Abject Alfred

Alfred Sangster has filed an affidavit in defence of the PM and AG in the litigation brought against them by his erstwhile PSC colleagues.

The affidavit can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8526690/Alfred-Sangsters-Affidavit.

Sangster's affidavit demonstrates a comprehensive surrender of whatever was left of his backbone and indeed another part of his anatomy that is associated with manhood.

Sangster's affidavit largely elaborates on his earlier public excoriation of his PSC colleagues. Some of the salient elements of his affidavit are as follows:



1. Sangster supported Vasciannie's appointment as SG until his 'discovery' of Vasciannie's 'dead cat' comment. According to Sangster, he was unaware of this comment until he read about it in a Mark Wignall column published in December 2007.

2. After a round of meetings with the PM/GG, he claims that he prepared a letter of resignation dated November 26, 2007 (before seeing the dead cat comment, but was persuaded not to proffer it because of the implications of his "JLP" name. At paragraph 14, Sangster states that he supported Vasciannie's nomination until he discovered the dead cat comment. At a meeting of the PSC on November 26, 2007, Sangster confirms that he was part of a unanimous recommendation to affirm Vasciannie's nomination as SG.

3. Sangster claims that he tried to persuade his colleagues to reconsider Vasciannie's nomination in light of the dead cat comment, but without success. Incredibly, Sangster claims that Vasciannie had an obligation to disclose the dead cat comment, despite wide publication of the comment in 2002 in Vasciannie's own column in the Gleaner.


4. Sangster accuses Pauline Findlay of being "high-handed" in refusing to reconsider the nomination of Stephen Vasciannie (in light of the objections of the PM). For Sangster, Pauline Findlay's position established the PSC's position of "arrogance and non-retreat". Sangster states that Pauline Findlay's 'high-handedness' occurred at a meeting of the PSC on October 31, 2007 (following a meeting on the same day between the PSC and the PM).

5. Sangster further accuses the PSC of improper conduct in failing to reinstate Lackston Robinson in his position at the AG's Chambers. Sangster was not a member of the PSC when the Supreme Court quashed Robinson's retirement in the public interest. Sangster claims that the PSC's attempt to assign Robinson to the Tax Administration Department was "an attempt to circumvent the judgment of the Court".

6. Ultimately, Sangster accuses the PSC of misbehaviour for (a) their "arrogant position" to the Prime Minister "and in the decisions they made"; (b) their conduct with respect to Lackston Robinson. Sangster concludes that "it was unthinkable for me, and still is to become embroiled in a legal suit against the Prime Minister and tangentially the Governor General, which is in my opinion not in the public interest."


I so hope that the Claimants will ask for Sangster to be produced for cross-examination. It is quite obvious that Sangster was cowed by the PM's displeasure, forgetting (?) that the PSC doesn't exist to rubber stamp the directives of the executive arm of government. This is clearly revealed by Sangster's characterization of the PSC as arrogant for refusing to bow to the PM.

Sangster shamelessly parades the 'dead cat' comment as justification for reconsidering Vasciannie's nomination, despite the fact that he had endorsed Vasciannie even after his supposed letter of resignation of November 26, 2007. Sangster's discovery of the dead cat comment can after the meeting of November 26, 2007. What then was the reason for threatening to resign at a time when he was unaware of the comment, and indeed had already endorsed Vasciannie? Sangster himself says that he only changed his mind about Vasciannie after the dead cat comment (paragraph 14). Of what relevance was a five year old comment to Vasciannie's qualifications for the job of SG? Is Sangster saying that any criticism of politicians disqualifies competent professionals from holding positions in the public service??

If Sangster was so uncomfortable generally about the behaviour of the PSC, why didn't he simply resign without more?

The PSC's role in the Robinson litigation is one of the grounds of "misbehaviour" cited by the PM in firing the PSC members, including Sangster. As a matter of pride, one might have thought that Sangster would object to being indicted for misbehaviour, together with his former colleagues. Instead, Sangster ends up condemning his colleagues (and himself by extension), by obsequiously parrotting the PM's indictment of the PSC. Apart from this, Sangster wasn't part of the PSC at the time of the adverse judicial review against the PSC. On what moral or legal authority does Sangster pontificate on the implications of the ruling or the PSC's decision to transfer Robinson elsewhere?


In my view, the only PSC member guilty of 'misbehaviour' is Sangster himself. As a member of the PSC, he was obliged to exercise constitutional authority independently of the views or preferences of the Prime Minister or his surrogates. He was likewise obliged to exercise his authority unfettered by irrelevant, and indeed irrational considerations such as Vasciannie's so-called 'dead cat comment'. Sangster has revealed himself to be little more than a cowardly mouthpiece for the JLP government. In plain terms, Sangster is a damn disgrace, an embarrassment to the office that he held, and indeed to the national honour he holds.

Read More...

Second and final exchange with Dr. Stoddart

Here is the final instalment of my exchange with Dr. Stoddart.




My first email to Dr. Stoddart of Feb. 13, 2008
Thank you for your reply, Dr. Stoddart. If you have not already done so, I would suggest that you read the affidavit of Daisy Coke, which I believe sets out a clear and compelling chronology of the PSC/Vasciannie saga. The Sunday Observer of February 3 had a lead story based on this affidavit, which has not been so far been publicly denied by Dr. Sangster. For ease of reference, the affidavit can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2034515/affidavit-coke-daisy.

While you are more than entitled to defend Dr. Sangster, I do think that it behooves you to do so on the basis of established facts, and not personal affiliation. I note that you have not addressed, much less controverted any of the facts that I adduced in my initial response to you.

Again, I am surprised that you placed the burden of this imbroglio on Prof. Vasciannie's shoulders, when indeed he did nothing more than fairly compete for and win selection for the post of Solicitor General, something which he was entitled to do. I am puzzled by your recommendation that Prof. Vasciannie should have withdrawn and then sought arbitral or judicial recourse. Again, you appear intent on exempting the government from any responsibility for creating this situation in the first place. It is the government that deliberately chose to flout the law, not Prof. Vasciannie. It is the government's flagrant assault on the rule of law that created this mess; not Prof. Vasciannie's 'failure' to withdraw. A Solicitor General is, among other things, expected to stand up for, and uphold the rule of law. As a candidate/selectee for this position, what message do you think Prof. Vasciannie would have been sending if he withdrew in the face of this assault on the rule of law?

Generally, I don't think that Jamaica can afford to squander a talent like Stephen Vasciannie. It seems to me that you have overlooked this dimension in your consideratio of this issue. The government's behaviour (and indeed Dr. Sangster's) is hardly likely to be conducive to attracting young, bright, competent professionals to the public service. Your position implicitly endorses the alienation of talent in favour of placating personality. If your conscience can live with that, so be it. You will definitely have the Jamaica you deserve.

Best regards,


Hilaire Sobers

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Stoddart's reply (Feb.13, 2008)

Dr. Sobers:

Thanks for the link to Commissioner Coke's affidavit. I read the document thoroughly and it has now concretised my position that Dr. Vasciannie should have withdrawn his name from contention from the very minute that Attorney General Lightbourne objected to working with him.

I have been in similar situations on various sides of a saga of this nature. Whether or not I had much to contribute to the organization, my primary concern was for peace and reconciliation, and I would not insist on placing myself in a messy situation even on a matter fo principle. That matter of principle I would have dealt with but not trying to get the office where other vital people with whom I would have to work did not wish to work with me.

I am now extremely surprised that following the first meeting with the PM none of the PSC members had the common sense to see that if both AG Lightbourne and PM Golding objected to Dr. Vasciannie's appointment then they should have got to work making a different recommendation to the Governor General!!! Preferably starting from scratch and not giving in to the AG's insistence on Leys nor the PM's insistence on Foster. Seek the high road of compromise.

How could a government work well with both the AG and the PM objecting to the Solicitor General's suitability, for whatever reason? The smooth functioning of the government is as important as justice being done for Dr. Vasciannie. When the controversy developed, it was immediately important to seek both (smooth government function and justice for Dr. Vasciannie) in different forums.

The details from Commissioner Coke re the Lackston Robinson matter clearly showed that more efficient rules must be put in place to avoid playing party politics and personality power play with vital government appointments. It also shows that some single person must be given veto power in cases where significant deadlocks occur. Of course, we have the courts but if litigation can be avoided it should be.

I think the GG has veto power in appointing the SG, given what I have read, that the PSC's recommendation is just that, a recommendation. However, I'll leave that to the attorneys.

I could have sat down and commented point by point to the issues that you raised but I chose to make an overall assessment of the situation and now conclude from reading Commissioner Coke's affidavit that Dr. Vasciannie should have stepped in and withdrawn his nomination. Whatever misconduct or other problems existed on the part of the government or the PSC could have been dealt with in less public and more efficient manners. I smelled political "fishiness" in both the SG and Lackston Robinson issues, based on reading Commissioner Coke's affidavit. Thus, more efficient rules must now be put in place to avoid such mess in the future. Now, let the courts decide what is just. God bless.
-M. Stoddart

P. S. I know both Dr. Sangster and attorney Robinson personally and can vouch for their impeccable Christian characters.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


My follow-up to Dr. Stoddart of February 13, 2008


Dr. Stoddart:

Based simply on the affidavit, please tell me how and when Dr. Vasciannie would've known that the AG objected to his selection? I see nothing in the affidavit that indicates that the AG's objection was directly communicated to Dr. Vasciannie. Based on my own inquiries, I understand that the Attorney General had very cordial relations with Dr. Vasciannie up to the time that the PSC recommended his selection as SG. As you are aware, Dr. Vasciannie is a Deputy Solicitor General. Accordingly, I am even more perplexed by your insistence that Dr. Vasciannie should've withdrawn.

Once again, your critique of the PSC's recommendation of Dr. Vasciannie (in the face of objection by the AG/PM) betrays either an ignorance of, or contempt for the rule of law. I have repeatedly stated that the selection of public service officers is constitutionally outside of the remit of politicians. Do you not see the implications of allowing the political directorate to dictate appointments to the public service? If the political directorate is permitted to dictate who should be Solicitor General, why shouldn't they similarly be allowed to dictate selection of judges, police officers, et al? Do you not understand the design of Jamaica's constitution that expressly confers this power on Service Commissions? Following your argument, why not simply abolish these commissions and leave all of these appointments to be made by the political directorate of the day? For a man who applauded Dr. Sangster for his 'principled stance', you appear to be remarkably permissive with respect to the government's palpable failure in this regard. Perhaps, it has eluded you that the erosion of the rule of law is but the first step towards totalitarianism. In essence, this is what you argument boils down to: that the government should be allowed to do as it pleases without reference to the rule of law.

Dr. Stoddart, for your information, the GG has no discretion to veto a recommendation from the PSC or any other Service Commission. This is well established in constitutional/public law. As a matter of law, the GG has no discretion to reject any 'recommendation' or 'advice' that comes to him from any other constitutional functionary. Service Commissions are themselves appointed by the GG on the advice of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The GG, by law, MUST act on the advice tendered by the PM. There is no question of discretion on the part of the GG in deciding whether to accept the PM's selection of commission members. If you wish to read further on this, I would recommend Caribbean public law scholars like Lloyd Barnett, Albert Fiadjoe, Ralph Carnegie, and Francis Alexis. Areas in which the GG can exercise discretion is very limited, for example, the selection of his Privy Counsellors.

I am not sure how read 'party politics' and 'personality' into the situation of Lackston Robinson, as you suggest. It's really quite simple. Lackston Robinson was retired in the public interest as well as sent on leave. This followed an adverse performance review by the then Solicitor General. The Supreme court held that the decision to retire/send him on leave was wrong. The PSC was at all times entitled to retire Mr. Robinson in the public interest, provided that it did it in accordance with the law. Following the judgment, the PSC did not take this approach, and instead sought to place Mr. Robinson elsewhere in the public service. Mr. Robinson has objected, and followed this up with another round of litigation. That's all there is to it. Interestingly, you appear to ignore the clear play of politics and personality in the government's opposition to Stephen Vasciannie.

With all due respect, Dr. Stoddart, the "Christian" character of Dr. Sangster and Mr. Robinson is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. Frankly, I don't really care what their religious beliefs are. What I do care about is compliance with the rule of law which protects all of us, regardless of our religious, political or other persuasions.

Best regards,

OHS

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Stoddart's final response of Feb. 13, 2008

Dr. Sobers:

Many of the questions you raised have been already answered by me or by others whose comments have been published in the press or in the affidavit of Commissioner Coke. The ultimate answers will come from the courts as this matter is litigated and decided.

I admire your passion for the rule of law and I have much confidence in the Jamaican justice system, having worked in it myself. However, in your haste, you often overlook a few obvious points, e.g., the fact that there was obvious political power play and personality clashes in the Dr. Vasciannie v. the AG and the Dr. Vasciannie v. the PM situations, as I analysed them.

There are a few judges and attorneys whom I know personally, including some who once were legal advisors to PM Patterson, to AG Nicholson, to Minister Phillips, et al, upon whom I could call to interpret that matter re the GG's options when "recommendations" have been given to him but this Dr. Vasciannie matter will be decided in the courts and we will all live with the courts' decisions.

Having not yet met him, I can only say that Dr. Vasciannie seems like an honourable man, from all that I have read, and I am sure that he too will do all within his power to see that justice is done. Having known Dr. Sangster and Attorney Robinson for many years, I can vouch for their impeccable Christian characters (more ethics than religion here). I still maintain very strongly that I would have withdrawn my name from recommendation, had I sat where Dr. Vasciannie sat, and then proceeded to seek justice in some other forum. The nation's business must go on and I pray that all three-- smooth government operation, justice for Dr. Vasciannie, and for the dismissed members of the PSC-- will be achieved. I have no doubt that your erudite participation in the public debate will help Jamaica to make corrections where necessary and perhaps avoid such a mess in the future. God bless.

-M. Stoddart

Read More...

Very principled stance, Dr. Sangster- letter to Observer on February 11, 2008 by the Rev. Dr. Mervin Stoddart

The Rev. Dr. Mervin Stoddart paid tribute to Dr. Sangster's 'principled stance' in not joining with his erstwhile colleagues in challenging the PM's decision to fire them. See: http://jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080210t180000-0500_132386_obs_very_principled_stance__dr_sangster.asp


I had an exchange with Dr. Stoddart, which is set out hereunder:



MY EMAIL TO DR. STODDART OF FEBRUARY 11, 2008


Dr. Stoddart,

For a self-described man of the cloth, I find your concept of principled behaviour to be incomprehensible to say the least. In your panegyric to Dr. Sangster in today's Observer, you 'salute' him for his "very gentlemanly and honourable stance concerning the dismissal of PSC members by Prime Minister Bruce Golding". You claim that "Dr Sangster's principled stance in the PSC saga was based on that body's seemingly unjust treatment of attorney Lackston Robinson".

My first question to you would be this: if Dr. Sangster was as principled as you claim, why didn't he express these views earlier? Why now? If didn't he resign, rather than allow himself to be fired with the rest of the PSC members? Why didn't he express these views in any of the meetings that he and his colleagues had with the Prime Minister prior to their dismissal? With respect to the Lackston Robinson issue, why didn't Dr. Sangster protest his dismissal on this ground, given that he was not a member of the PSC that originally made the decision to retire Lackston Robinson in the public interest? Is this your idea of "principled behaviour'?

Apart from your questionable notions of principle, you (and Dr. Sangster) are quite wrong on some of the critical facts. Firstly, there was never any order of reinstatement regarding Lackston Robinson. If you have not seen the judgment of Mr. Justice Jones, I urge you to read it for yourself. Perhaps neither you nor Dr. Sangster understand the import of this judgment, which was simply that the decision of the PSC to retire Lackston Robinson was wrong in law, because of a failure to follow certain legal procedures. What you may not know is that the PSC was more than entitled to repeat the process of retiring Lackston Robinson, provided that it complied with the law in so doing. Instead, the PSC took the advice of the Attorney General's Chambers in seeking to transfer Mr. Robinson to another position in the public service, something that the PSC is in law, authorized to do.

