21-08-2013, 11:04 AM
Thanks Andy. The news item does refer to a further meeting but it says
“As per the SC decision, the group to conduct this meeting would consist of the President, Chairman of SC and the PVG Lead Signatory”
It could be me that’s wrong but this did look clear. I’ll just say again I have no objection to this composition on this occasion as CS was acting as the authority on a matter between two member parties. But if CS is the de facto or actual complainant or defendant it would be hard to see how these officials or indeed any other CS officials could be expected to be neutral.
I’m not just nit-picking as usual as I understand there almost was such a case brought and (thankfully, in my view), dropped (something else I could be wrong on, peering as I am through the mist that constitutes CS transparency) and I wondered who would have heard it if the committee is full of office bearers.
Perhaps a wider pool of CS members is needed in order to cater for this situation in a fair-minded way.
“As per the SC decision, the group to conduct this meeting would consist of the President, Chairman of SC and the PVG Lead Signatory”
It could be me that’s wrong but this did look clear. I’ll just say again I have no objection to this composition on this occasion as CS was acting as the authority on a matter between two member parties. But if CS is the de facto or actual complainant or defendant it would be hard to see how these officials or indeed any other CS officials could be expected to be neutral.
I’m not just nit-picking as usual as I understand there almost was such a case brought and (thankfully, in my view), dropped (something else I could be wrong on, peering as I am through the mist that constitutes CS transparency) and I wondered who would have heard it if the committee is full of office bearers.
Perhaps a wider pool of CS members is needed in order to cater for this situation in a fair-minded way.