Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSP's parliamentary ban over McKie document leak

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
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: 21 September 2006
MIKE Pringle, a Liberal Democrat MSP, is to be banned from all meetings of the parliament for a week as a punishment for leaking confidential papers to a Sunday newspaper.
Mr Pringle admitted to leaking documents related to the Shirley McKie fingerprint case from the justice 1 committee.

The standards committee of the parliament met last night to decide his punishment.

The MSPs decided to recommend to the parli
amentary authorities that Mr Pringle should be barred from all meetings of the parliament and its committees for a week.

The MSPs also recommended that Mr Pringle, the MSP for Edinburgh South, offer a full apology to the parliament and "consider his position" on the justice 1 committee.

He will still be able to come to the parliament, he will still be paid and he will still be able to use his office.

Mr Pringle apologised to the committee in a written statement. He said: "I am deeply sorry if this has caused any offence. It was certainly not my intention to do so. I do not believe I have broken the code of conduct."

The complaint against Mr Pringle was lodged by Robert Mackenzie, deputy head of the Glasgow bureau of the Scottish Fingerprint Service. He complained that submissions, which had been made by him and by some of his colleagues to the committee in private, had appeared in Scotland on Sunday.



The full article contains 255 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Ted,

21/09/2006 00:32:42

Why not ban him until the good people of Edinburgh South have rejected him at the next election? That way we won't have to hear any more of his cant..

2

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 21/09/2006 00:39:51

No wonder Shirley McKie has had so many years of battling against what happened to her, when all those at the top want to keep the truth buttoned up and kept out of public gaze.

If there were a few more leaks from the Parliament on Parliamentary workings, & injustices like the McKie case, oh what things we would see to widen our eyes ...

3

mr chips,

glasgow 21/09/2006 07:20:52

MIKE Pringle Liberal Democrat MSP,/So he is not allowed in the playground for a week .How pathetic these narrow minded wee brainless folk are who call themsesves msp,s.The message from the numpty,s at folyrood is, dare dare tell, and we wont play with you for a week, how sad it that.

4

Paul,

21/09/2006 08:12:35

Peter, another take on this may be that the reason the SCRO officers have had such a hard time is when people such as Mike Pringle have abused their position and breifed the media against them.

Pringles behaviour undermines his impartiality at Justice 1 (at present he still has a vote, this may change) and undermines the confidence that people may have in the committees workings.

Christ knows what he thought he was playing at.

The Mackay report seems to be the jewell in the McKie campaigns crown, 'criminality' they shout.

It's worth remembering that an allegation is not the same thing as proof; the allegations have been refuted elsewhere (notably by John Macleod)

The Mackay report isn't the big thing that the McKie campaign thinks it is, for these reasons:

1. James Mackay declined to offer any evidence to support, what was essentially merely his opinion.

2. James Mackay declined to justify, defend or expand upon his report when he appeared at Justice One.

3. James Mackay was writing with what has often been called a mindset. According to the SCRO officers he took little or no regard of their precognitions;

The transcript of the the 26/06 J1 illustrates this, here:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/jus...


4. The precis has been corrupted, showing clear bias towards the McKie side of events, submissions to Justice 1 have made it in but the conclusions have not been ammended;

Full transcript of 12/09 is here:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/jus...

5. One could argue that what remains of the Mackay Report is actually more damaging to those against the SCRO identification:

- We learn of the 1993 Palm Print incid

5

mr chips,

edin 21/09/2006 08:19:33

4. Paul / RUBBISH.

6

Roy,

21/09/2006 08:21:47

Sounds like he has been rewarded with a week's paid holiday!

7

freetalkscotland,

21/09/2006 08:50:53

It is wholly inappropriate of him to be leaking details during the course of an enquiry - and enabling the public to enjoy a partially-informed trial by media.

The time to do it is AFTER the report has been issued.


freetalkscotland - THE forum from Scotland for serious discussion and light chat

8

CHIC,

Ayr 21/09/2006 09:55:45

findlay#4

Another thorough response from a McKie supporter, thankyou for your insight.

Both this newspaper and its sister Scotland on Sunday have been at the front of a one-sided media campaign against the SCRO.

Mr Pringle abused his position to leak documents to a proven anti-SCRO newspaper. We may never know if he is a fully signed-up McKie supporter like Bruce McPhee or if he is just protecting Lib-Dem ministers interests.

