Car-crash interview exposes the rotting hypocrisy at the heart of the modern Greens. Think kicking out the co-founder is bad? It's about to get a LOT worse: PVO
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
MSPs weighing up Suzanne's Law should be clear on what it means
Introduced to Parliament more than two years ago, the Government and MSPs are considering final amendments to the legislation. This is the last chance for politicians and campaigners to shape the final flagship criminal justice reform of this SNP administration. One proposal featured prominently in the media last week. Sponsored by the new LibDem MSP Jamie Greene and backed by Victim Support Scotland, 'Suzanne's Law' would require the Parole Board to 'refuse killers parole if they withhold the location of their victims' bodies'. The amendment is named after Suzanne Pilley, who disappeared in 2010. David Gilroy was convicted of her murder in 2012 but remains tight-lipped about where her body might be. Relatives of Pilley and other families who have lost loved ones – and remain in the dark about where their bones are interred – gave a powerful press conference in Glasgow last week, describing the predicament as a 'form of mental torture'. READ MORE: 'Absolutely crazy': Scottish jazz artist scores new film by Hollywood director They argue the uncertainty about the fate of their loved ones makes that elusive thing – 'closure' – even more difficult to find. Homicide convictions are not common but have featured prominently in a number of high-profile documentaries from High Court murder trials in recent years. They range from the disappearance of Arlene Fraser and the subsequent prosecutions and convictions of her husband Nat in 2012, to Margaret Fleming's disappearance from Inverkip, resulting in the conviction of Edward Cairney and Avril Jones in 2019, despite the lack of a murder weapon, physical evidence proving how murder could have been committed or even physical evidence establishing that Fleming had passed away as a result of foul play. To understand this campaign, you need to understand something of the law as it currently applies. If someone is convicted of murder in Scotland, the court is required to hand down a life sentence. The judge sets what is normally called the 'punishment part' of the sentence, which is the minimum period of time the prisoner will remain in custody before being eligible to apply for parole. Decisions on whether or not to release life prisoners from custody are made by the Parole Board. The board is composed of a mixture of legal and criminal justice professionals and is independent of government. Their key role is to 'ensure that those prisoners who are no longer regarded as presenting a risk to public safety may serve the remainder of their sentence in the community on licence under the supervision of a supervising officer'. In taking these decisions, the Parole Board is concerned with risk to the public – not further punishment. News reports suggest that in response, Cabinet Secretary for Justice Angela Constance has accepted some kind of amendment to the parole rules which will require the board to treat non-disclosure of where a victim's remains might be found as a factor in decision-making. While details haven't been published, this would fall short of the principle of 'no body, no parole' requiring the Parole Board to automatically refuse to release a prisoner who won't provide information about what happened to their victim. This proposal has been met by some sceptical responses from parts of the legal world. The first argument is: there's no point in introducing laws like this. Speaking to the media last week, lawyers pointed out that Parole Board rules already direct them to consider whether or not the prisoner has revealed the whereabouts of their victim's body. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar blasted as 'hypocrite' after branding Benjamin Netanyahu 'war criminal' On Radio Scotland, advocate Edith Forrest rightly pointed to Rule 12 of the Parole Board Rules which already applies to parole hearings involving someone serving a life sentence for murder or culpable homicide. Where the Parole Board 'does not know where and how the victim's remains were disposed of' and believes the prisoner 'has information about where and how the victim's remains were disposed of' then it can take this into account in terms of deciding whether or not to release them on licence. This looks, as Forrest says, much like the rules which the Scottish Government is now proposing to add to the statute book. Holyrood has, yet again, been caught relegislating for things the law already deals with. Jamie Greene's response is he thinks 'it's important to get this stuff in black and white on the face of legislation'. But there are other reasons why MSPs would be wise to approach introducing rules like this carefully. As the name suggests, the whole campaign is premised on a particular scenario: a factually guilty person, behind bars, maliciously refusing to yield information about their victim's final resting place, presented as a form of coercive control beyond the grave, or as a further act of spite to rub salt into the wounds of families broken by grief. Presented in this way, who could reasonably object to the idea of keeping dangerous characters like this in custody? But try looking at the proposal from another angle. Try thinking of this not as Suzanne's Law but just as a law which will apply to all kinds of prisoners. While Greene's proposals