This didn’t make the final Home Office approved draft.
Maybe because Scotland is excluded from this ‘Overarching’ ‘Independent’ Inquiry ?
Or was there another reason ?
Filed under Abuse, News
The Home Secretary wanted Scotland included perhaps Needle resources will find out who blocked and Labour and the SNP view
including scotland (and n i ) makes sense in terms of an inquiry intended to expose truth although the differences between english and scottish ( and n i )law might slightly complicate the process that obstacle is easy to overcome by exposing truth centrally and delivering consequences locally .
ps iirc one needs to be very naughty to be “defrocked”as a solicitor
In the original drafts & the final letter of transparency it says, “the individual concerned was not in the employment of the corporation during the time period mentioned in the report”
This doesn’t appear to add up. Herald Scotland amongst others reported this “Mr Tucker told the court yesterday that after being suspended from practising as a solicitor last year he got a job as a footman with the Lord Mayor of London, earning #9000 a year.” (1988)
This would appear to suggest that he had the job at Mansion House during his trial?
I know the report was published in 1993 but Report was published 1993 but “the time period mentioned in the report” would surely encompass time of trial?
Either way, as you say, the final letter of transparency didn’t even include his name or the reasons behind the Nimmo Inquiry.
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.