Before the usual suspects rush in to comment on my last point I would suggest you read the many hours of Justice Committee transcripts and you will see that Mr Pringle hasn't asked one question which is critical of the McKie's or their supporters. All he has done is attempted to show the SCRO officers and their supporters at fault. I say 'attempted' because in my opinion he has failed. Again I ask read the transcripts.

To further support my claim that there has been a one-sided campaign I would like to draw you attention to last weeks Scotsman article

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1350532006

Mr McKie has claimed on his website that it is his policy to post any articles or reports which are related Shirley. Wether they support her or the SCRO.
Despite a number of articles appearing on his website in the last seven days he has censored the above. Some of the posts from myself and others have been highly critical of the McKies and their supporters.

All I ask is that is that before commenting with a 'poor Shirley' you read into the FACTS and dont rely on what you hear in the media.

Then contact your MSP and demand a Judicial Inquiry, from the correct perspective.

9

Paul,

21/09/2006 10:13:46

On Iain McKies website today:

"Once again the 'whistleblower' suffers and the guilty escape."

I wonder if this is the working title for his book?

10

Searchlight,

Tayside 21/09/2006 10:34:38

Paul (4) I agree with much of what you say. However I would quibble with one point. You state
1. James Mackay declined to offer any evidence to support, what was essentially merely his opinion.
In actual fact Paul it was Iain McKie's opinion. MacKay admitted this in his limited evidence to Justice 1. Like so many of McKie's ‘opinions’ it has been thoroughly trashed by the facts.
It’s also worth noting that the document turned up on Pringle’s desk after McKie was forced to remove it from his website. It would have too obvious, even by McKie standards, for McFee or Stevenson to have ‘found’ it. In any event there is nothing in the MacKay Report that would stand up to scrutiny that is damaging to the SCRO case.

11

CHIC,

Ayr 21/09/2006 10:35:54

Paul#9

"Once again the 'whistleblower' suffers and the guilty escape."

Iain McKie is quite correct, Shirley and David Asbury have escaped.

As for 'whistleblower' is Mr McKie concerned that the Justice Inquiry is not going to find in favour of his daughter?
What could they have heard that the public have not?

I repeat, before recycling the headlines read in to this case to find out the truth.

12

Searchlight,

Kilmarnock 21/09/2006 10:54:27

David, the McKie's can't afford a public inquiry. There is no way Shirley McKie or her father could give evidence under oath given all that Justice I has uncovered. The McKie's and their supporters. The McKie's had every opportunith for a judicial inquiry in Fenbruary but Shirley decide to take the money and scuttle off into the sunset. Unfortunately her vindictive father could not shut up. Let me reiterate the points already made, where evidence has been taken from all parties every single inquiry, hearing, investigation into this affair has dismissed the McKie's allegations and cleared the SCRO experts of any wrongdoing. Lords Emslie & Hodge, PF William Gilchrist, Chair of Employment Trinubals (Scotland) Doris Littlejohn, etc etc etc. Even David 'sackem' Mulhern, on Newsnight Scotland, admitted they have done nothing wrong.

13

CHIC,

Ayr 21/09/2006 10:55:20

David#12

I am merely trying to point out that the media would have us believe that an inquiry is demand for the sake of 'poor shirley'.

There is another side to the story.

Unlike some I cant sit at a PC all day, so I will check this thread later this evening.

14

mr chips,

glasgow 21/09/2006 11:03:40

The truth will never be known unless there is a judicial inquiry,there will not be a judicial enquiry because the executive dont want one.the question is why not, what are they hiding.

15

Anthony,

Glasgow 21/09/2006 11:45:21

Once again the Scottish Parliament sells us all short on so-called 'open government'. There are far too many hidden documents in this and other cases. And the person behind it all seems to consistently be the Lord Advocate, the head of the prosecution service.

The cover-up motive to protect Boyd is so strong that you can easily predict what is going to happen in this sequence. Expect the fingerprint experts behind this debacle, to get just enough of a sweetener to persuade them not to take matters to an employment tribunal on grounds of unfair dismissal resulting from constructive dismissal. Why? Because being officially a court of law, an employment tribunal would have the power to compel the Lord Advocate to submit all documentation - the very reason he recommended capitulation to Shirley McKie. This all comes back to protecting the Lord Advocate and the legal establishment who are responsible for numerous miscarriages of justice, which they are perfectly well aware of, and are desperate to conceal.