might answer a sense of justice in one context, they are guaranteed to create more injustice in others. In the miscarriages of justice literature, this is sometimes called the 'innocent prisoner's dilemma'. Consider the case of Andy Malkinson, by way of illustration. Malkinson was convicted of rape in 2004. The conviction relied on the evidence of the victim, who picked Malkinson out of a life-up, saying she was '100% sure' he was the man. She was mistaken. He was convicted by majority verdict and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set the punishment part at six years and 125 days. Subsequent forensic re-examination of the victim's clothing found DNA matching the profile of another man on the national database. On the basis of this new evidence, the Court of Appeal in London finally quashed Malkinson's rape conviction as unsafe in the summer of 2023. He spent 17 years in custody. READ MORE: Former Knesset speaker urges '1 million Jews' to file Israel war crimes complaint Failures in the handling of Malkinson's case have now precipitated the collapse in the leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC is responsible for reviewing potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. But there was another step in the criminal justice process which helped keep Malkinson in custody for 17 years: the parole process. Although eligible to apply for release on license after spending six years and 125 days in custody, the Parole Board applied a principle like Suzanne's law to his case. In essence, it said: if you don't admit you did this, we're going to leave you in prison until you do. Rules like this demand of wrongfully convicted people an impossible question: which is more important to you, the truth or your liberty? Choose. As the Court of Appeal explained in its 2023 judgment vindicating Malkinson, 'throughout those many years', he 'adamantly maintained that he was innocent of the crimes and had been wrongly convicted'. And 'he did so in the knowledge that he was thereby delaying his release from prison' – for years, and years, and years. This is the innocent prisoner's dilemma. Malkinson described it as his catch-22. If he just admitted to committing the rape he was convicted of and went through the dishonest motions of engaging with the behavioural programmes in prison requiring him to reflect on his wrongdoing, he'd have been released from prison long before he was. If he refused, more years were guaranteed to pass him by, protesting his innocence in custody. Similar considerations apply to Suzanne's Law. You can't give the authorities information about a murder you did not commit. You cannot specify a deposition site if you didn't kill your victim. Given the small numbers of people involved, perhaps you're comfortable with a utilitarian calculus which sees a small number of innocent people like Andy Malkinson spending more time in custody for crimes they did not do, if it visits lengthier punishments on guilty men, determined to inflict a final twist of the knife on families they've already bereaved. In backing this campaign, that's the choice MSPs will be making.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Scottish Government officials delete files blasting its handling of Flamingo Land appeal
Correspondence criticising the conduct of Holyrood officials as 'unlawful' has been scrubbed, prompting claims of a 'cover-up'. The Scottish Government has scrubbed documents blasting its handling of a controversial Flamingo Land planning application for the banks of Loch Lomond. Correspondence criticising the conduct of Holyrood officials as 'unlawful' - which we reported last week - has since been deleted from the government's website. We have also seen a letter from Scotland's Chief Planner refusing to answer concerns from a lawyer over the legality of the appeal process. Our findings have raised fears of a 'cover-up' to approve the Yorkshire theme park operator's £43million resort in Balloch, West Dunbartonshire. Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer said: 'I am trying to keep some faith in this process, but it's getting pretty tough when the Scottish Government won't give a straight answer - and now they're just removing key documents without explanation. 'Officials can't wait until after the decision has been made before addressing our concerns. 'I raised serious concerns about whether this process is even lawful and the National Park Authority have also been ringing the alarm bell. 'My constituents in Balloch deserve an answer from their government here, otherwise this looks like a total cover-up.' The proposed holiday destination on the shores of the Bonnie Banks - which would see hotels, a water park, a monorail and more than 100 woodland lodges built within the National Park - was rejected by Loch Lomond chiefs last year. Holyrood officials then overturned this decision in May to green-light the project - only for SNP minister Ivan McKee to 'call in' the bid to consider it directly after an outcry from local campaigners. We told last week how Ian Cowan, an environmental lawyer representing Greer, had warned government planners their handling of the appeal could be illegal and 'tainted by bias'. He also questioned 'anomalies' in key documents published by officials which suggested they may have been falsified. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. However Cowan's letter has now been deleted from the government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) website - one of six files to be removed. Another letter by lawyers for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park which criticised the new process as 'highly unorthodox' has also been wiped off the website. Further correspondence by Balloch and Haldane Community Council which had slammed a lack of 'transparency and integrity' in the appeal process was deleted too. A spokesperson for the community council told the Sunday Mail: "We are deeply concerned by the DPEA's recent decision to remove from its website public representations that highlighted alleged breaches of Scottish Government guidelines and planning law. "These communications were submitted in good faith as part of a democratic process and reflected legitimate concerns... we call on the Scottish Government to ensure the DPEA immediately reinstates the removed letters and to provide a clear explanation for their removal. "Furthermore, we urge an independent review of how correspondence raising legal and procedural concerns is handled by the DPEA, to ensure that public voices are not silenced when they challenge those in power." The Scottish Government claimed the documents had been made public 'in error' without explaining further. The complaints centre around the reappointment of Reporter David Buylla to work the case for ministers - despite his initial decision to approve the resort - and a revised process allowing Flamingo Land to lead the writing of a sped-up draft planning agreement. In a letter responding to Cowan's concerns seen by the Sunday Mail, Scotland's Chief Planner Fiona Simpson said: The content of your letter has been noted. However, the Scottish Government does not intend to engage on the handling or merits of a live planning appeal.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'Some documents were published in the case file in error and this has now been corrected. 'The letter referred to from Mr Greer's legal representative has already been widely publicised and further documentation relating to the case will be published in due course.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Author of new Prince Andrew book: 'What most annoys him is his lack of a royal status'
The author of a new book about Prince Andrew has called for "more accountability from the Royal Family and more transparency" after encountering what he claims was considerable secrecy while researching his book. Andrew Lownie has spent four years working on Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York - a book unauthorised by Prince Andrew - and submitted hundreds of Freedom of Information requests to government departments. However, he's revealed to Sky News that all of his applications for information about Prince Andrew and his official work were knocked back. The royal household and the royal archive are already exempt from FoI requests. Speaking ahead of the book's publication, which has already attracted considerable attention because of more lurid claims about the duke, Mr Lownie told Sky News: "Clearly there are details that people have picked up on and run with. And you know, that's inevitable in these sort of books." But he added: "If they're to earn our trust and support, they have to show that they are not hiding things - that they are behaving well." Mr Lownie said he was given a catalogue of reasons by the likes of the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade as to why they couldn't help with information about Prince Andrew's public work as a trade envoy in the 2000s. Sky News was shown a selection of those response letters. "They blame everything from security reasons, to cost and man hours, to data protection, to my questions being too broad," the author said. But Mr Lownie believes it's in the interest of the Windsors to be more open if they want to guarantee long-term backing from the public, and he hopes his book may trigger more calls for greater transparency. It comes as a new YouGov report found that Prince Andrew remains the most unpopular royal in the country, with 87% of people having a negative view of him. According to the survey, just 5% of people have a favourable view of the Duke of York. The poll also found the royals are less popular with a younger audience. Only 36% of 18 to 24-years-olds believe the monarchy is good for the country, compared with about 60% of Britons overall. The generational difference is underlined given 81% of over-65s think Britain should continue to have a monarchy, but this falls with each age group to just 41% of 18 to 24s. Stories about Prince Andrew continue to attract a huge amount of attention and regularly still make him a difficult distraction for the Royal Family. Mr Lownie says he got no sense of any appetite to reintroduce him into public life while doing his research. "I don't think he has any public future. I would say his private future is pretty limited too. I mean, he lives in Royal Lodge [on the Windsor Estate], he plays golf, watches TV, and presumably sees his grandchildren ... he's living the life of a retired man." But according to one member of staff, the removal of his royal and military titles has stung more than Prince Andrew has publicly shown. "What most annoys him is his lack of a royal status," Mr Lownie added. "That's what really sort of gave him his whole sense of identity. And that's, you know, it's not being able to put on his uniforms and strut around and being self-important." Buckingham Palace has not made any comments on the book as the Duke of York is no longer a working royal.
