The Steven Purcell Story - Part Three

I'd like to know the outcome of the autopsy on Danus McKinlay.

Why has that  become something no-one is talking about?

Did an autopsy actually take place?

We were told it would, but where is it?

I'd have thought his mother and father would have liked this all cleared up.

If you turn you eyes away from this, much like most folk seem to do, you are not asking to be told a truth. Whatever that might be.

Steven Purcell - The story moves along - Part 2

I sometimes wonder how closely we are expected to read newspaper reports before we can arrive at any sort of conclusion.

William Haughey has apparently said this to the Sunday Herald. It includes this apparently throw away indirect quote:

"But Mr Haughey insisted he not spoken to or helped Mr Purcell since his breakdown."

Yes, the grammar is theirs, not mine...

On the other hand, The Sunday Times claims this

Which says, inter alia:

"
NINE days ago Willie Haughey, one of Labour’s biggest donors and an ally of Gordon Brown, was spotted at a secret crisis meeting in a pub car park in the south of the Glasgow. He was flanked by two smartly dressed businessmen. Nearby, a plump man sat in a car, clearly agitated.

Haughey, the Scottish businessman, who built his £100m fortune out of a refrigeration business, was in a sombre mood as he spoke to the two men. The outcome was clear: the career of Steven Purcell, the plump man in question and one of Labour’s brightest stars, was over.

Purcell, 37, afraid and tearful, had already stood down as council leader of Glasgow, Britain’s fourth largest city. Friends had urged him to stay on as a councillor and rebuild his career.

Haughey, who has given more than £1m to Labour, and the two other men ordained a more drastic option. It would be announced later that Purcell’s career in local politics was over. “By then he will be out of the country,” said one of those present."

Well, even if both stories are completely accurate, they don't actually contradict each other, do they, dear reader?

The joys of go betweens and deniability, or a load of hooey? Spotted by whom, for instance, seems a reasonable question? Is it not the case that before a story like this is run there ought to be two independent sources?  Or do have we a local version of Deep Throat in play here?

And who, exactly were the two smartly dressed businessmen? The way it is written it would seem that they were a party to the decision.

It seems to me that the steam is still building on this story.

Hmm.. This is not Part Two...

Here is an interesting aside on this case:

http://tinyurl.com/yl87lav

To quote from the above, Jack Irvine allegedly says, inter alia:

"It has made allegations about the PR strategy but it has no idea about the hidden issues involved."

As a bear of very little brain, it seems to me that the public has a right to know what the 'hidden issues' are?

UPDATE: 14.03.10

Seems I am not the only one calling for some clarity here:

http://tinyurl.com/yayd8ku

Oh! And  

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7061170.ece 

And, most astonishingly:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7061166.ece

The Steven Purcell Story - A post modern tale - Part One

And then it all went wrong, didn't it? I'd like help in filling in the gaps, some of which are down to my ignorance and some of which may point to what is really going on here. You decide, or help make this a better narrative. I will modify the narrative as comments or news arrives. This is supposed to be politically neutral, though Labour supporters may not see it as such. That is their cognitive dissonance, not mine.

For those that do not know, a few weeks ago it seemed that Steven Purcell, the first (?) outright gay Leader of Glasgow was heading towards the stratosphere of Scottish Labour. He was well respected, even by his opponents, including me, and had managed to bring the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Glasgow.

A bright and shiny future seemed to await him. He had been headhunted to stand against John Mason in the Glasgow (East) by election, and would probably have won. But he rejected that opportunity, perhaps because he wanted to see the Commonwealth Games project to a conclusion. On balance, I think that was true. There have been few occasions for this city to stand on a global stage and it would have been kudos all the way. It might not, exactly, have been a platform as strong as a certain Mr B Johnsons, but it would have been a credible rising tide on which to enter Parliament.

Would it not?


----------------------------------------------------------------

It is quite difficult to understand how someone on the cusp of that much potential could have blown it so thoroughly.

Who are these 'pals' that The News of the World said he had?

It all seemed to start to go wrong at the dog end of an evening out. February 26th, described as a 'convivial night out'.  It was a night that our beloved leader - to quote Private Eye - was in attendance. (OK, G Brown.). That appears to have ended rather oddly, as  Steven Purcell was, apparently, huckled out of the joint by 'pals' and taken home. What had the 'rising star of Labour Politics' done to result in this 'I'll get your coat' treatment?

No-one is saying. Correct me if I am wrong, but no-one is saying.

It gets more weird.  February 26th is a Friday. The weekend starts here, and all that.

What happened to Steven Purcell over that weekend?

Apart from unsubstantiated comments that 'he was getting worse' or the like, issued by pals, apparently, very little. We do not hear from his family, we do not hear from him.

Who hasn't hade a tit of themselves late on a Friday night? What degree of embarrassment would be enough to make you walk into work on the Monday morning and resign? Well, he was so embarrassed that he didn't even turn up. He just resigned over the phone from, probably, the most important post in Scottish Local Government.

What could he possibly have said or done on the Friday that made resignation necessary on the Monday?

Occams razor kind of cuts through most speculation. It is not obvious that he even spoke to Gordon Brown.

So what was said, that was enough for him to firstly give up his authority and then his job. I do not believe it was just a cocaine habit, which is comprehensively denied, he merely 'dabbled'. There is something else going on here, and I think it is darker and deeper.

More later....

Steven Purcell

It is all becoming a bit mad, isn't it?

There are folk that think tomorrows' papers will reveal all.

Frankly, I have no idea.

I don't know about you, but I'd really like to see tomorrows headlines. And an analysis of whether he has been strung out to dry, or not. It could be a game changer in Glasgow.

This could be a big deal politically, or a damp squib....

Bringing it all back Home

My friend Rumbold has coincidentaly, addressed something I expected neither of us to have to address.

It is the post rational swirl of undirected intent. You may, or may not be aware that my identity has been pinched.

Post-rationalism seems to me to be where we are right now. We have a new meme in the common brain. It is that we can do whatever we like, say what we like, be whoever we like as long as we are never caught. And that that is a legitimate, perhaps monetised, way of being.

Well, it isn't. It is to subscribe to a check list of idiocy:

Lying about learning - check.

Lying about others - check.

Lying about identity - check.

Just lying - check.

But mainly about being a nihilist - check.

I have spent a little time, because that is what my stalker wants and I am generous with my time. I have come up with this, a la Cracker.

My stalker is:

Male

A disgusting mysogynist, with rape fantasies

A Jew hater, possibly Muslim

Probably a virgin

Probably likely to remain a virgin

Under or around twenty, see previous point

Computer literate

English.

Uncircumcised.

Posting in his Y Fronts

Mad.

Well, that should narrow it down a bit.

A Public Service Announcement - NSFW

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.