Hi, in recent years I have--usually without trying--found myself taking an interest in local and national issues. Some of these issues such as the removal of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge and the opposition to the commercial development of Pittencrieff Park (the Glen) have developed into campaigns and the latter ended up with me constructing a website.
The site Save Our Glen has attracted a lot of attention and is still relevant as the Carnegie Trust appear to be continuing their disposal of assets, such as the Pitreavie Playing Fields, that were meant to be for the benefit of the people of Dunfermline.
Anyway happy with the response to the Glen issue, I decided to expand the site and feature more topics that interested or irritated me, and which I thought deserved exposure. I hope to have more articles on the site in the near future so keep an eye on it.
There are now four topics published on this website: Save Our Glen, Elgin Cheated at Marbles, Lawyers and Me , and Jimmy Savile , with a fifth on Freemasonry published in part. Others works in progress are varied and include my experiences with common good assets, bird watching, the ethics of multinational companies, bread making, and my experiences of the Scottish justice system.
You can access a topic by clicking the appropriate links at the top right hand side of the page. You can then navigate each section by clicking on the appropriate Part/Chapter in the right hand side bar. (These become available as the chapters are published).
If you would like to contact me then you can click on the "contact" link at the bottom of the page and fill in the contact form.
Thanks for visiting the website, Tom Minogue.
PUBLIC PETITION UPDATE: On Tuesday 12 November the Public Petitions Committee (PPC) of the Scottish Parliament met to consider my petition.
The Parliament TV coverage of my evidence and examination by the committee is here LINK
The Scottish Parliament official report of the meeting of 12 November (said to be substantially verbatim) is here: LINK
As was evidenced at my appearance before the PPC on 12 November, my submission from the Domstol, the Norwegian Courts Administration Service had not been put before the committee and the Convener had apologised and stated that this "transmission error" would be rectified and the committee would consider all of my submissions.
An e-mail of apology for the absence of my Norwegian submission was sent by the Clerk, Anne Peat and I looked forward to hear the committee's views on my submission at the next meeting of the PPC, scheduled for 28 January 2014, before which, I have been given the opportunity to comment in writing on the responses from the 7 bodies the PPC sought views on my petition from.
I have been instructed to be brief. To keep my comments to 3 sides of A4! LINK
In the interim period between the meetings, on 21 November the committee informed me that they had received another submission from The Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland asking them to seek the views of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and asking that the Grand Secretary wished to appear before the committee to give evidence.
This "counter petition" troubled me as it had no place in the petitions system that I can see and was the fourth separate plea from Grand Lodge, whose submissions on a matter that was none of their business (unless invited by the PPC to comment) troubled me, and I asked the committee where within the rules was there provision for this interference.
My concerns regarding Grand Lodge's influence with the committee on matters regarding my petition were heightened when I saw the papers for the meeting of 28 January and while provision was there for consideration of Grand Lodge's request regarding approaching the Scottish Human Rights Commission, my Norwegian submissions were not included in the papers for the meeting nor was their omission mentioned.
Because of this omission, which was one of the main planks of my case, and other matters of concern regarding the handling of the petition by the Convener, I concluded that I would not get a fair hearing and would have to abandon my public petition.
I e-mailed the Convener (copied to all members substitutes and clerks) on Monday 27 January at 12. 35 advising him that I had abandoned the petition and giving him the reason why told him that I was no longer prepared to take part in what was a parody of the parliament's petition process.
Despite my actions the PPC made a pretence of considering my petition as if it were still a live issue on the following day at their meeting and the video of the meeting records members of the committee supposedly considering my request that they close the petition (that they all had been informed I had abandoned some 24 hours earlier).
I have since been advised that they had considered my petition and decided to close it as it did not merit further consideration!
The pompous posturing of the PPC can be seen here: