[gondola]

I think the statement that there are indeed 'skeletons in the cupboard' may in itself be something that could be subject to defamatory process. Thus, since you made it, I suspect that you had sufficient evidence to substantiate your view. However, i appreciate that it may be appropriate not to divulge further yet, for obvious reasons.

As part of his 'urgent review' into the case of Mr Altaf, does Mr Britcliife intend to disclose into the public domain the objective decision making process used by adjudicators to reinstate the licence. If not, then amending the rules is a futile exercise, since as i posted out in my first contribution here, unless the rules are implemented and adhered to there is no purpose in having them.

For me it is not a case of ascertainig if the rules in place were sufficiently robust. I suspect they were. The main thrust in my considered view, is what made adjudicators exercise leniency. Unless, or until we get to the bottom of that aspect of this investigation, there is little purpose in having the investigation in the first place.

Incidentally, I agree that the manner in which this investigation is to be orchestrated is neither fair nor appropriate. It ought to be far more balanced