I've not had a chance to see David Cameron's speech at the Scottish Tory Conference but I did learn that he mentioned Annabel Goldie nor David Mundell in his speech which is either tactless, revealing or both. It is also clear that he has waded into the row over Nicola Sturgeon's character reference letter for Abdul Rauf.
David Cameron says that the Deputy First Minister faces "serious questions" over the affair.
It makes me wonder therefore why Tory MP and former Cabinet Minister David Gummer didn't face those same "serious questions" when he wrote a character reference for an Austrian count accused of paying bribes for the arms giant BAE.
Labour, of course, have been all over this story like an angry rash, seemingly undaunted by the fact that the party's leader Gordon Brown once wrote a similar character reference letter to a chap growing £10,000 of cannabis at his home.
However, maybe the revelation that former First Minister Jack McConnell wrote a letter in relation to two "thugs" who terrorised a nurse may make them think twice, particularly as the case was quickly dropped soon after the letter was received.
Furthermore, Nicola Sturgeon's letter was published for all to see and deemed by those in the know as perfectly fair, certainly part and parcel of Nicola's job as a constituency MP.
As for Jack McConnell's letter, according to the Daily Mail article the details never materialised despite being promised:
Mr McConnell's aides insisted that, in doing this, they had simply ' passed on' the concerns of Mr McKee to the police. But with the refusal to release the letter, there was growing suspicion last night that Mr McConnell may have something to hide.
So two former Labour leaders and a former Tory Cabinet Minister write character reference letters and/or involve themselves in court cases at the request of a constituent and it's ok. An SNP MSP does it and she faces "serious questions", calls to resign and a media grilling to within an inch of her political life.
Scotland - pure dead brilliant.
Salmond vs Trump
1 minute ago
40 comments:
If the scottish media want to understand the 'cybernat' phenomenon, they need look no further than their own grubby articles and compare them with the UK media.
I thought David Cameron was actually quite fair to Nicola when he said that, of course you have to take up cases that are disagreeable to you.
He questioned her appealing (or advising, as he wrongfully put it)a non custodial sentence, but then you would expect that from a Tory.
He did not in any way question her taking the case up. He talked about ''having'' to take up the case of a prisoner oversees because you've got to do it.
He actually backed up Ms Sturgeon's case, I suspect completely deliberately, as he has seen Labour have made a mistake.
I think Cameron is smarter than I have taken him for, on this at least.
This ia foretaste of how the Labour party will be fighting the election(s) in Scotland.
They are desperate and lashing out all over the place on their descent into the wilderness.
I don't think we should use this as a negative for 'Scotland' as a whole Jeff.
I think Scottish Labour and their media cronies are simply the last remnants of an old Scotland, a dying Scotland that will soon be no more.
I didn't realise that Observer, thanks for the clarification. As I say, I'm only going by the headlines so I'm struggling to reconcile your take on it with the BBC's for example.
I had a wee go at picking apart Cameron's language over the last few days. It just confirms what Scots already know: he's a policy-less hypocrite.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sturgeon-has-serious-questions-to-answer-says-cameron-1.1006216
The Herald played it as a negative story Jeff, but if you read it, it was actually quite positive.
I agree with Cameron to a certain extent that now confidential information has come into the public domain it needs to be explained. I also think *how* confidential information came into the public domain needs to be explained.
But I agree with you that this is little politics. Just don't know how best the SNP fight it, as in reality they haven't started it.
I said a few days ago there would be "wailing and gnashing" of teeth by the SNP, looks like my prediction came true.
Problem is that the SNP haven't yet fully worked out that with Government comes responsibility, whether fair or not. Some times you just have to admit you got it wrong.
Since the SNP haven't done this it drags on and on.
It's not a resigning matter as dull Gray asserts just a political "opportunity"
If this is simply a 'charachter reference', as you suggest, how well does Nicola know his character?
And what made this convicted fraudster believe she would write such a letter?
Jeff, stand back and look at the whole picture here. This is a very valid story for the media to cover right now. And yes, its equally valid for the opposition parties to do their jobs by demanding answers.
