paulb Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 i agree. in public office you must prove your honest. all she has to do is say what happened to the cash and she would be off the hook. no one knows the truth behind the story but trying to lawyer up is not the act of an innocent. as a member of the council she has a duty to explain her actions to her voters. do we know if the complaints went in over her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 See the latest here http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/01/07/miller-fails-in-bid-to-gag-fellow-councillor-and-local-news-website Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 ....the attempt to stop freedom of speech didn't work....(what a surprise)....the court has decided to deny Mrs Miller's request to silence the local press and Councillor Gary Robinson. Mrs Miller needs to provide a clear and concise answers NOW. She's bought herself three weeks with the pressure off by throwing empty threats around, to explore her options, take advice, and get her story straight and watertight, and do whatever she wanted to do though. A cynic might well say that in itself those were underhand tactics unbecoming of someone holding public office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giant Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I would think that her story can't be very straight or watertight, because if it was then the court would have granted the interim interdict that she requested. The court must believe that what was being reported is the truth. If she is a director of Northern Isles Knitwear then at the very least she is breaking the councillors code of conduct by not declaring this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 ....the attempt to stop freedom of speech didn't work....(what a surprise)....the court has decided to deny Mrs Miller's request to silence the local press and Councillor Gary Robinson. Mrs Miller needs to provide a clear and concise answers NOW. She's bought herself three weeks with the pressure off by throwing empty threats around, to explore her options, take advice, and get her story straight and watertight, and do whatever she wanted to do though. A cynic might well say that in itself those were underhand tactics unbecoming of someone holding public office.I agree with Ghostrider & oddtablet.The action by Mrs. Miller and her lawyers in applying for an interim interdict to the Court of Sessions was totally a 'spurious'' activity on their part.The lawyers stated afterwards, that they will now refer back to their client for further instructions.When you start using Lawyers and the Law in this manner, something certainly stinks in the barrel. Seemingly at the same time, there is a 'gag order' on the Millers, presumably from their own Lawyers and the SIC Lawyers?If true, it is presumed that it is to give both parties plenty of time while they draft a suitable agreement to 'finalise and sign-off' on the decision made by the full Council, to write off the said 400K, or in my calculation the 600K.Seemingly, only 3 Councillors disagreed with this decision, while the rest (those able to vote that is) thought it was the best thing to do.Best for who? Surely this must be one of the worst decisions that has EVER been perpetrated on the Shetland Electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Only time will tel how things pan out in the long run, but there are a couple of interesting points in the present time. The lawyers making it cler they were acting under instruction is never a good sign, as it is a common way for a Lawyers firm to "save face" if they think they are likely to end up on the losing side. Another, more important, aspect is the impact this may have on the big insurance claim which seems to have inspired the decision to write off the council debt. Is this new evidence in that case also? One would think since the Millers cannot yet comment, that all is not yet cut an dried, so surely it would be right for the council to withdraw, or at least put on hold, their offer until these more recent revelations are investigated and taken into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'm just wondering if you only have to declare current interests when standing as a Councillor? If that is the case, then she wouldn't have to declare an organisation she was a Director of in the past and her sole trader status. Blimey, if you have to list all your previous occupations/directorships/interests, etc., I bet there would be quite a few who would use up half of SIC website space! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 her hubby owes the trust money. that must make it a current intrest. what she did in the past has an impact on her as a council member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Blimey, if you have to list all your previous occupations/directorships/interests, etc., I bet there would be quite a few who would use up half of SIC website space! Have you looked at Jonathon Wills declaration?Better to declare everything just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 One would think since the Millers cannot yet comment, that all is not yet cut an dried, so surely it would be right for the council to withdraw, or at least put on hold, their offer until these more recent revelations are investigated and taken into account.Yes I agree, this agreement must not be signed-off without a good second or even a third look at it all.One hopes that the Accounts Commission can also look into this?I believe their Auditor will be in Shetland during the second-half of January 2010.The Chief Executive would normally be the one to look into this inhouse, but in this particular case he is unable to carry out fully all the duties his remit demands of him and would possibly be seen as a possible hindrance?I think this is not only about money, but equally about face-saving and the wish to cover-up gross innefficiences within the Council and its Administration, at that time and more importantly the present time.After all, this whole shambles sits astride two administrations and two Councils.Judane's Insurance Claim for 'Loss of Profits'.is something that beggars belief and is I believe just another 'Spurious Activity' by the Millers'.So suggestions as to what the next step might be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosn Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 yip , quite a good suggestion where to go next , armed wi your little iceplick thingie and a great hot air blower , it might be prudent to go furt n try something constructive like doin a little snow clearing , maybe Frank Millers path n drive?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddtablet Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 yip , quite a good suggestion where to go next , armed wi your little iceplick thingie and a great hot air blower , it might be prudent to go furt n try something constructive like doin a little snow clearing , maybe Frank Millers path n drive?? don't think so Maybe we should ALL petition our councillors, which might be more pro-active Mind you, depends on who our councillors are ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosn Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 wi the wasted hot air in this thread theres no need to have a cold spell at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turningright Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 i think two attempts is enough hoosn, we are clearly not picking up what your putting down, or just not interested in your opinions about what constitutes hot air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 yip , quite a good suggestion where to go next , armed wi your little iceplick thingie and a great hot air blower , it might be prudent to go furt n try something constructive like doin a little snow clearing , maybe Frank Millers path n drive??So tell us this hoosn.Why do you keep coming back to the Judane Thread?Why do you continue to contribute (if you can call it that) to this Thread?Just wondered, that's all. Aren't you the one that stated that nobody was interested in Judane and that todays' newspaper was tomorrows firelighter.Erudite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.