Convicted abuser Bill Walker seems unlikely to step down as an MSP and while there are some avenues for removing his salary, at least while he’s actually serving his sentence, there doesn’t seem to be much Holyrood can do about it. Retrospective rule changes are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (incidentally celebrating its 60th anniversary today). To be perfectly honest I’m tempted to think that the problem here is not with the arrangements for removing a sitting MSP against their will but with the way that the case was handled by the prosecution, particularly the choice of summary trial.
Bringing in overarching systematic changes to one system (Holyrood) to deal with a failure in another (how the prosecution handled the specific case and, perhaps, its attitude towards domestic violence in general) seems to ignore the actual problem. That said it’s really not OK for Bill Walker to remain in office, so in the spirit of getting the violent sod to stand down I propose that when he is referred to it is done so as “convicted violent abuser Bill Walker MSP” in much the same was as Brendan O’Neill was given a prefix by Stavvers.
Hopefully he’ll step down soon: I don’t think I could take regular protests against me at my place of work, but then he doesn’t seem a very self-reflective person and maybe in the mean time his continued presence will prompt Holyrood to have a look at problems with the way the Scottish justice system treats cases of domestic violence.
#1 by Jennie Kermode on September 3, 2013 - 1:31 pm
This is a petty, playground level approach, and I heartily approve. When the rule of law fails to deliver justice, it’s the next line of defence. I hope convicted violent abuser Bill Walker MSP can’t get a coffee in Holyrood without it being cold, and that people smirk and stop talking every time he enters a room, and that any captured Holyrood mice somehow find their way into his office.
#2 by Peter A Bell on September 3, 2013 - 5:20 pm
You forgot to explain what was wrong with the way the case was handled by the prosecution. Or could it be that you don’t have an explanation. You’re just unhappy with the result so you assume the process was mishandled.
The prosecution’s first priority is to ensure that the interests of justice are served. Which, from their perspective, means securing a conviction. The rule of thumb, stated as concisely as possible is, “Better a summary conviction than a solemn acquittal.”
The prosecuting authorities had access to ALL the information relating to the case. And yet you and others haughtily claim to know better than them. But are strangely unable or unwilling to share your superior knowledge and understanding.
You won’t be surprised to find that I don’t take your comments at all seriously.
#3 by Iain Menzies on September 4, 2013 - 1:00 am
You dont take his comments seriously….yet feel the need to write am 11 lined response.
I dont know for certain what Aiden thinks is wrong with what the fiscal has done, but i would be willing to bet its along the lines of the accusations were serious, very serious. The issue of which the is an exemplar is one that is not treated as seriously as it should be in general. And opting not to put this before a jury and the option of a longer sentence gives the impression that the fiscal doesnt take these issues as seriously as they could.
I could be wrong, but then that is generally what most people who have an issue with the decision seem to be saying.
But even if you think that the fiscal was right in what you appear to be implying, which seems to be that they didnt think they could get a conviction with a jury you still totally miss the point.
And of course the point is that a convicted stella drinker will only stop being an MSP he he decideds to resign.
What the fiscal did is important but now a secondary issue, the issue now is that the public purse will continue to pay the salary of a convicted stella drinker.
#4 by Peter A Bell on September 4, 2013 - 11:08 am
You are very confused. To the extent that Aidan (spelling a person’s name correctly is a minimum courtesy) offers any explanation of his objections these relate, not to the Procurator Fiscal, but to the Crown Office where the decision to go with a summary procedure was made.
Like Aidan, you seem to be of the view that the Crown Office should have indulged in some sort of populist gesture rather than make a reasoned decision based on the facts of the case as they could be proved in court.
If that was not the point then why even mention the choice of procedure at all?
Of course people are upset and angry that someone convicted of domestic violence should be able to remain an MSP. But it is beyond pointless to blame the justice system for this. A conviction was secured. That is what is important as far as the Crown Office is concerned. And it is something that should be a cause for some satisfaction among those who detest domestic abuse in all its forms.
The matter of Walker being able to continue as an MSP is an entirely separate issue and nothing whatever to do with the court case. The rules governing these situations were devised by politicians in Westminster. It is they who should be slated, not Scotland’s justice system.
To say that there was “failure” in how the prosecution handled the case is an accusation which cannot be supported. And to insinuate that there is something lacking in the justice system’s “attitude towards domestic violence” is a wholly unwarranted slur in light of its success in prosecuting a very difficult case.