[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Kevin McKenna in today's edition of The Observer. It reads in part:]
It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when we became a nation of puritanical witch-finders. Perhaps we always have been. (...)
An unwanted by-product of devolution and the establishment of the parliament at Holyrood has been an insidious and nasty new puritanism. The gentlemen and ladies of the press, those fearless upholders and arbiters of morality, decency and all that is virtuous in the land, are constantly awake, looking for evidence of public servants failing to live up to the high moral standards that our newspapers have set.
MSPs of all parties, eager not to appear lacking in moral fibre and backbone, join in the chorus: "Kill the witch"!
Last week it was Nicola Sturgeon's turn to wear the black, pointy hat. The health secretary and MSP for Glasgow Govan had written to a sheriff asking him to show clemency to one of her constituents, Mr Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of an £80,000 benefits fraud. Despite the fact that this individual had had a previous conviction for benefits fraud 14 years ago, she asked that he be given a non-custodial sentence and cited Rauf's serious illness and his work in the community.
Sturgeon will have been mindful that her primary parliamentary duty is to each of her constituents' needs when Mr Rauf approached her. She has not broken any law, nor has she stood to gain directly or indirectly from her action. Indeed she may even have had a presentiment of the moral firestorm her intervention would provoke, but felt unable nevertheless to break her bond of trust, as an elected member of parliament to those who voted for her.
Her letter to Sheriff Alan McKenzie at Glasgow Sheriff Court merely appealed to compassion, forgiveness and charity. These were the same virtues cited by her colleague, the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill last September when he chose to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Al-Megrahi is dying of cancer and the justice secretary simply felt that, in the circumstances, it was right and proper to transfer him to Libya to spend what remains of his life there. MacAskill's decision was what we ought to expect of an enlightened and compassionate society that seeks, whenever possible, to avoid vengeance. Ms Sturgeon's request is cast from the same mould. And, in any event, it would not unduly influence an experienced and good sheriff.
[Nicola Sturgeon MSP is Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government.]
Well, she turned me into a newt!
ReplyDelete...
I got better.
There's a little wrinkle not in the article posted.
ReplyDeleteMr. Rauf's defence solicitor is one Donald Findlay. Arch-Tory and vitriolic SNP-hater. Now, one does rather wonder what motivated Mr. Rauf to ask Nicola for her plea in mitigation. (And make no mistake, it was a plea in mitigation, not a character reference.) Did he think of it all by his own little self, perhaps motivated by the memory of some other good turn Nicola had done him in the past? Really? Or was it perhaps that his solicitor suggested the idea to him?
I rather think the latter. I rather think Donald Findlay suggested to Mr. Rauf that he ask Nicola for this reference. I wonder how many clients of his who are Nicola's constituents he actually suggested this to, before someone finally did it, and Nicola obliged with a sufficiently positive reply?
How do you think the press got hold of this letter in the first place? Mr. Rauf's defence solicitor fell on it with glee and made the most of it. His solicitor, Donald Findlay, the rabid Tory SNP-hater.
Nicola was set up.
Rolfe, that sounds like an important addition. Can anyone else who knows more than me about Scottish politics and law confirm or deny or anything? Or even explain the significance?
ReplyDelete(sorry, I have some kind of disorder I think)
Look at the first letter on this page.
ReplyDeleteThat's a hostile letter, but it conveniently highlights Donald Findlay's role in all this. In the printed paper there was an absolutely hilarious photo with it, of Findlay looking as if he'd just bitten on a chilli pepper.
Findlay's political sympathies are public knowledge. As are his flamboyant ways and habit of sailing close to the wind. Ah yes, there is a Wikipedia page describing all this.
It's not rocket science.
Actually, if I was an investigative journalist, I might try to find evidence that our Donald had made this suggestion to other clients of his who were up before the beak on reprehensible charges of which they were undoubtedly guilty. He has plenty clients like that, it's his speciality. Sopay Sam commented ages ago that if you're innocent you get Joe Beltrami and if you're guilty you get Donald Findlay (I thought you got the former if you were a Catholic and the latter if you were a Protestant but that's clearly too simplistic....).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think he suggested the idea to Mr. Rauf, then leaked the letter. I think he did it deliberately, and that he probably tried a number of clients with the suggestion before he hit paydirt.
I bet the evidence is there if someone were to dig for it.
You know that "hostile" letter I mentioned above? Well, two separate letters in today's paper point out that the author somehow forgot to mention that he's a Labour Party parliamentary candidate.
ReplyDeleteIt's totally political, and entirely manufactured to damage the unassailable Nicola Sturgeon. I was tempted to point this out in a letter to the Herald myself, but what's the point. I'm not the only person who can add two and two. If they haven't published it already, it's because they don't fancy Findlay coming after them for defamation.
I'd love to find some actual evidence.