And the fact that the SNP are desperately digging up old stories about politicians from other parties doesn't vindicate Sturgeon on this matter at all. The line that 'they are all at it' is not a credible defence here.
And the reason that these other politicians can even be brought into this row as other examples clearly shows that it was a story and an issue for them in the media at that time too.
I think the SNP media operation have handled this situation badly to be honest, and they have not yet closed the story down. Sturgeon will have to address Holyrood on the matter too. This whole mess was down to someone along the line not doing their homework properly, and possible forgetting to remember that Sturgeon is now a Minister in government. Its not always fair to the politician in charge, but being the boss and taking the salary reflects the responsibilities that entails. That is where the buck stops. And now having caught up with the details of the previous conviction and the Sturgeon's letter, she has been very foolish indeed to even touch this.
Cameron was actually very fair today, but Sturgeon does have questions to answer. So there is no point trying to take a rather silly pop at him through Goldie and Mundell. Tom Harris also points out the pitfalls and why he doesn't touch these cases.
I would not have handled the situation in this way, and trying to spray the mud around does not reflect well on those involved. Its the oldest trick in the Labour handbook as well.
Now either the SNP are being naive or arrogant, might be a bit of both. They are now the party in power, and that means they have to be that bit more careful, and as its their first time they should get some brownie points if they behave in a more decent way by taking responsibility, but they are in danger of blowing that.
And when the SNP government or its politicians make a mistake, and they will because all politicians and governments do that, grow a pair and don't immediately scream that the opposition parties or the media are being beastly. Go ask Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown or any number of their fallen Ministers about being in the eye of the political storm.
Power brings responsibility, and responsibility brings accountability. And also, the bigger damage being caused by this is not to Sturgeon's career, its to the current SNP government. The public want look at the minutiae of the this issue, they will simple see that the SNP are being soft on crime and custodial sentences. That for me has been the underlying message being portrayed, and the bigger danger for the SNP too.
Not yet seen one of you bring that up or even recognise it as the bigger collateral damage of this story continuing to run in the media. Take Gummer, no doubted that his party were tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
Oops, not trying to tell Jeff to grow a pair, but the SNP government instead. Don't want one of my favourite Scottish bloggers to think I am having a go at him. Sorry.
Oh, yes. McConnell having done the same in 2003 is ancient history. Must be since Fitaloon doesn't want it brought up. How dare the SNP "dig it up" and McConnell's hypocrisy in saying he would fire someone who did exactly what HE did. How desperate. Ha. Someone certainly looks desperate and it isn't the SNP.
That he did so isn't "spraying mud" by the way. It is simply a fact. The only mud spraying is from his hypocrisy in attacking someone for doing what he himself has done.
And someone want to tell me where there is a "character reference" in that letter? Anyone who calls that a charcter reference either didn't read it or is twisting the facts. There is not a single hint that he has a good character, to the contrary. The points made have entirely to do with restitution, his health and his family.
Fitalass
A perplexing view from what you have written.
If I understand you right if other politicians had commited a murder which had been swept under the carpet by the media the present one carries the can for GBH because of the political party they stand for, I am sorry I don't buy that. A misdameaner whenever commited has to be taken on its severity not when or by who but on an even surface not governed by timescale or political allegiance.
Conman apologises to Nicola Sturgeon over letter row
Sunday Mail
Dad-of-five Rauf, 59, said yesterday: "The letter was a perfectly innocent request for help from my local MSP.
"I am sorry if this has caused her any embarrassment.
"I would not like anyone's job or reputation to be tarnished by my request. I could not have imagined when I made the request for the letter in July 2008 that it would cause such a media storm.
Rauf claimed he had no previous involvement with Sturgeon and had simply asked her for help at constituency surgeries.
It is understood that he was knocked back by at least two other politicians from whom he sought help.
Rauf claims he has never contributed to SNP campaigns.
Sturgeon's spokesman said: "Mr Rauf is neither a member nor donor to the SNP, nor even a member of Scots Asians for Independence."
