Talk:Rosie Kane

Untitled

"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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

Somebody changed the name back to Citizen Kane, I will repeat to the person who made the edit, the column name is called 'Rosie Kane', it is that name at the head of her column name next to her photo, it is that name in the contents page in page 2 of the Sunday Mail, and it is that name on the Sunday Mail Website. I would appreciate it if this is left as-is. The Citizen Kane part is a part of her email address quoted at the bottom of the column, this is the ONLY time that is used. Douglasnicol 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish Scots?

Someone seems to be continually putting in the 'Irish-Scots' classification into this article? Is it true? If so, the poster that keeps inserting it should provide some proof. Douglasnicol 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Member of the Scottish Parliament paragraph

There seems to be a bit of redundancy in this article. The newest content mentions her 'bringing some craziness' quote which is properly referenced, along with the protest at the oath of allegiance, all well and good, but both sections are duplicated in the same paragraph further down. Do we really need this mentioned twice? I think we can remove the duplicated material but keep in the newer better referenced stuff. Douglasnicol 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry that was me- I am currently working on improving this page and other that of other Scottish politicans, and added the refs without deleting the existing parts. One main problem is that the article jumps between different parts of her life and it is not currently in chronological order. But I am sure we will improve the article in time. Thanks Thunderwing 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Darren McGarvey

How is she related to Darren McGarvey? Aunt? 31.94.20.190 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)