I'm not surprised that they lost for reasons I stated in your previous blog post. However it will add to the SNP's campaign as yet another example of UK statist behaviour in trying to keep them quiet. Just really hope they can tell the difference between UK and England, something we have a major problem with down here still.Tbh, I don't think Labour really wanted to win and clear up the mess they inevitably make, just Tory incompetence was keeping them in the race.
SubrosaSo much for democracy in Scotland. Just pay your TV tax and watch what we allow you to see. Time the TV tax was abolished.This is the true face of Brown showing through to the general public at last. This is the mobile phone thrower writ large.Interesting that his "minder" was not there to try to make him look like a part of the human race.P.S. Usual Brown behavior "who can I blame for this, it wisna me"
SubrosaTory Bear quick of the mark with a great poster.http://www.torybear.com/2010/04/ive-never-voted-conservative.html
At least they put our money where our mouths are QM and I commend them for it. There was only a slight chance they would win against the BBC.I'd agree with you about Tory incompetence. If they can't win now then surely they need to go back to what many see as true Tory values.
Aye, his minder was missing I noticed Dubbie.I doubt if many of us held hope for this legal case but it was the principle and moral issue which was more important.
Quiet ManNationalists like myself have nothing against the English people. When we mention England or the English it is the establishment or the unionist parties we talk about. A lot of us have English relations.My contempt is for the Scots who put their unionist party before their own country and who are quite happy to be wasting £millions on going to Westminster to do nothing but interfere in English matters. Nationalists can see it from both sides - the Scottish unionists are only interested in themselves.
There was no logical reason why the SNP should be represented in these debates and no surprise that's how the court viewed it. What a waste of time and money.Still, no-one said logic and Scottish nationalism had to go together.
William, I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn that I know several non-nationalists who contributed towards this case.They too are sick of BBC London telling us what we watch on TV.
The law is an ass - as is William!
The Judge is quoted as saying:"However, Lady Smith decided it would be wrong for the debate to be halted, saying it would be wrong to deprive the public of the United Kingdom the third round of a three-round boxing match or the third act of a three-act play."I suppose we'll have to see the actual judgment but it seems quite odd. She seems to say that because there have already been two debates which excluded the SNP it would be wrong not to hold a third. The issue of impartiality and equal airtime and exposure in the media doesn't seem to be addressed here.It appears the judge is looking not at the electoral impact in Scotland of excluding the SNP but on what effect banning the debate in Scotland will have in the rest of the UK which I thought was outside her jurisdiction.
"non-nationalists who contributed towards this case."Aye, and there's Sikhs in the BNP. What does that tell us? Not a lot.I take a wee dram of an expensive bottle of whiskey whenever Celtic lose a match. I think I'll make an exception tonight and toast the common sense of the Court of Session.
Auch scunnert, I think he's just a young laddie.
We'll have to get the Peat Worrier onto the analysis Doug.
William, you're insulting some of my friends here and that isn't good you know.This is about the SNP and nothing whatsoever about the BNP. I do wish you'd retract that statement.
There are plenty of 'non-nationalists' who dislike the BBC too and would have relished the opportunity to give it a bloody nose. They would have had their own agenda.The fact that different political groups might join together for one purpose does not make that purpose any more credible or, as it turns out, achievable.
So no apology William? You'd make a good politician - a labour one.
The text of the actual judgment is here:http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH56.htmlI think the SNP made two strategic mistakes with the debates.The first was not to go to court at the start to try and stop all the debates, though of course money may have been a big factor.The second was to assume that asking for "fairness" with the broadcasters without legal muscle, especially with the BBC, would get them anywhere.I hope they don't make the same mistake again.
DougthedugIt is never a mistake to try to take a stand on a matter of principle.We have a right to fairness from a public service broadcaster, particularly one that we have to pay a TV tax to.Hopefully this is just the start of a proper investigation into the way the BBC is run and how the BBC Trust are anointed, as they are certainly not elected.After the judicial review presentation should be made to the EU, as I am sure that there must be EU rules regarding impartiality, particularly from public service broadcasters.This is not the end of the process towards a fairer BBC, merely the start. The outcome hopefully will be broadcasting fully devolved to Holyrood.
You can't have a dram of whiskey. Only a shot.
Thanks Doug. I understood that they took the route to complain without legal address until that procedure failed.They'll learn though. The SNP are good at learning.
I don't think it was a mistake either Dubbie. It's my understanding the SNP will continue with their complaint and good for them.
Can you have a dram of whisky Jim? I didn't realise you were on the Irish.Can't have you shooting every night can we?
I've just had a quick glance at the opinion.The problems for the petitioner were as follows.The BBC terms of reference are set in relation to the UK as a whole.This means any dispute solely related to Scotland is deemed to have no relevance to the rest of the UK, yet issues deemed relevant to the rest of the UK have relevance to Scotland.The interdict should have been applied for prior to the first debate.A valid point, but a difficult call for the petitioner when the respondents complaint and appeal procedure is still being worked through. Consideration should be given to the above and the manner and timing of the respondents reply.The analogies are spurious argument. The petitioner asked for the programme not to be broadcast in Scotland; not for it to come off the air for the whole of the UK. Alternatively for a representative of the petitioner to take part in the programme. The standing of the representative chosen by the SNP would, very likely, be an issue to the other participants but it was not an issue for the court.Once again she bowed to the Obama is bigger than Brown while Brown is bigger than Salmond routine.But, and here's the real judgement. By reaching the judgement she has, the accusation of bias against the BBC and the Westminster parties has been exposed beyond the shadow of doubt.
RA, may I post your opinion in the morning? It deserves a wider readership than comments here.
SRIs this the Establishment getting back at the FM over Tesco Law? Just a wild thought.I predict a riot.CD
Of course it's an establishment stitch up CD. Surely you don't have to ask. :)
If you look at the opinion the only paragraph which really counts is  which is the heart of the case by the SNP against the BBC.That's where Judge Lady Smith is of the opinion that the BBC is impartial and the SNP has nothing to complain about. It may be a legal opinion but it is also absolute nonsense.Guess what headline we'll not see in tomorrow's papers?Ex-English grammar school girl and Edinburgh Uni yah says BBC impartial.Have a look at her bio. She is the British Establishment.
Doug, surely you didn't expect her to be anything else. Most have that heritage, that's the way our judiciary works. Sad but true. It would take some strong Scots legal minds to change it too.
Post a Comment
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner