Anything you can do

Following the ‘volunteer’ row, a number of victims groups intend to take a legal challenge against the new proposed Victims Commission appointments. This follows the successful challenge to the Parades Commission appointments.

  • Former Volunteer

    Wee Willie throwing the toys away again. This should be good for a laugh, so long as you aren’t the one paying for it.

  • it doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten wee willie’s last wee wobble….the gaelic pass affair…..

  • ROFL

    Willie Frazer launching a legal challenge. That has got to be the funniest report of the week. Well shortly behind the one about the boy complaining about the passports.

  • checkthefacts

    Just how definite is this legal challenge – other than Willie Frazer attempting to exercise his political ‘muscle’ again.

    Is there any confirmed details of all these groups who are supposedly behind him?

  • Moe

    Surely the apppointment of a Commission rather than the advertised Commissionor could be challenged by someone who may have applied in the first instance, but didn’t re-apply the second time due to their initial rejection. That person may have been qualified suitably to be on the four-person panel if they’d known that was what it was to be.

  • wild turkey

    ChecktheFacts (and others)

    The UTV report does not specify just what kinda ‘legal action’ is being taken.

    Is it a judicial review? If so, JRs don’t come cheap and if the complainant goes belly up they usually have to pay the other sides costs.

    So, with the mantra ‘Follow the money’ in mind, questions.

    Any idea of who will be paying for the ‘legal action’?
    Is the woman named in the article eligble for legal aid on this one?

  • Ian

    Moe, Raymond McCord made a similar point, although he did re-apply second time round and was again rejected (for different reasons, mind):

  • Rapunsel

    Fair Deal . I don’t think it appropriate to compare the appointments here. Firstly there is no victims commission, secondly the position of Victims Commissioner is a position of paid employment and subject to proper procedures of recruitment and selection. I do not believe that the appointment of the parades commissioners ( nor of the Interim Victims Commissioner) was subject to such procedures. WRT the Parades Commission as for the IVC has the problem not been that there was in fact no defensible process that met with the minimum legal requirments for the SoS to make an appointment.

    By the way — if things were not bad enough for the Parades Commission – what was that statement from Roger Poole all about? In my view tha Parades Commission as a whole is untenable? Are all of the current commissioners happy that the SoS broke the law and tried to pack the commission?

  • Wailing Willie


    They’ve victimized (some of) us again.

  • fair_deal


    Parades Commisioners are paid although not full-time positions. Does the public appointment procuedure not cover all these appointments?

  • Rapunsel

    I’m not sure Fair Deal– what I am getting at is that the VC are paid posts of employment advertised etc as such whereas as far as I know the others were not and were in the gift of the SoS ( following proper procedures, which were not followed! ). Now I may be naive and I don’t myself agree with 4 VC’s but I don’t believe that these people were appointed on anything other than merit following an open process( I have a problem that only one post was advertised). WRT the Parades Commission the SoS went out of his way did he not to seek potential appointees from one section of the community and ignored proper processes?