UK legal heavyweight placed on local judicial board
CNS): The former British attorney general during the last Labour administration has been appointed to the local Judicial and Legal Services Commission by the governor. Labour life peer Baroness Scotland of Asthal, one of the UK’s leading female legal heavyweights, will replace Sir Richard Ground, who resigned from the Commission earlier this year. Her appointment, which is made with immediate effect and will last until 2015, brings the board which is charged with appointing and dealing with disciplinary issues relating to Cayman's judiciary to the full complement of eight members.
“Baroness Scotland is a most impressive lady, with an outstanding career to date and impeccable credentials,” Cayman Islands Governor Duncan Taylor said as he announced her appointment to the body established under the constitution. “I am delighted to be able to appoint such a distinguished lawyer and such a good friend of the Cayman Islands to the JLSC. I have no doubt that her wisdom and experience will be of great benefit to the Commission.”
Patricia Scotland was born in Dominca but moved to the UK when she was only two years old. She entered the legal profession when she was called to the Bar in 1977 and became a QC in 1991. She was made a Labour Peer in 1997 and served in several ministerial posts in the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments, including attorney general for England, Wales and Northern Ireland from July 2007 to May 2010.
As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1999 to 2001, her responsibilities included the Caribbean and the UK's overseas Territories.
She was appointed as an Assistant Recorder in 1991, a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Division in 1995, and a Recorder in 2000. Baroness Scotlandis currently in private practice in London and serves as a Member of the House of Lords. She has received many awards for her achievements and is a member of numerous advisory committees in the UK.
See her CV below.
Category: Local News
Calling Patricia Scotland a "heavyweight" is so preposterous one can only assume the Governor was being ironic.
She is a failed politician, with no achievements to her credit, on the make for her retirement. The suggestion that she could have any useful role in scrutinising candidates for judicial office is simply risible.
Surely Cayman can do better than this?
JTB, the Govenor and FCO don't "DO" irony in official announcements. Patricia Scotland represents another "diversity" feather in their caps and, if one has read the UK press for many years, she is as light as a feather.
Twofer appointment.
And where is the legal heavyweight? All I see is a politico picking up easy sinecures.
Business class return flights every time there is a meeting?
She is NOT a UK legal heavyweight and Isuspect CNS will get many links to UK newspapers and magazines such as Private Eye pointing out some "feet of clay" issues.
Didn't she come here at the time of the Ballantyne/Eurobank fiasco?
A most deserving appointment. Definitely pleased to see this lady (who I have had the pleasure of meeting) serving on our JLSC Board!
Hilarious, have you read the boards behind Baroness Scotland? Good luck with your new position Baroness, this is one the most racially intolerant, homophobic and xenophobic country's in the western hemisphere. Just read any article on this site and you'll soon see how many anti immigration, anti UK/US, anti status holder commentators come out from beneath their stones. Combine them with the 18th century minded god squad and watch out !!!
Just judge her on the facts and stop being selective about what you choose to believe.
It appears that you are a representative of the intolerance that you claim to loathe.
Indeed your words appear carefully crafted to deceive to that end. Baroness Scotland is no perfumed rose, but if you choose to believe so without even taking a sniff, then there can be no dialogue.
It would seem that your mind is already closed.
Oh for heavens sake learn to read. The post clearly says good luck to her, its the vile under belly of Cayman kind that she needs to look out for. As per usual, shoot the messenger why don't you?
"…the most racially intolerant, homophobic and xenophobic country's in the western hemisphere".
lol.You must be joking. I guess you haven't lived elsewhere in the western hemisphere if you think that. In the UK they have thugs who badly beat people on the streets for no reason other than difference of race – and that's the police. Racism in the UK is institutionalised. There have been race riots. On the European continent they throw bananas on football fields and make monkey noises when there is a black player on one of the teams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/sports/soccer/concerns-of-racism-precede-european-soccer-championships.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/30/police-racism-black-man-abuse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45526795/ns/world_news-europe/t/uk-woman-draws-death-threats-over-racist-train-rant/
You think that these countries are racially tolerant etc. because you are not on the receiving end of the abuse.
What you are calling "xenophobia" in Cayman is Caymanians finally deciding to stand up for themselves and their rights which are being trampled underfoot and it pales in comparison to REAL racism experienced elsewhere. In Cayman you don't have nasty remarks being made to mixed couples.