16

Paul,

21/09/2006 12:16:29

David (16) With the exception of the murder victim which of the principle figures are dead?

You are right, if the choice was take £3/4 of a million pounds of taxpayers money or face some difficult questioning under oath, it's not difficult is it?
Even if it means you blow the chance you apparantly so crave to clear your name?

However, I think where the bad taste is left is when there is a murderer walking about unpunished.

There is more of a bad taste when people get forced out of their jobs even though there is no credible proof of any mistake or wrong doing.

I almost agree with Anthony (17) in that the SCRO folks and Shirley McKie are pawns in this whole thing, however I do beleive that the SCRO folks are principled enough to put the truth over a pay-off.

Enough of the X-Files/All the Presidents men territory, the very simple truth is still out there.

17

Paul,

21/09/2006 12:54:37

Suddenly it all makes sense:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1387412006

Maybe if the LibDems or the electorate kick him out he'll get McFee's old seat?

All this on the day that Simon Hughes was singing the praises of the Scottish Lib Dems. As any comedian knows, it's all about timing.

18

Searchlight,

21/09/2006 17:49:57

You're dead right Anthony, this is all about protecting Colin Boyd. However the Executive is up the proverbial gum tree if they think paying off the SCRO six (even if they did except) would end this matter. Too many other people, Peter Swann, Malcolm Graham, Mike Pass, and numerous others would have to be paid off as well. Somehow I don't see that happening. Let’s hope Justice 1 finds the little bit courage it needs to come and say, what everybody now knows “Mark Y7 was left by Shirley McKie!” That would bring end this matter closer, restore the reputation of SCRO and reinstate a little faith in the Scottish Justice System.

19

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 21/09/2006 18:44:38

I totally agree with you, Anthony #17 , this is all about protecting the legal eagles who barter justice & people's lives behind closed doors, and who idly stand by in so many other cases of injustice, knowing the extent of the wrongs, but doing nothing to correct them.

The SCRO and McKie are the pawns here - that's for sure.

As for Pringle - well, msps & parliamentary staff regularly brief journalists in all kinds of ways, some of which could be contstrued as leaks .. but it seems that in this case, Pringle's leak merited a more severe punishment than, say .. an msp fiddling their expenses declarations .. or engaging in activities yet to be published ...

I'd say that is inconsistent with transparency, but certainly constistent in this whole twisted mess of the McKie case.

As for a 'judicial inquiry' - given the record of such, I don't think many people would believe it's outcome anyway .. and who would they appoint to head it ? may as well be the Lord Advocate himself - as there's too much at stake here for some at the top.

20

Searchlight,

22/09/2006 10:07:15

Peter (21) I don't think the McKies are pawns in this 'whole twisted mess'. If Shirley had not left her in print in Marion Ross's house we wouldn't be here today, if Iain McKie had not orchestrated a vicious and vindictive media campaign, we would not be here today, if the McKies would have taken their opportunity to have this issue heard in court in February we would not be here today. The McKies are far from pawns.
You ask who could chair such an enquiry? What about Lord Wheatley? He was until recently the McKie's favourite judge, the SNP have decribed him as 'Scotland's top judge', and the SCRO experts and their ever growing number of supporters would, I'm sure, welcome him.

21

Paul,

22/09/2006 10:07:46

Colin Boyd's opinion on the chances of a judicial enquiry are stated here:

http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/02/17145234

"As long ago as 1959, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Harold McMillan, explained the position of the Lord Advocate to the House of Commons, making it clear that the decision as to whether any citizen should be prosecuted, or whether any prosecution should be discontinued, should be a matter for the prosecuting authorities to decide on the merits of the case without political or other pressure. He stressed that it would be a most dangerous deviation from this sound principle if a prosecution were to be instituted or abandoned as a result of political pressure or popular clamour."

It seems that Shirley, or rather her pop, & their Nationalist acolytes can be seen to make all the noise in the world, safe in the knowledge there is never going to be one (under Colin Boyd at least)

22

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 22/09/2006 20:05:01

No one takes on HMG and gets away with it, unless there's something to hide .. and there's plenty to hide & plenty to lose, for people a lot higher up the ladder than the McKies.

