Thursday, March 4, 2010

Allegations surface that Steven 'bin laden' Purcell had a "chemical dependency", he denies it, but why were Glasgow City Council going to say it?

Dear All

The Steven ‘bin laden’ Purcell story takes a new twist as Glasgow City Council officials had been set to say that former leader Steven Purcell quit because of a "chemical dependency".

How did Glasgow City Councils arrive at that conclusion?

What was the information they had at their disposal to draw up that statement?

Did someone just think, he is leaving so it must be because of drugs?

Although Labour controlled Glasgow City Council is inept and incompetent even they must surely realise that making up statements which could be false is a serious legal matter.

The line currently being used by Purcell’s PR firm and Lawyers is that he left his job as head of Glasgow City Council because of exhaustion.

Now lawyers acting for Purcell has complained to the Press Complaints Commission about what they say is "harassment of a sick man" by the press.

So, is this a legitimate story for the press to pursue in the public interest?


Why, because of the proposed statement by Glasgow City Council and what would logically follow on in regard to the criminal aspect of it.

If the leader of Glasgow City Council was as council staff were about to say publicly as having "chemical dependency" that is serious.

Questions of this sort would naturally follow by Strathclyde Police;

Where did he allegedly get the drugs from?

What is the name of his alleged suppliers?

How often did he meet?

How much did he spend?

Who gave him the name of the supplier in the first place?

At present Purcell’s PR firm and lawyers say that he recuperating with family, and asking the media to allow him time and space to recover to full health.

They also say that the allegations are without foundation.

I don’t think however the press will stop digging because of the proposed statement at Glasgow City Council.

Then there are the questions of will Purcell file a complaint against those officials who wrote the "chemical dependency" statement.

This is far too serious a matter to sweep under the carpet; such a thing if false is gross professional misconduct and sack able for those involved.

It seems that the issue is to run as the press have a start point, Glasgow City Council.

And all this will be waiting for him when he gets back.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

No comments: