“There is no intention to readvertise the position..”

So, despite the quoted OFDFM spokesman here, and all that apparently “ill-informed” speculation, the First and Deputy First mininsters agree on the Victims Commissioner. Agree that they will re-advertise the post, that is.. oh and there’ll be someone appointed by the end of the year.. honest.. Adds Full statement from the First and Deputy First ministers is careful to avoid any legal challenges from the previously shortlisted candidates.

“We would like to stress at this point that this decision in no way reflects on the people who were deemed appointable under the direct rule process. We fully acknowledge both their calibre and commitment. In fact we are asking those individuals if they would agree to their names being carried forward into this newly extended process. They won’t have to reapply, will not be re-interviewed, and will be considered along with any further applicants who are deemed appointable.”

, ,

  • Paisley looked very ill at ease over this question this afternoon in what was probably his worst performance in a First Ministers’ Questions.

  • Rapunsel

    If people have been deemed appointable why is no one being appointed.

    Surely these appointable people have some sort of legal redress.

    I don’t but the argument about the process. It evidently is a smokescreen for the fact that the process didn’t identify an appointable person that our first ministers could agree on. If the process has identified someone they could agree on would they have readvertised the post.

    I think the post is totally tainted with the process lacking any credibility whatsoever.

    Can someone please remind me why we actually need a Victims Commissioner?

  • Ian

    “We would like to stress at this point that this decision in no way reflects on the people who were deemed appointable under the direct rule process. We fully acknowledge both their calibre and commitment. In fact we are asking those individuals if they would agree to their names being carried forward into this newly extended process. They won’t have to reapply, will not be re-interviewed, and will be considered along with any further applicants who are deemed appointable.”

    Does that only apply to the shortlisted candidates who were interviewed last time, or also others who weren’t e.g. Raymond McCord Snr?

  • Pete Baker

    It would only be those short-listed, ie ‘appointable’, Ian.

    Just to avoid any annoying legal challenges at this point you understand.

    And yes, Rapsunel. If there is a candidate, on whom the First and Deputy First Ministers could agree, already on the ‘appointable’ short-list.. what’s the problem?

  • Interested Observer

    An example, if one were needed, of the unworkable nature of government that the country was so keen to embrace – Obviously Ian and Martin couldn’t agree on any of those deemed ‘appointable’ and now we have to do it all again. Now, if you were going to run the adverts again the last thing you would want would be the same situation recurring. So how do you fix that -you agree someone in advance and get them to apply. I wonder has someone already been sounded out? What a sham!!!

  • Granni Trixie

    Comments on this issue seem to be accepting that the First and his Deputy have to “approve” a candidate….but where does this sit with Fair Employment/Equality legislation?
    Also, a VC whilst ‘special’ in my book is still a job to be done professionally. This should mean that the person selected has to be someone who can put their own bias to one side, hence what relevance has the DUP/SF in the selection process? Yesterday on Talkback it was suggested that 2 people might be appointed (presumably one for each ‘side), a backward and ridiculous step.