I now need to provide the balance that the Standards Commisioner would not do and publish my defence against the complaint.
It’s essential that I say up front that there will be plenty of unhappy people when they read this material but all of this could have been avoided had the 4 complainants taken one of the four chances they had to withdraw the complaint.
I also need to say that when you give evidence to the Standards Commissioner or his staff, verbally or in writing, it is effectively under oath. Therefore, any facts in my defence are truthful and any opinions are fair comment based on my knowledge of how Argyll & Bute works, or doesn’t.
Another thing worth saying at the start is that, unlike the criminal justice system, the Standards Commissioner acts as both the police and the procurator fiscal, ie they do the investigating and they also decide if it’s worth prosecuting. This is a fundamental flaw in the system that should never have been allowed. My view is that their investigation was so patently flawed that had this been a criminal matter and been carried out by the police, the PF would have binned it. But no, they carry out a flawed investigation and then they convince themselves it’s worth pursuing. And this in a modern Scotland?
The system is that when the Standards Commissioner receives a complaint, they assess if it’s worthy of investigation. If they consider that it is, they write to you and ask you to respond to the complaint. My first response is provided at the link below. I have had to be very frank but I have been entirely truthful so any offence given to anyone is just too bad. I have had to be frank to defend myself from this politically motivated complaint.
The link below covers my initial response and then gives more information I sent them after I had a lengthy interview in Edinburgh in October 15 accompanied by my solicitor.
There will be more tomorrow.