As for "homophobia", even when there was a law against homosexual acts I don't recall any prosecution being brought under it. People aren't beaten up because of it like they are in many other countries including the U.S. But we have a right to have a moral view on the matter. That does not make us "homophobic".
Cayman is by far one of the most tolerant countries/territories anywhere.
Calm down, the post said 'one of the most intolerant', not 'the' most intolerant. Of course other countries have major social issues, but that doesn't negate the fact that some Caymanians, as some other nationalities, have morally and politically repugnant views.
That shouldn't be surprising, all society's do, Cayman is no different. You are quite correct, there haven't been the riots seen in other countries or the disgusting demonstrations shown at soccer matches in eastern europe. However, they are much larger populations and in some cases haven't been exposed to the real world since the fall of the iron curtain. As for race riots, well news flash, those riots were the sole cause of one man, who happened to be of mixed race, (or black as the lefties would like you to believe) carrying a gun in public with the intent of committing crime. The following riots were not racial, because if they were they were by predominantly populated by black and asian with some feral white youths who burnt down and attacked anyone or anything they thought of as a target. Its easy to quote from newspapers and online references, but I was there and witnessed my former home town burnt to the ground by youths who have sense of entitlement without an education or having to work hard. Sounds familiar.
Caymans issues are much more subtle, you use work permits, low wages, sub standard accommodation, high rents, restrictive work practices and church lead corruption to beat your visitors with. I wonder how tolerant you would be if a Muslim wanted to build a grand mosque in GT or if a future Chinese workforce were to arrive to improve your port facilities or perhaps gay cruise ships made frequent visits to Cayman?
A year's salary says that there would be demonstrations in the street, poisonous posts online, comments on live radio and open hosility in the churches. Don't kid yourselves that you are any different than anyone else, the hypocracy is there for all to see, just listen to local radio or hear the vitiolic sermons of some of your preachers, sit in a local bar as a visitor or dare express an opinion online and see what really happens.
Your homophobia comments are just plain laughable. You obviously didn't notice the welcome that the last cruise ship got or the comments made by those who observed the disembarkation of 'mixed' couples, (the word GAY obviously sticks in your throat). The rants on radio could be heard in Cuba they were so disgustingly abhorent and loud. Just take time to read some of the turtle farm or government housing posts on this news service, they are repellent and only suitable for the garbage.
How the hell do you know what race, colour or creed the poster is, that's a racial assumption based on prejudice right there. All you've done is confirm the point made.
As for the same old, 'nobody understands us', 'its cultural and historic' or your seemingly intolerant and discrimatory comment that ' Caymanians finally deciding to stand up for themselves and their rights which are being trampled underfoot'. Well, exactly who are you referring to and who are those who are trampling you under foot? Surely not the evil whitemen or their 'foriegn' friends from overseas, because that would be racist and xenophobic, wouldn't it?
Wake up, the only trampling thats being done is by your own government who care nought for your 'rights', yes Caymanians who are selfish, greedy and power hungry, ring any bells?
Oh yes, and for your information, I am of mixed race, gay and have lived in 6 different countries. I have also travelled extensively and speak 3 other languages. What are your qualifications on this subject, apart from being a self serving closet racist and nationalist hypocrate?
Just one question – why would a gay person who has lived in six countries choose to come to live in a country which he perceives to be "one of the most racially intolerant, homophobic" etc. in the western hemisphere?
Disapproving of a homosexual lifestyle on moral grounds does not mean that you fear or hate gays, it just means that you disapprove of their lifestyle on moral grounds. We are entitled to have moral views and to express them freely. You are not entitled to demand that they be silenced.
"…by those who observed the disembarkation of 'mixed' couples, (the word GAY obviously sticks in your throat)". Err. "mixed" does not mean "gay". It means of mixed race.
As for that ridiculous rant about "evil white men" that only shows your own prejudices since I mentioned nothing of the sort.
You have proven my point: if a Caymanian dares to speak up for Caymanians and their rights he is automatically labelled as racist, xenophobic etc. With absolutely no basis I have been labelled "a self serving closet racist and nationalist 'hypocrate'". Don't for one minute think any of that nonsense carries any weight with me.
And while you are busy learning foreign languages learn to spell in English.
Apologies for the 'a' instead of the 'i', simple typo, but nice to know you took time to absorb the message.