Excellent, I see the Herald has felt the need to defend itself again about it's angle on these stories - you can tell their desperate by the insertion of words like 'lobbyists' of which there has been none and by it's inability to 'ask questions'. instead it has sought to muddy the waters in true red top fashion.
Quite a fall for a once great paper, is it any wonder it's losing readers in droves, who wants to read propaganda and trivial stuff like this when less than two weeks ago they wre all squeeming that its the 'economy' stupid.
Their plea should be read with the contempt it deserves, this isn't holding the Government to account, it's furthering Labour's stated strategy of targeting ministers and calling for resignations.
As a SNP supporter and voter I agree with fitalass 100% - it saved me a lot of typing. I will be watching very closely to what Nicola has to say in her statement to Parliament. My vote in the general election may well count on it and it's not looking to good at present.
To give a character reference, you MUST be in a position to KNOW the character. To ask for a non-custodial sentence for someone who has almost repeated a crime which he had served a hefty prison sentence previously is BEYOND the call of duty.
Jeff
A point that no-one has raised yet, as far as I can see - unless Rauf admitted it himself, Ms Sturgeon would not have known that he had a previous conviction. She would have had no (legal) way of finding that out. I can see why the SNP haven't made that argument - it sounds a bit lame - but it's true.
This affair may seem damaging for the SNP but actually it isn't - anyone with half a brain can see that Labour's bluff and bluster is indicative of sheer desperation, and desperation isn't attractive.
Finally, I am amused to see some commentators drawing a moral equivalence between this affair and the Wendy Alexander donation. Those people would do well to remember that Wendy committed a crime when she accepted a donation from outside the UK - a criminal offence. Not some minor error of judgement, but A CRIME.
She is damn lucky that she wasn't the one needing a character reference from her MSP!
CC
"As a SNP supporter and voter" Liar Liar pants on fire
"drawing a moral equivalence between this affair and the Wendy Alexander donation"
That's what's at the core of this, Labour are still stinging from it and in their heart of hearts don't believe that Wendy did anything wrong.
Infact, it was illegal what she did.
Unlike Sturgeon's, which although some may call into question her judgement, as they did with MacKaskill over Megrahi, the facts speak for themselves.
The fact that so many articles on this fail to mention the wording of the letter in it;s full context is symptomatic of the 'pretendy' mass media that we have here in Scotland.
Quite frankly, their 'scandals' are cringeworthy.
Hiya!
(Just wanted to say hello to the Labour spooks monitoring this page.)
Fitalass:
The SNP aren't digging up old stories, the nasty cybernats are. The stories may have made the news but I recall none as being classed as resigning matters or being used day after day to try and bring an MSP down. I certainly don't think the SNP should use previous letters to court from other parties as any justification for Nicola's actions. What she should do is stand before the Parliament and say, "I am a constituency MSP, I have read the code of conduct for MSP's which obviously a lot of you haven't and if you don't like the fact that I am willing to go that extra mile for my constituents then go FY." In more parliamentary language of course.
It's interesting that the opposition focus on the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is a Minister in the Scottish Government as a reason for her not to write the letter. It raises an interesting point. How can a Minister act as a constituency MP if they cannot deal with constituency matters because they are a Minister? Are the opposition saying that constituents in a Minister's constituency should expect a lower level of response to their problems than would be expected where the MSP is not a Minister? Either a Minister can serve their constituents acting as a normal MSP or some other mechanism should be in there where someone else handles their constituency work in order that the constituents get the same level of response as other non-Ministerial constituencies. As usual the opposition haven't thought through the ramifications behind their desperate attempts to try and claim a ministerial scalp from within the SNP Government.
Cameron's quote that Sturgeon has, "questions to answer", is the classic vapid empty soundbite. What questions? She's broken no laws, parliamentary codes or legal procedures. There's lots of shouting about poor judgment and mistakes but just because the opposition shout about it doesn't make it true.
The most interesting part of the whole affair is not who has complained about Nicola Sturgeon's letter but who hasn't.
1. The Judge hasn't complained
2. The Procurator Fiscal hasn't complained
3. The Scottish Court Service hasn't complained.
4.And the Department of Work and Pensions hasn't complained.
Those who have complained are the opposition in Holyrood and the Press and regarding them as two separate items is like counting the eight legs on an octopus and declaring it as two four-legged animals. To define the boundary between the unionist opposition and the press is impossible.
The outrage, shouting and froth is not from those dealing with the case but from those who want to make political capital out of it. The unionists and the press hope that if they shout, "bad judgment", often enough no one will look at the facts in the case or the actual letter and believe what they say and parrot it.
I've always seen Nicola Sturgeon as an able and sure-footed politician who is a great asset to her party. However, she has certainly own-goaled in this matter.
I'm especially concerned that she describes an act of systematic fraud, presumably conducted in repeated actions over a period time as a "mistake". It was not a mistake, it was a crime. It's diminished my regard for NS, not irretrievably, but she has some reputation rebuilding to do IMHO.
The shame of it all is that the letter to the Court will have no effect one way or the other. I am sure that the Sheriff will disregard any submission to him in which a systematic crime involving a course of criminal conduct over a period of time is described as a "mistake" as being ill-thought out and lacking credibility.
>> but I did learn that he mentioned Annabel Goldie nor David Mundell in his speech
Shurely shomething elsh?
>> It makes me wonder therefore why Tory MP and former Cabinet Minister David Gummer didn't face those same "serious questions" when he wrote a character reference for an Austrian count accused of paying bribes for the arms giant BAE.
Gummer appears to have known Count Duckula for many years whereas Sturgeon's assertion that Rauf was well-known and connected amongst Glasgow Asians is being disputed by that same group.
>> Furthermore, Nicola Sturgeon's letter was published for all to see and deemed by those in the know as perfectly fair, certainly part and parcel of Nicola's job as a constituency MP.
I'm sorry, Jeff, it doesn't matter how often you say this, it is not going to become true. Sturgeon was not obliged to take up this case in the way she did... she chose to.
The nub of it, for me at least, is her description of this recividist's return to systematic criminality as "mistakes", and patent refusal to admit to a single error of judgment.
McConnell's defense of said two louts is even less excusable 'cos neither appear to have been his constituent. Then again, this is not simply another sectarian scrap over which party behaved worse, I hope.
I'm "aghast" McConnell wrote to two thugs.
Will Mcconnell's letter be released? Pigs might fly first.
And why did the witness not turn up, who talked them out of going?
Was it the police or the ongoing threat of violence from the thugs who McConnell knew?
I hope someone is digging, not that the dead tree press have any interest in why McConnell was aghast when he had committed far worse if the version in the public domain is to be believed.
So no proof from Wendy's emails, and no letter from Joke confirming he acted lawfully.
There are questions to be asked, I hope Joke has the answers.
Chance even for Glen Campbell to show he has grown a pair, but that will never happen either.
Taxi to nowhere for Campbell on May 6th the way he is going, and deservedly so.
To answer a few points with one comment. I don't think this or any similar decision should ever be an unthinking, unquestioning one. "duty", I am finding, is an ambiguous word.
In response to those attempting to distinguish between Alexander's technical criminal act and Sturgeon's misjudgment, I'll point out that the former hardly was Clay Davis (and antipathy from Fish-heid McMoonface predated it).
Well, if the latter's actions can be mitigated by the appeal of "Brown/McConnell/Gummer [1] were all doing it and, if we really really must be pressed, it was hardly Clay Davis", then so can this. What's sauce for the goose, and all that.
Furthermore, Count Duckula only was on remand. Rauf had already been convicted.
[1] Although, McConnell's letter is looking less and less defensible.
Alec, will Nicola have known about the previous conviction?should she have checked? Does a previous conviction make any difference anyway?
I'm a 'don't know' for all three.
Jeff, she did know:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scottishnationalparty/SNP-backs-Nicola-Sturgeon39s-.6062154.jp
And a previous conviction - especially one for a similar offense - jolly well does make a difference. It shows he was a recividist, and that even if five years of filing fraudulent monthly claims for his housing benefit could be classed as a "mistake", then doubt is cast on even that.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Exsheriff-clerk-jailed-for-130000.6063039.jp
Given that first-time offender Graeme Wilson has just been gaoled for defrauding Sterling Sheriff Court out of a similar amount to Rauf's second offense, I do think Rauf is going to receive a custodial sentence.