Maybe the rest of those who suffer injustice at the hands of Scottish law should take up the same tactics - after all, there are thousands of cases out there deserving of intervention by the Executive to resolve matters.

As another said - if the Executive hadn't intervened & offered the payment to the McKies - Shirley would probably have received nothing, as negligence is so difficult to prove in Scots Law - because no one in high places wants to see anyone have to admit to it, or be convicted of it.

Hence - no inquiry will ever take place - at least not one which will ever find anyone negligent.

23

Paul,

23/09/2006 10:17:57

How can negligence be found where there is none?
Remember the facts here Peter, the officers have been cleared.

You could argue negligence on the part of Cathy Jamieson who only took one expert opinion as her basis for the pay-out to mckie.

You could argue that the same expert (John Macleod) was negligent by putting his weight behind a ferocious campaign by Iain McKie and Alex Neil to close the SCRO, even more negligent given that he got it wrong (and had to apologise)

If you ever visit a crime scene you're not supposed to be at Peter, keep your hands in your pocket, neglecting to do this might just land you in a spot of bother.

24

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 23/09/2006 18:24:46

It doesn't seem that anyone has looked for negligence - hence none has been found, and even if it was, I don't think anyone would ever be held to be negligent at the SCRO - think of the implications it could & should have on criminal convictions using evidence from those found to be negligent.

After all, we have already been told the US Authorities took an interest in this case, on the basis it may have caused concern to the prosecution of the Lockerbie case under Scots Law .. which in turn seemed to have the effect of 'slowing down' any resolution to the McKie case.

Why ? were they afraid that if the SCRO were found negligent, it may put Scots Law in a less than shiny light for the Lockerbie conviction ?

Paul, I would never visit the scene of a crime. I'm not a Policeman .. but if we are still talking negligence, maybe whoever was in charge of the crime scene was negligent in allowing anyone other than officers cleared to be there, inside the area, if such an incident occurred.

I think we shouldn't suppose Ministers can act on their own to make decisions. That much is clear from other things 'on the go' in the Executive's Justice Department just now.

There are more forces at play here than just Cathy Jamieson taking a decision to pay out Shirley McKie .. but if that ever comes out, is another matter - and getting back to the original topic - it was wrong of the Parliament to kick out Pringle for a week, when others have been a lot less respective of the Parliamentary process & honesty towards the public, than he was, in his admittedly, indiscreet leak.

After all, there are plenty people who had & read what Pringle had, before he leaked it - so no big deal really, not enough to merit the sanction against him, so I would be looking at ulterior motives for that ...

25

Paul,

23/09/2006 21:43:53

Mike Pringle, as part of the SCRO, had questioned people in quite unfriendly terms about their integrity, their honesty and whether or not their actions were the result of malice.

Given that Mike Pringle maliciously & dishonestly compromised the integrity of the justice 1 committee do you not think it right that he recieve this mild reprimand. The commitee hears items in private for a reason.

This whole case has been trial by media from day 1, he fed that. If you were on the receiving end of this rough justice would you be quite so sanguine? I think not.

Re, the crime scene negligence, yes, Colin Boyd told the committee he knew of five cases where whoever was keeping the log was negligent.

There are number of investigators (Lords Emslie & Hodge, PF William Gilchrist, Chair of Employment Trinubals, Doris Littlejohn) who have looked for negligence and found none, the officers concerned had their work checked a year either side of the y7 identification, no negligence was found.

The bottom line is that Mr. Pringle will loose a week in Parliament, the SCRO officers have already lost a lot, we heard on the same day of the last Justice 1 evidence that they were being forced out of their jobs.

The family of Marion Ross have lost justice, Marion Ross lost her life when she let somebody she knew into her home.
The lockerbie 'connection' is an absolute red herring.
Enough of X-files.

Shirley McKie either walked the 25 feet from the front door of 43 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock, had a wee peek, or she didn't.

Have a good look at Pat Wertheim evidence (the evidence that got her off, and got Asbury out of Jail) have a look at the twisting on the tenprint, have a look at the scratches down the latent, follow Peter Swanns advice on Plain vs Rolled, then tell me what you think, until then, I'm really not interested.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Shirley McKie fingerprint case

More Shirley McKie fingerprint case >>

More Liberal Democrats

More Liberal Democrats >>

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



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.