Me thinks you do protest too much poster. Moral isn't necessarily legal or right, just because you have imaginary friends doesn't mean that we all have to follow blindly and use a 2000 year old book of stories to live our lives.
Your references are somewhat confusing, why would you refer to mixed race couples from a gay cruise ship, trying to cover our tracks are we?
Speaking up for Caymanians isn't the point, its the use of poisonous language, policy and a 19th century mindset that is up for debate. You have no 'right' to be offensive or discriminatory, regardless of your status or persecution complex.
Pray tell, how am I prejudiced by using 'whitemen' in a sentence to highlight prejudice against whitemen?
Oh yes, the 'why would I come here comment', well, its because I'm half Caymanian, half English stupid. And yes I'm ashamed of what my fellow Caymanians say and the manner in which they conduct themselves. It's true, I haven't lived here for a while, but now I do I'm amazed at the ignorance of my own people. I dare not admit I'm gay to my friends or neighbours for being discriminated against or labelled as a deviant. I have sat in enough bars and local homes on this island to realise that Cayman's 'morals' do not extend to foreigners and definately not to gays. The hypocricy is staggering.
Keep trying, eventually you will get the spelling correct.
I think you mean legal isn't necessarily moral or right.
Your assumption that my comments had anything to do with some hatred of white men was as ludicrous as it was revealing about your own prejudices.
Ah, you are in the closet. That explains your use of the term "closet racist". But I doubt that your friends and neighbours don't already know.
I made no mention of cruise ships – you did – so I don't know what you are on about. Part of the complaint was that Cayman was "racially intolerant". My response was that you do not have nasty remarks being made about mixed couples, i.e. where one person is of one race and the other is of another. But you are so caught up in your persecution complex that you thought it was all about gays. I am beginning to notice how you project your own mindset on to others. You are "closeted" and you have a "persecution complex".
I have EVERY right to express my views as to the morality of your lifstyle. It is called freedom of speech. And you are NOT going to silence me.
btw being personally abusive tends to undermine your position.
So does ridiculing spelling mistakes that are obviously typo's. See LIFSTYLE.
And no, I meant that just because you listen to a preacher or read a fairytale that doesn't make it right or lawful. You see, we've moved on from the inquisition, we don't take our laws from religious bigots anymore, we have freedom of thought combined with respect for others.
Nick Griffin (Nazi BNP) in the UK is using the same 'freedom of speech' argument right now. Do you agree with his stand?
And seriously, you're now trying to use the 'mixed couple' argument as a stick to beat me with? HELLO, most, if not all Caymanians, including my own family are mixed race. Why would you ridicule your own, now that would be really dumb?
Anyway, I think I'm under your thin skin enough for now, job done. I rest my case.
btw???? Is that English?
"Anyway, I think I'm under your thin skin enough for now, job done".
I am beginning to see what the poster meant by projecting your own thinking on to others. From the rants you have given he/she has definitely got under your skin.
It seems you have a comprehension problem. A mixed race couple means that one person is of one race and the other is of another race. Google it and see what comes up.
I onlyraised the spelling errors because, although it was irrelevant to the issues being discussed, you boasted about your knowledge of three other languages. And yes, they were clearly spelling mistakes rather than typos. You have made several attempts and still have not managed to spell "hypocrisy" correctly.
Just one point, I am a British Citizen, as are you and I have every right to demand your silence if it is offensive or discriminatory. Read the European Convention on Human Rights, there are 6 principles, take a look at dignity and freedom for starters.
If freedom of speech can be abridged merely on the basis that it is offensive to some then that would undermine the entire concept. It would also outlaw the many offensive comments made on here about Christians.
Sorry, the laws the law, take it up with Europe.
The point is that's not the law.
REAL racism, what's that anyway? So Cayman's racism isn't as bad as the UK's, because it's not REAL. Absolute BS, racism is racism, end of story.
You can't now claim that because Caymanians are being 'trampled' they have a right to be racist or xenophobic. That's like excusing the Nazi death camps in 1944 because of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in 1918, the two are incompatable and morally indefensible.
If it walks like a racist, talks like a racist then its a racist.
Real as opposed to imagined, and yes there is a huge difference between the two. What is occurring in Cayman is being mischaracterised as racism.
The reference to Nazism is so obviously utterly inappropriate that it requires no further comment.
Is it? The example of Nazi Germany is a perfect example as they too complained of being trampled into the dirt by the allies after the end of the First World War. Why do you think HItler made such a remarkable climb through the political ranks to become the dictator he was?