In your praise of Dr. Sangster's 'principled stance', I note that you omitted any reference to Dr. Sangster's preoccupation with a 'dead cat reference' made by Dr. Vasciannie in 2002 with respect to Bruce Golding's return to the JLP. Dr. Sangster himself admits that this concern arose only AFTER he and his colleagues had already signed off on Dr. Vasciannie's selection as Solicitor General. The essen

The essential implication of Dr. Sangster's thinking is that Stephen Vasciannie should have been denied selection as SG, not because of lack of qualifications, but for a public criticism of Bruce Golding made in 2002! A further implication of Dr. Sangster's position is that the PSC should have deferred to some imagined prejudice on the part of the political directorate, in plain violation of the constitution of Jamaica. Now, Dr. Stoddart, does this represent "principled" behaviour? Dr. Sangster claimed, without substantiation, that Dr. Vasciannie's previous commentary could "create strained relations" between Dr. Vasciannie (as SG) and the Prime Minister. Again, is this what you seriously consider as "principled"?

In your world of principle, Stephen Vasciannie ends up being the scapegoat for failing to withdraw himself as a candidate. In my world of principle, Dr. Stoddart:

1. Stephen Vasciannie was lawfully selected to be the next Solicitor General,; there is therefore no rational or legal basis for him to have withdrawn. He like any other Jamaican, is entitled to the protection of the rule of law, something that doesn't appear to matter in your world of principle.

2. This "sordid, unfortunate affair" as you put it, has nothing to do with Dr. Vasciannie's failure to withdraw, but with the government's failure to honour the constitution and the rule of law. The constitution and the rule of law represent the supreme 'principles' in a democracy, which again, do not appear to have a place in your world of principle. It is beyond debate that the PSC was entitled to select the Solicitor General without political interference.

3. Violation of principles have consequences. An immediate consequence is the politicization of the Attorney General's Chambers, something that has never happened in the Jamaica's 45 + years of independence. Anybody selected by the 'new' PSC' to be SG cannot escape being labeled as a 'JLP' functionary, instead of an independent public official. The new PSC itself, cannot avoid this label.

In my world, Dr. Sangster is no Daniel walking choosing to walk into the den of lions. In my world, he is a coward who ran at the first roar.

Best regards,

O. Hilaire Sobers


_____________________________________________________________________________________

DR. STODDART'S RESPONSE OF FEBRUARY 12, 2008


Dear Dr. Sobers:

Thanks for your very well reasoned feedback. Although it was sometimes caustic, I elected to absorb the acidity and focus on your rationale for taking the stance that you so eruditely expressed in your previously published newspaper article and which you explained again to me in your email.

I have read at least 20 articles and listened to other discussions on the PSC issue. I can't remember any comment from Dr. Vasciannie, except maybe a mild reference in some speech to a group. I read Dr. Sangster's published comments and did my own analysis, coming to the conclusions that I expressed in my Observer letter.

You and I take opposing positions re Dr. Sangster's stance, obviously. I have chosen not to write an article and not take a stance on the Vasciannie appointment nor the dismissal of the PSC, except the inferences that could be drawn from my position on Dr. Sangster's stance. I prefer that the courts make their rulings and I privately mused, like Dr. Carlton Davis expressed publicly, that the whole thing was a tragedy that should have been handled differently. I made one suggestion on how it might have been handled differently, namely, Prof. Vasciannie withdrawing his nomination (for the sake of peace). Why would anyone want to assume a post which before it even began was surrounded by mess?

That dead cat story was not very relevant for my opinion on Dr. Sangster's brave stance but whatever might be the reason for the apparent differences between PM Golding and Dr. Vasciannie, I think our country might have been best served if the professor had withdrawn and then taken his protests to arbitration or court or some forum where justice could be considered. So far, however, I have read nor heard nothing to suggest tht Prof. Vasciannie is behind the lawsuit brought by PM Portia and the dismissed PSC members. God bless.

-M. Stoddart



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

Read More...

Letter of the day - Sangster lets the puss out the bag- Sunday Gleaner, Feb.03, 2008

Former Attorney General and Opposition spokesman on justice, Senator A.J. Nicholson, QC, has a letter in today's Sunday Gleaner commenting on Dr. Sangster's public support of the PM's dismissal of the PSC. http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080203/letters/letters1.html.




One of the critical points addressed by Senator Nicholson is Dr. Sangster's claim that he (Dr. Sangster) made "three attempts to have the PSC members review the recommendation but he was not successful in having it withdrawn". Sangster did this because he believed that "the utterances of Professor Vasciannie could undermine the potential relationship between the office of the solicitor general and the prime minister".

