible otherwise we would not have had Ice Cream wars as you say.
So many witnesses here and yet they refer Jamie Orr on only his sister saying she overheard a witness say he lied. what a Joke.I actually spoke to MOJO about this case as one of them had the same lawyer as me (Jim Keegan) Whom i have claimed did not even bother to interview 16 of 19 of my witnesses before my trial
This case with Mine and Wullie Gage's Means SCCRC are dealing with three cases involving Keegan or have dealt with three cases involving him, I Wonder if there are more???????????????.
People should take note here and also remember that Keegan is now a temp Judge and so is The Chief Executve of SCCRC Gerard Sinclair.
I would suggest that this does not make them independent of Crown therefore they should not be sitting on SCCRC board or defending people. They should be one or the other.
Certainly Gerard Sinclair could not Claim impartialness or independence From Crown and is not compliant with section 6. of Human right to a fair Hearing and he should resign Imediately from SCCRC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

100

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 09/03/2007 00:45:07

Wonder if Scottweb was cheesed off with the Censorship of the Lord Levy case yesterday.
Got a bit cheesed off myself with it.
He's right what has happened to our freedom of Speech?
I'm Off to bed getting too late, and spelling is getting out of hand, so sorry folks.
They should incorporate a spell check into these threads, I'm sure the Herald or Times does this?

101

Pelon,

NM USA 09/03/2007 00:45:37

I think I got it...

102

Pelon,

NM USA 09/03/2007 00:45:52

Dam... missed.

103

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 09/03/2007 00:50:56

I've heard a slightly different version of that, Wizard but I'm not supposed to repeat it.
#98. I know N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!

104

The Wizard,

OZ 09/03/2007 00:53:49

#100 Big Wullie

Everyone was annoyed about the censorship yesterday. I had two that did'nt make it.
Seems you can make any comment you like as long as the 'thought police' agree with it.
Sleep well.


Wiz

105

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 09/03/2007 00:58:11

Night, night Wullie. Awrrabest, son!!! We're just starting our day here.

106

Jimbu,

Alice Springs 09/03/2007 00:58:54

Who's on nightshift?

107

The Wizard,

OZ 09/03/2007 03:02:08

Weeshooie

That reminds me of the story about the guy arriving at Perth Airport and when asked by Immigration 'do you have a criminal record' replied, 'I did'nt realise you still needed one to get into Australia'

Despite it all you have to smile, it's all about racial equality but you know what George Orwell said in 1984!!

108

www.scottwebb.co.uk.,

09/03/2007 03:09:21

Comment@108 The Wizard, hi mate.....He He.....nice one....................as for George Orwell, when you start working out the real world........he was telling us what we were already in :)

109

www.scottwebb.co.uk.,

09/03/2007 04:18:43
110

www.scottwebb.co.uk.,

09/03/2007 04:30:40
111

fearghus,

Antipodes 09/03/2007 09:11:27

Robbie Burns once said "such a parcel of rogues in a nation" - who do you think he was referring too ?
Vote SNP and get the light of day in those dark closets, otherwise you get what should be unwilling to sacrifice & your Scots Heritage to boot. *****Alba Gu Brath ! *****

112

Gwnefyr,

www.nowherenearabetterworld.com 09/03/2007 11:18:21

www.scottwebb.co.uk,
Thank you for refreshing our memories and the polluted world since then an idealist man,J.F.K.Young generations need to know about him from his own words.
Thank you for a clean copy of J.F.K.speech as the original copy also.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS7l6i4w11U&mode=relat...=

How much we miss to see a president of USA in a trustworthy personality as Kennedy,since Kennedy.Brave and real he was.Always to be admired.

113

AG.,

Scotia 09/03/2007 13:55:23

If we EVER did get a transparent government it would be a first.

114

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 09/03/2007 15:20:18

#117 G. Scotia

Never.
Our Governments are too secretive
Even if they opened just some of their departments it would be a step forward but i doubt this will happen.
Crown Office and Archives have told me i have to wait 75 Years to view documents pertinent to my appeal to SCCRC.
Does this mean i will have to leave a will for my Grandchildren to retrieve these documents them Appeal to SCCRC once i am dead???????
What a Joke this FOI has turned out to be eh????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4

115

Jiimpoo,

Tillietudlem 09/03/2007 15:34:39

Guje, Annie's mother,

You should contact your own Member of Parliament/ Deputy in Sweden and have him/her lodge a complaint through Swedish diplomatic channels

Presumably you have made an enquiry via the
freedom of information provisions of Strathclyde Police
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=251&...

116

Wullie Coyle,

down south 09/03/2007 16:25:11

I woulld hazard a call " IS ANYBODY OUT THERE?"But i am feart that i might a reply


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.