20-08-2013, 10:03 PM
Before this kicks off again down the usual channels I was referring to standards committee case 1204 against Michael Hanley. This case should have been time barred by 66 days but appeared 11 days before the Council meeting and all the controversy raging at the time. Investigations stopped very soon after Michael pointed out that I was a key witness to the incident. The case was formally dropped after the council meeting after Michael had agreed to rewrite his directors report.
Straying off topic I know but it is essential for the future of CS that the standards committee are seen to be independent of the executive.
My suggestion is to reinvent the jury system. Let cases be judged by random adult members of CS who do not have a clearly defined conflict of interests. These people are by definition capable of jury service and deciding whether or not to convict those accused of serious crimes. Petty squabbles in the chess world would be far easier to judge than serving in a major criminal trial.
Straying off topic I know but it is essential for the future of CS that the standards committee are seen to be independent of the executive.
My suggestion is to reinvent the jury system. Let cases be judged by random adult members of CS who do not have a clearly defined conflict of interests. These people are by definition capable of jury service and deciding whether or not to convict those accused of serious crimes. Petty squabbles in the chess world would be far easier to judge than serving in a major criminal trial.