Finally having the decision notice into the Hamilton written evidence published since my FOI was submitted in April of 2021 after a prior notice relating to "not held" in January 2023, court case in December 2023 and revised response in January 2024 https://t.co/6wcoXxKcjh
I also, keep seeing the informatiom which I request, labelled as the "Salmond Files", they aren't "files" about Salmond, they are "files" about an investigation into Sturgeon. Unsure how fair it is for Mr Salmond/his family for his name to be used as a label for these "files".
party basis" so your essentials, you get some money back, but not all. "Agent-client, client paying" means that SG will pay nearly all of the SIC costs (https://t.co/l2QI8mvTop).
Also, another point to consider, the Judge Lady Poole ordered the SG pay expenses on a "agent-client, client paying basis", I may be incorrect here but that is from my research, and considering it is the SG, astonishing. Usually, the winner in a case gets expenses in a "party and
This is of course another frustrating element of this case and others. The SIC is taxpayer funded, as is the SG. The SG has their own legal costs = taxpayer funded, the SIC are going to have theirs paid by the SG using....taxpayer funds. We the taxpayers are losing here...
This is of course another frustrating element of this case and others. The SIC is taxpayer funded, as is the SG. The SG has their own legal costs = taxpayer funded, the SIC are going to have theirs paid by the SG using....taxpayer funds. We the taxpayers are losing here...
🔴 Humiliation for SNP as judge finds ministers broke their own freedom of information laws, holding them in ‘contempt’ 👇
https://t.co/QzKJtqFWHJ
#SNP#politics
to explore further, and indeed as Lady Poole notes that the SG and Michael Chalmers seemingly (I have not seen his affidavit) were annoyed with the SIC using his powers to refer to the Court due to their lack of compliance (which is his job) is deeply troubling.
On my break! A stand out part of the Judgement is attached. As Lady Poole points out, the SG help make the laws of this country, but in flouting the law of FOISA this was "reprehensible" . The SG have also failed to apologise to myself or the SIC, and have not set out how to stop
further behaviour of this sort by the SG, or any public authority that believes it can take its own time instead of complying with the SIC's ruling. Why it spent so long exploring avenues of appealing, instead of complying (and thus amounting to contempt) is something I intent
I am at work, on a double shift until 11pm so can't really analyse this. But big news, and another disgraceful day in the Scottish Government's handling of my FOI Requests in relation to the Hamilton Investigation. Someone has to take responsibility for this.
@conor_matchett How is it legal to raise money for a specific purpose, and then not spend it on that purpose? I doubt many people would have donated if they were donating to help day-to-day funding of the SNP? Is it because they are not a charity? Why is that even relevant?
@LBC@LBCNewsScot He is asked if any was used to repay the Weirs and says "what's important is that the SNP's resources are used for the purposes that they are intended" and how exactly is that? "the SNP as a party of independence, uses its resoures to support the arguments for independence"
EXCL: Nicola Sturgeon refused to give witness statement to SNP fraud probe detectives despite publicly claiming she would fully cooperate with police. By @conor_matchett https://t.co/XHjtz2pwyo
Tomorrow's Sunday Mail leads on: Nicola Sturgeon is facing legal action over money embezzled from the SNP after her estranged husband Peter Murrell was jailed #tomorrowspaperstoday
The SIC in light of the record-high demand for appeals, have started limited the number of appeals they will investigate from one person at a time to 5. This limit raises serious Qs of transparency in Scotland, and again the need for the SIC's budget to be increased. Clearly