On the basis of the offence - and the fact that it is a second offence - the sheriff is bound to be thinking in terms of a custodial sentence.
Presumably that is why the letter was written asking for the court to conside alternatives to custody because Nicola Sturgeon knew that a custodial sentence was most likely.
People will have different opinions on that and fair enough, but we could probably debate penal policy till the end of time and no-one will change their position.
But what annoys me about the coverage of this case is that the press are determined to bring in other issues. It's a bit like the Megrahi issue in that sense - they can't accept that Kenny MacAskill decided to free Megrahi just because he did - there has to be some hidden reason for it. Just as there has to be a hidden reason why Nicola Sturgeon wrote the letter of support.
It's verging on racism in some parts without a doubt - particularly the suggestion that she did it to "curry" favour in the Asian community, as though Asian people are more predisposed to support a non custodial sentence for this kind of crime than anyone else. In reality I have no doubt that opinion in the Asian community is divided the same way as it is everywhere.
One thing that struck me however in today's coverage is that there seemed to be a contradiction between the idea that Nicola did what she did to "curry favour" and the description of Rauf as a virtual recluse. If he is indeed living as a recluse that is consistent with what Nicola Sturgeon said in her letter about "Mr Rauf has accepted his wrongdoing and has experienced the consequences of it through the effort on his health, the distress caused to his family and the impact on his standing in his community." However it is not consistent with the idea that the Asian community are somehow less inclined to look harshly on benefit fraud.
But then it's a waste of time expecting any consistency in these things I suppose.
PS: the word "effort" in the letter there should ne "effect" I presume.
What that tells me is that whoever released the letter only has a paper copy which has been scanned and saved as a pdf file using dodgy software - so whoever did it should maybe consider investing in a proper version of adobe acrobat!
I've sent the following FoI request to Iain Gray's office:
"Dear Mr Gray,
Under the general requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would be grateful if you would provide the following information:
1. Have you ever written a letter of support, a reference of good character, a recommendation of mercy or any submission in mitigation on behalf of or regarding any constituent or any other person to any judge, court official or any other law enforcement authority in the United Kingdom or abroad?
2. Have you ever written a letter of support or made any representations on behalf of anyone whom you know to be a member of the Labour Party in respect of any application for employment to any public body in the United Kingdom or abroad?"
Will be interesting to receive the answer.....
Why do you not just ask him when he last beat his wife, and be done with it, Tam? I am not aware of claims that Gray has done so (as opposed to McConnell), so this strikes simply as political filibustering.
It may have escaped your notice, but a great many of those objecting to Sturgeon's actions are no fans of the Labour party.
Why did Mr Cameron think that it was appropriate to mention a Scottish Parliament matter in his speech when he is not a member of that Parliament? Whether or not he was kind or fair to the DFM, it is a matter for us to decide in our parliament. Ms Goldie is more than adequately trained to deal with the situation, being herself a lawyer. Mr Cameron, par contre, has a politics degree.
It may seem petty but Westminster really should not be interfering with what goes on in Edinburgh, otherwise we may get the impression that Holyrood is only there for show.
Very interesting post Jeff
Alec,
I see no difference between a Red Unionist and a Blue Unionist.
http://gaziwa.freehost123.com http://xekoge.700megs.com http://pozec.sqweebs.com
зрелые дамы порно
http://vurohasu.sqweebs.com http://hverfa.700megs.com http://wosudaqi.freehostia.com
cкачать порно фильм бесплатно
best pix and video
So I returned home today to find a letter from Iain Gray on the doormat.
Refuses to answer my question.
I wonder if he's got something to hide.
Has Gray gone the same way as other criminal Labour politicians such as Wendy Alexander?
Tam: I suspect that you may have to wait a while for that answer. Mr Gray will be wanting to see his legal team before furnishing you with their answers to your questions...
Post a Comment