Talk:Rosie Kane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
- "she personally paid the bail for an Irish mother and 18 month old baby, and then allowed them to stay with her and her daughters in their tenement flat until their visa issues were resolved."
Since when have Irish citizens required visas to come to the UK? This sentence appears to be misleading, can anyone expand on the story? — Trilobite (Talk) 20:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This appears to refer to Mercy Ikolo who was originally from Cameroon, settled in Dublin, and was arrested while trying to board a ferry back to Ireland at Stranraer. She was claiming asylum in Ireland and was apparently detained because the Irish authorities did not want her to return. Dbiv 20:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I seem to remember she wore jeans at her swearing-in ceremony, perhaps that is worthy of inclusion in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.128.18 (talk • contribs). 23:56, 18 August 2005
Be bold and include it then. Nobody is stopping you. PatGallacher 11:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dungavel
Wikipedia needs a page about Dungavel - there's none at the moment. Does anyone have the necessary information to furnish one?
Well, I have created a stub with a link to the Close Dungavel Now page, feel free to add to it. PatGallacher 10:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
21:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)== Tommy Sheridan defamation trial edit ==
I've re-inserted the section on the Tommy Sheridan defamation case, which was removed last night tagged as "partisan". It is not partisan to state that there may be an investigation into possible untruths told by witnesses in a legal trial. The paragraph made no expression of support for either party in the case, nor did it suggest anyone was guilty of anything. It simply stated that an investigation is possible, which is of neutral but significant public interest in that three members of the Scottish Parliament have given evidence rejected by the Court of Session. The possibility of perjury charges following the case was clearly stated by the judge during the trial. If some people are uncomfortable with that, too bad. It has nothing to do with any partisan loyalties.
Mustafa Bevi clearly doesn't want any mention of a topic that's all over the Scottish press today, but the possibility of perjury charges arising from the Sheridan defamation case belongs here, whether Mustafa Bevi likes it or not. Why would a person want to keep removing this material, if not for their own partisan reasons? (unsigned edit)
It is certainly not partisan to mention the possibility of perjury charges. It is however partisan to mention this in the context of some but not all witnesses in the recent case who gave contradictory evidence, which includes e.g. all 6 SSP MSPs. The best place to deal with this at this stage is in the article on the trial itself, in the absence of further substantial developments e.g. somebody being charged. Mustafa Bevi 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Poor argument. As there has been a verdict and judgement in the case, one side is legally in the right and the other legally in the wrong, regardless of what any of us might believe to be the actual truth of the matter. Thus, the accounts of those who gave evidence against Sheridan are the ones considered to be of questionable veracity, in the eyes of the law at least. I would not wish to say Ms Kane has perjured herself, but I would not actively speak in support her evidence, as the courts are far from finished with this. The original text suggested people now face the possibility of investigation for perjury. Everyone sees and thus faces that possibility, although only a few face the prospect of actually being investigated. The original text did not in fact say Rosie Kane would be investigated, although such a possiblity exists. If the text is partisan in failing to mention the other MSPs who gave evidence, it's only because this is an article about Rosie Kane and not the others.Jamesfmun
The only people legally in the wrong at this stage are News International, not any of the witnesses they called. As you correctly point out, the courts are far from finished with this. A non-partisan way of approaching this would be to add a similar statement to the articles on all witnesses, the 6 MSPs, Katrine Trolle, and any others. As this would be unwieldy, particularly as the situation may change from week to week, it would be better to deal with this in the main article on the case for the time being. Mustafa Bevi 22:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC
I've given a specific detail of the African woman and child were housed by Rosie Kane. She isn't Irish-African or Irish. If she was, there would have been no immiigration problem. Ireland showed her the door. She's Cameroonian, so call it the way it is. I have stated the child is "Ireland-born" rather than Irish-born, as Irish could imply nationality, rather than simply place of birth. Further, while Dungavel is surely not a nice place to be confined, I have altered its description from that of "prison" to "centre". A prison has specific legal status, and Dungavel doesn't have it. --Jamesfmun 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citizen Kane?
I read the Sunday Mail, and as much as I am against almost everything that Kane stands for, I can tell you her column is NOT called Citizen Kane, it's plainly headed 'Rosie Kane' with a picture of her head. Part of the email address for replying to views about her column is called 'citizenkane'. Douglasnicol 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