No one is being literal here, obviously Cayman's issues aren't the same, but if you go down the path of nationalistic tub thumping and make false claims of outside interference, then dictators wait in the wings to exploit the situation. Sound familiar?
I don't think what's happening in Cayman is being mischaracterised, it is racism, pure and simple.I think the poster has a serious point to make in regard to the insidious side to Cayman thinking. In the real world, you cannot make the kind of assuptions and comments that have been made without racism. It may not suit the Cayman mind set, but I promise if comments and observations such as those being posted on this site or were voiced on radio in the UK, the people involved would be investigated. You can't imagine racism, it is in part subjective as we are generally guided by laws, but it is also very much a question of feelings and perception.
If the perception is made by 'foreigners' as the result of actions by 'Caymanians' and those actions are discriminatory, prejudicial or offensive then it most certainly is racism.
One mans perception is of course different from anothers, hence the caveat that if you are offended or suffer negative feelings as the result of anothers actions, then those actions can be reported. And, you don't have to be the intended recipient of the offensive or hurtful behaviour, just by witnessing such behaviour is enough.
So when posters refer to 'foreigners', 'outsiders' or 'immigrants' and deliberately identify certain members of society for ridicule or offensive stereotyping, then by implication they are being racist. All members of Cayman society are residents, if they have a right to be here and so should be referred to as such.
The problem you have is that there is little understanding of this concept so those who indulge in such behaviour don't think they are doing anything wrong and they accuse those affected of 'imagining'. However, ignorance is no defence.
I am not going to indulge your ignorance giving a substantive reply to this nonsense. Leave of the Nazi stuff and you might be taken seriously.
Okay, for arguments sake you don't approve of the example, (although sometimes the truth can hurt). What possible rebuttal can you think of that disproves the point, I would suggest none, as it is very difficult to argue against someone who is experiencing the bigotry first hand? You're not ranting at a non Caymanian here, I have lived through this s**t and paid the price. You on the other hand choose to live in denial, well that's your choice, but don't expect the world to stand still and wait for Cayman to catch up.
By the way, historical fact isn't ignorance. Just saying.
I hope you remember the ine about it being very difficult to argue against someone who is experiencing bigotry first hand when it is Caymanians who are complaining. That is the only “denial” operating here.
It is ignorant to male comparisons with historical facts that bear no relationship to the situation here.
Let me substitute a couple of words for you so you can see the hypocrisy of your position.
"So when posters refer to 'Caymankind', or 'Caymunians' and deliberately identify certain members of society for ridicule or offensive stereotyping, then by implication they are being racist".
The complaints made on the radio should indeed be investigated and when the truth is uncovered there should be prosecutions to the fullest extent of the law. The trouble is that they are not.
Really? You are using a commercial name tag to identify a racist, oh come on, try harder. However, your last comment is to be applauded.
There are posters on here who use "Caymankind" in a sarcastic, pejorative way. It is the comments that accompany their use of the term rather than the term itself. Got it?
Re the applause, it may not turn out the way you think.
I think you are trying to 'tire lever' a commercial name into the Allport scale.
A better example of this would be the anti locution of certain members of society, such as 'paper caymanians', expats, furriners or whoever the weekly blame hound is going to be.
Last week I think it was the Canadians turn looking at some of the posts on CNS, so I guess next week it will be the Phillipinos and then back to the RCIPS before settling onto familiar ground and decrying the Jamaican population.
No person in their right mind moves thousands of miles away from their home if they are racist.
No person in their right mind immerses themselves into a foreign culture if they are predjuciced.
So why do some people's perceptions change?
Thanks for demonstrating the hypocrisy. You appear to think that racism only works one way so only Caymanians can be racists.
You are completely delusional.
"No person in their right mind moves thousands of miles away from their home if they are racist".
Over the years I have read a lot of nonsense on here but this takes the cake. Let me ask you, which planet do you live on because it surely cannot be earth. Have you ever read a history book? Do you understand how empires were built? Racism expressed itself in Imperialism. Look at the treatment of the Aborigines in Australia by the European settlers. Don't you understand that Boers (who originated in the Netherlands) and created and maintained a system of apartheid were racists? In fact, it is clear to anyone who reads the posts on CNS on any given day that there are racists who have left their homeland to come to Cayman.
