21-08-2013, 02:02 AM
Can we be clear about definitions?
No =) Thanks for the clarification and info. I expect you are technically right about the Management Board Ken, but according to the news item on the CS site the case recently ruled on by the Standards Committee was decided in a panel of three including the President and Chairman. Isn’t that like having the prime minster on a jury!? Not that I’d query the verdict they reached in that case, I hasten to add – but if a case occurred in which CS itself happened to have a direct involvement, or was even the defendant/complainant (as has nearly happened, I read somewhere), you wouldn’t expect CS office bearers to have a neutral prior view. In that kind of case, whatever definitions were used wouldn’t change the appearance that CS was in reality judge/jury in its own cases.
No =) Thanks for the clarification and info. I expect you are technically right about the Management Board Ken, but according to the news item on the CS site the case recently ruled on by the Standards Committee was decided in a panel of three including the President and Chairman. Isn’t that like having the prime minster on a jury!? Not that I’d query the verdict they reached in that case, I hasten to add – but if a case occurred in which CS itself happened to have a direct involvement, or was even the defendant/complainant (as has nearly happened, I read somewhere), you wouldn’t expect CS office bearers to have a neutral prior view. In that kind of case, whatever definitions were used wouldn’t change the appearance that CS was in reality judge/jury in its own cases.