Senator Nicholson pointedly asks: "Who told him so?" I agree with Senator Nicholson that it "certainly could not be an unprovoked assumption on his part", and that the "prime minister has never publicly given this as a reason for his actions." Senator Nicholson asked this question in the context of the express reasons given by the PM for dismissing the PSC. The issue of interpersonal compatibility with Prof. Vasciannie was certainly not one of these reasons. Indeed, Daisy Coke's affidavit (reported on in the Sunday Observer of Feb 03, 2008) expressly states that the PM had no personal difficulty with Prof. Vasciannie.

A.J.'s view of Dr. Sangster, that he has 'let the puss out of the bag', is perhaps the most charitable thing that can be said about Sangster. For me, Sangster has not really let the puss out of the bag, so much as he has simply reconfirmed what was already quite clear: that Bruce Golding's dismissal of the PSC was prompted by arbitrary considerations, and not by the rule of law.

Read More...

Why now Dr. Sangster?

The Observer has also published my letter on Alfred Sangster and the

PSC:http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080201T190000-0500_132065_OBS_WHY_NOW__DR_SANGSTER_.asp

Read More...

My letter appearing in today's Gleaner- "Sangster and the PSC"

Today, the Gleaner published my critique of Alfred Sangster's public condemnation of his erstwhile colleagues and his support of the PM dismissal of the PSC. Here is the link:



http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080131/letters/letters2.html

Read More...

Alfred Sangster breaks ranks

As has been reported in the news, Dr. Alfred Sangster has publicly defended the PM's dismissal of the Coke-chaired PSC, of which he was a member. According to Dr. Sangster, the PSC's failure to reinstate Lackston Robinson constitutes misconduct that warrants dismissal. He also pointed the failure of the the PSC to review its recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie (at Dr. Sangster's urging) after the Stephen Vasciannie's 'dead cat' reference came to his (Dr. Sangster's) attention.

Dr. Sangster's public utterances coincide with the commencement of litigation by his erstwhile colleagues to challenge the dismissal.




Dr. Sangster's pronouncements are disturbing, and indeed execrable. Firstly, he is factually wrong about the PSC's supposed failure to reinstate Lackston Robinson, given that the Justice Jones never ordered Mr. Robinson's reinstatement, when he quashed the PSC decision to retire Robinson in the public interest. Dr. Sangster has clearly acquainted himself with the judgment of Justice Jones, before attacking his former colleagues. Dr. Sangster has correctly pointed out that he was not a member of the PSC that was the subject of Justice Jones' judgment (the PSC was at the time made up of Daisy Coke, Pauline Findlay, Mike Fennell, Edwin Jones, and George Philip; Sangster replaced Philip when he died in April 2007)). One might have thought that pride alone might have impelled Dr. Sangster to protest his dismissal at least on this ground, given that he was not a member of this 'misbehaving' PSC.

One has to wonder why Dr. Sangster chose to speak at this time, or at all. While it is his prerogative not to join in the litigation, I see no rational or ethical basis for belatedly excoriating his colleagues, when he well knows that the matter is under litigation. I can only suspect that he was intent on prejudicing the minds of judges who may later be assigned to adjudicate on the claim of Daisy Coke, et al.

I can hardly believe shame has not prevented him from raising the 'dead cat' reference. He clearly stated that his concern arose only after the PSC had signed off on the recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie. The essential implication of Dr. Sangster's thinking is that Stephen Vasciannie should have been denied selection as SG, not because of lack of qualifications, but for a public criticism of Bruce Golding made in 2002! For me, if this is Sangster's mode of thinking, then he certainly had no place on the PSC. Sangster speculated that this commentary could create strained relations between the Stephen Vasciannie (as SG) and the Prime Minister. Naturally, of course, Dr. Sangster did not require any evidence to substantiate his position. Sangster reflects the very worst in Jamaican governance: the privileging of personality over principle, and not to mention, suss over hard evidence; loyalty to expedience over ethicality; and cowardice over conscience.

I have submitted a letter to the press on the issue, which hopefully will be published. I discussed the matter on the Breakfast Club yesterday morning with Trevor Munroe and Peter Espeut. Apparently Dr. Sangster had been invited on the programme, but declined.


Sangster should be ashamed of himself.

Read More...