"No person in their right mind immerses themselves into a foreign culture if they are predjuciced".
Ahh, but that is exactly the point – many don't immerse themselves in Caymanian culture at all but instead regard it with utter contempt, or declare that it either doesn't exist or that it is so inferior it is not worth the effort, and then they wonder why they are not embraced by Caymanians. Their perceptions haven't changed at all – they brought their prejudices with them and maintain them by isolating themselves in their social cliques and gated communities.
Seeing as your quoting from UK news sources, how about this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266
Not so bad after all, would this happen in Cayman, I doubt it?
I think if a gay issue was tested in our courts, it would win. The judges have moved with the times more than some of our other "worthy" citizens. It's the Old Teastament Bible thumpers here that are so homophobic (though I would like to see some of the magazines that some of THEM have under their beds!). Most of us don't care what they do so long as it's in private and consensual
What isn't so bad – that a Christian British couple took a decision not to open their guest house to a gay (or any other unmarried) couple, or that they were persecuted for expressing their religious beliefs?
Well, derr, if it applies to the rant above I suppose it means that the UK courts are not 'institutionalised racists' or homophobes as claimed. However, the freedom to choose who enters your house or to whom you decide to sell a service has been erroded at the same time. Thats where church and state should keep their distance from one another, 2000 year old doctrines don't work in the 21st century, common sense does, if only it was given a chance.
Seems you can't swing both ways.
The freedom to obtain services free from homphobic discrimination is an important step in protecting the rights of homosexuals, Narrow minded bigots can stop anyone from coming into their home. The Defendant in the case in question chose to turn their home into a business providing a service so chose to fall within the scope of the laws in question. If she wants to bar homosexuals from her home she can choose to close down her B&B.
"Narrow minded bigots can stop anyone from coming into their home". Just reflect very profoundly on that statement, I beg you, 11:23, and consider whether there is any bigotry or intolerance in your own onslaught on people who may wish to not allow other people into their homes. I am UK born, probably considerably older than you,, hated the witchhunts of homosexuals, the arrests and humiliation of those (some famous people) "cottaging" etc in the fifties and before. Thank God for the Wolfenden Report and the subsequent GRADUAL greater tolerance over the years towards homosexuals to the point they can be MPs and pose in gay magazines in their underpants and marry with the Prime Minister of the day's blessing in the Houses of Parliament. And then we get your comment. Sir/Madam, you are as bigoted and intolerant and limited in intellect as those you scorn. The first, third and fourth sentences of your post are valid. The second one, which I have quoted, betrays, I suspect, the real, intolerant you.
I am not an apologist for ongoing homophobia, as you appear to be. Would you say the same about defending people who would not let someone into their house because they are black? It is no different. So yes I am intolerant, intolerant of discriminatory intolerance. The woman in the story in question is a homophobic bigot as far as I am concerned. So well done on supporting the "gradual shift" how wonderfully Middle England and Daily Mail of you.
"How wonderfully Middle England and Daily Mail of you". Good Heavens, what an insufferably snobbish remark!
You mean there is no comparison. There is no moral component to being black.
Two thumbs up 20:21. It is so often believed that intolerance is only on the one side when it is often displayed by those supposedly fighting it.
Demanding that someone to choose between their livelihood and maintaining the integrity of their religious faith is also discrimination and an infringement of their human rights. You are also punishing people for upholding high moral standards and rewarding persons for not doing so. Evil has become good, and good evil – all signs of the times.
A most impressive lady indeed!
Conservative MP Karen Lumley, who worked in the Maldives before being elected to Parliament, said: "President Nasheed was overthrown in a coup and the Maldives is now very unstable. Many of my friends there have been arrested by the new regime. It is disgusting that a former British attorney-general should take a well-paid job advising the new regime, which has no democratic mandate."
She can get away with anything. Just what we need. No Mr Taylor, Please try again. This woman has been mired in scandal and conveniently hides behing the minority card.
http://theoslotimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6005&catid=107&Itemid=601
Please read this article from a reputable source and you will see the calibre of this "impressive lady."
Can we get a statement from McKeeva or Alden on this?
Mr Le Wool, you are right to bring this to our attention. She is a "Blair Babe" and that should have raised flags but she is the sort of candidate the FCO loves because she represents "diversity".
Maybe she can advise Alden on how to overthrow Mac.
All joking aside, I knew her name sounded familiar and I find this information quite disturbing.