Achi news desk-
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
Another sorry ferry episode
THE resignation of CalMac chief executive Robbie Drummond is another milestone in the sorry tale of how to stop running a lifeblood ferry service.
The true achievements of this total shambles have been shielded from public view and only the demise of David Tydeman and Robbie Drummond has shed some light on the matter, with many people believing that these individuals were made a sacrificial lamb to save blushing. incompetent ministers elected with the responsibility of ensuring effective public services.
The lives of islanders have been thrown into chaos and one wonders what effect the stories of travel problems will have on the tourism industry.
There appears to be no planned timetable for replacing aging vessels and it is unclear whether this is due to poor management or underfunding by the government. The only certainty is that the ferry service that islanders deserve and pay for is not on the horizon anytime soon.
Bob Macdougall, Chickens.
READ MORE: I’m embarrassed to be considered a Scot by the SNP/Green regime
READ MORE: They should use Glen Sannox on conventional fuel during the summer
READ MORE: OK, JK Rowling isn’t a criminal, but her behavior is appalling
Let’s extend an unproven judgment
ANDREW Tickell’s article about the unproven verdict deserves attention (“Unproven support shrinks to legal nationalist hard core”, March 31). First, having more than two verdicts is not unique. The Italian system has five verdicts for a panel of advocates to choose from.
Secondly, when the removal of the unproven verdict was the subject of a parliamentary debate in Westminster in 1995, the rape crisis centers in Scotland who were strongly in favor of keeping it because a not guilty verdict stigmatized the woman while it was not proven to stigmatize the man. . Their current reversal from this position is inexplicable.
Far from getting rid of this ruling, we should be improving it to resolve the inconsistencies that exist within the two verdict system. For example, in the case of OJ Simpson he was found not guilty in a criminal court due to “reasonable doubt”, but was later found guilty in a civil court using a “balance of probabilities”. This raises the basic question of how the same evidence can be used to find a man guilty of a crime that the state has stated he did not commit?
The above discrepancy could be resolved if a civil case could only proceed after reaching a guilty or unproven verdict. This would protect the truly innocent while giving the victim’s family the right to a measure of justice. Furthermore, it could resolve another proposed inconsistency by eliminating the double jeopardy rule.
Double jeopardy was dropped in England for the first time because too many people were found to have committed a crime after being declared innocent, thus showing that the two verdict system itself is flawed.
A direct result of this is that a not guilty verdict is no longer a reaffirmation of your innocence at the end of the trial. It simply means that you are innocent “on license” until any new “convincing” evidence can be found against you. The Shirley McKie case showed what can happen when “convincing” forensic evidence is produced at trial.
The likelihood of an innocent person being found guilty under the revised double jeopardy rule therefore moves from the hypothetical to the obvious. This would defeat the purpose of its reintroduction, which was to identify and prosecute those who were truly guilty. But if it is not proven to be the only judgment where a double jeopardy prosecution can be brought, then it would go some way towards eliminating that second anomaly.
Unfortunately, rather than embracing such tuning on the current system, the current bill looks rife with political calculation. Perhaps it is asking too much of him to be an example of rational thought processes.
Robert Menzies, Falkirk.
Forbes is wrong about Coul
I was shocked and outraged to read that Kate Forbes MSP supports the proposed golf development on the unique Coul Links conservation site. In particular she insulted the many local protesters by suggesting that all the opposition was located in the Central Belt (“Locals ‘wildly in favour'”, March 24).
I know that a significant number of local people have sent her an email to express their opposition to the proposed development but interestingly those of us who live closest to Coul have received a reply that she cannot respond to her message as they are not are its constituents. So we have a situation where Ms Forbes can comment on the development but local people cannot respond to it. As a result I must use this more public forum to address her.
Firstly, Ms Forbes states that “people who oppose development don’t live locally” and that local people are “wildly in favour”. What does she base these “facts” on?
I would be interested in her answering a number of questions: Has she considered how many of the vastly inflated number of jobs claimed by the developer are actually already in the service industries in the area?
As an economist has she assessed how many of the jobs will provide a salary that allows the worker to get a mortgage? If they can’t, how will they find accommodation in these days of second homes and Airbnb?
Has she spoken to the owners of the shops and restaurants who have found it extremely difficult to find enough staff in the area in recent years, especially since Brexit?
As an economist has she considered the likely adverse impact on smaller local golf clubs such as Brora, Golspie and Tain?
Ms Forbes claims the development is “necessary”. But since the Inner Moray Firth already has over 60 golf courses how can another be “necessary”? Remember, since the destruction of Menie by supposed “international standard” but golfing development that makes a loss there is only one mobile dune system of Coul Links importance anywhere in Northern Scotland. Will she continue to support his destruction by this unwanted development?
Although she claimed she would “always prioritize the opinion of the Nobles” she appears to have communicated with the company proposing the development which is of course backed by a golf-obsessed American multi-millionaire and an expensive lobbying firm. Now where have we heard that before? As far as I know, Ms Forbes has done nothing to engage with the significant number of Highlanders who oppose this development.
David McAllister, Tain.
A theory without any substance
I ALWAYS wondered if education had decided to develop itself and its mindset to self-promotion rather than imparting knowledge that was of practical benefit to real individuals: developing academic programs to attract foreign students and thus boost wages higher rather than providing a solid grade for “ordinary” students. I began to doubt “education” some 60 years ago as a teacher when I came across a 15-year-old boy who had never achieved more than 5% within the school examination system, but was an absolute mathematical natural, drawing answers to doubles, trebles and Yankees faster than I could write them on the board.
The article by Neil Mackay (“No Space for God?”, March 31) has confirmed my opinion. Simply put, cosmopsychism is an unfounded theory, be it undoubtedly profitable for Professor Philip Goff. Like many “theories'” it is simply that; with no real substance outside the mind of the criminal and certainly no “proof” other than treatments that might help individuals. For example, where does his idea of good come from? Of course there is no proof of God and academic theories of the past have not helped, distorting the basic system of living introduced by Jesus of Nazareth.
Michael Shermer, skeptical scientist and author of The Believing Brain, argues that reason can be found in cognitive psychology, promoting the idea that we have a human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise and believe that the world has controlled by invisible intentional agents (you weren’t first, Professor Goff).
In truth regarding the existence of God there is a choice whether the patterns we “see” are true or false. If you believe that the rustle in the grass in front of you is a dangerous predator when it’s nothing but wind, you’re more likely to survive than if you believe it’s just the wind’ r rustling in the grass when it is a dangerous predator.
I have chosen to follow the pattern of “The Creator” (no academic pictures attached) shown by Jesus through his life and sacrifice. My “theory” has been confirmed, for me, over the years and never flawed. However, even if there is no God, I feel that I have made a better choice than some force without a conscience.
James Watson, Dunbar.
