The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

A fishing expedition

Posted on January 14, 2021 by

This is such a strange story.

Because even although it’s part of a transparent attempt from the Record to deflect attention from the many shocking revelations of the last few days around the Salmond affair, it’s still unusual that a newspaper would make a front-page lead out of a claim it knows it can’t provide a single scrap of evidence for.

Did they, aye? And how do we know that? Clearly the Record can’t print the offending tweet, even in heavily redacted form, because if they show ANY of it people could then go and search that text, find the tweet and discover who the woman is.

But since it can’t, we have no evidence whatsoever that the tweet exists. The story is a complete phantom, which is an odd thing to make a page 1 main splash out of.

Because even if a tweet had indeed named someone as supposedly being one of the accusers, who’s to say that it was true? Twitter, we know, is basically people posting total made-up nonsense every day, with no reason for anyone to believe them.

All the Record is in fact achieving here is (1) telling people there’s a tweet out there identifying one of the accusers, (2) telling them that the tweet is actually true, and (3) telling them that it’s going to stay there because Twitter won’t delete it.

Plainly, that can only possibly increase the risk to the woman involved that other people will find the tweet and retweet it or repeat it, having already been told that it doesn’t breach Twitter’s terms and conditions.

(It would still break the law, of course, but only in the UK. Anyone living abroad with a Twitter account can say whatever they like about the case, as they’re not subject to Lady Dorrian’s anonymity order. And even in the UK it’s pretty hard to trace the owners of a random Twitter account in any event unless they put their real name on it.)

At the very best, then, it’s monstrously irresponsible journalism, hugely increasing the potential audience for a tweet that may only ever have been seen by a dozen people and endangering this woman’s anonymity needlessly to sell a few papers (ironically, by salaciously implying that if people read the story they might find out who she is).

There may of course be a second motivation. The Record may very well be hoping that people manage to track the tweet down, in order that some of them can be caught and prosecuted, so that the paper will have another juicy squirrel with which to distract from the real story – the increasingly obvious conspiracy against Salmond, in which the Record itself, the original leaker of the false allegations, is heavily implicated.

(That would be a very stupid motivation, since if it happened the Record itself might be found guilty of contempt of court for its part in identifying the woman by confirming the veracity of the tweet, but these are pretty stupid people.)

But yet again, the people who supposedly need protection (despite still currently being totally anonymous) are the ones being thrown under the bus by Salmond’s enemies for their own ends. Every time we think the whole fiasco can’t possibly get any grubbier or sleazier, Scotland’s media and political establishment proves us wrong.


NB – This shouldn’t need said, but if any reader should find the tweet, DO NOT post, quote or link to it in the comments below. It’ll be deleted the moment we see it and you’ll make yourself liable to prosecution and possible imprisonment. If requested, Wings will assist the police with any identifying data attached to your comment.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 14 01 21 13:57

    A fishing expedition | speymouth

131 to “A fishing expedition”

  1. Muscleguy says:

    I don’t want to know, wouldn’t have a scooby how to tell that’s genuine even. So why bother even looking?

    If it’s real why do you want that info in your head or on your computer showing you looked at it? Why?

    The women are not the issue. It is now clear the vast majority were railroaded into the criminal trial. No wonder they want to maintain anonymity. If I was them I would want to keep my heid doon.

    That they cannot do that and keep finding folk (looking at you Rape Crisis) to be their mouthpiece. Not to defend themselves but to keep attacking Salmond. This erodes any sympathy people might have. There was a ceasefire pending the peace talks of the inquiries. But they continue to snipe.

  2. John Lowe says:

    Gutter press at their worst.

  3. Willie Jay says:

    How much further can this mess go on before “something” hits the fan and spreads all over the whole Scottish Independence movement instead of concentrating on the quite obvious corruption at the heart of the whole matter, namely: SNP High Heid Yins?
    This latest “story” from the likes of the DR seems to be yet more scandalous pot-stirring, though I am not too sure what they hope will be brought up from the very bottom of the stinking pot. I’ll bet they have half-a-dozen different headlines, tales, and quotes from defenders of Saint Nic just ready to go, whichever way the story develops.

  4. Hugh Jarse says:

    Red text!

    We all think we know how far this sorry affair goes, and how dark it is, but another low has been arrived at.

    A panic attack, brought on by foote ‘n mooth disease.

  5. Livionian says:

    Who still buys the record anyways, nobody’s reading

  6. Bob Mack says:

    The Record trying to portray themselves as guardians rather than an accomplice in these tawdry events ? How novel.

  7. kapelmeister says:

    “…Salmond Trial Scandal”.

    No it isn’t. A misnomer.

    It’s the Sturgeon scandal.

  8. kapelmeister says:

    Tam Cowan’s Covid Chronicles.

    I bet that’s riveting.

  9. 100%Yes says:

    Its just the daily record trying to get more daily circulation in Newspapers and to try and deflect the Sturgeon fiasco onto Mr Salmond, there is a clear routed attempt within the Newspapers and media not to bring the fiasco of Sturgeon and her government to light but the smooth it over as if Mr Salmond has been found guilty, why wouldn’t they the Newspapers aren’t going to bit the hand that feeds them.

  10. Republicofscotland says:

    Yip, sounds like a have sympathy for the Alphabet women, from the Daily Rectum as the nasty Alex Salmond faithful are exposing them to danger, and as you say the Daily Rectum hasn’t shown a smidgen of proof either way.

    Its a head turning bread and circuses attempt by the Daily Rectum to divert attention away from Sturgeon and her clique and their oncoming downfall, and onto Salmond and those who have an idea what’s going on.

    I’m 100% convinced that the BritNats outside Holyrood want Sturgeon to remain in power, and we all know why.

  11. TruthForDummies says:

    Rape Crisis Scotland may not be speaking for the women at all. Far more likely they are speaking on behalf of the Scottish Government. In the recent sex not gender Lamont amendment campaign Rape Crisis Scotland put out a statement diametrically opposed to the views of the rape survivor group and which contradicted their testimony. The statement was clearly drafted by the government to shore up support for the government position. Which the government subsequently backed down from and Humza who co sponsored the bill and who I suspect had a hand in the RCS statement had to come on Twitter to defend RCS and whine about the abuse they got.

  12. Bill Thomson says:

    Here was me thinking a DSMA-Notice must have been issued relating to the ongoing enquiries given the general lack of comment but I suppose that wouldn’t cover deliberate distractions.

  13. Captain Yossarian says:

    100% deflection. A total irrelevance. Don’t follow-up or investigate.

    Just like John Swinney’s ‘price of fish’ Twitter postings over the past two days.

    The Scottish Government and Daily Record must think we all sailed up the Clyde on a banana boat.

  14. John says:

    Really enjoyed reading this article and how it showed the Daily Record is pathetic. When I read this post and think about it, I realised that WoS has just ripped apart the Daily Record lead story on their front page. If I wrote for the Daily Record I would be raging that the piss had been taken out of me, then again I would never give loyalty to that type of organisation. Thank you team WoS.

  15. Captain Yossarian says:

    The stooges put up by Lesley Evans (the so-called alphabet women) are being treated appallingly. They didn’t want to go to the police but they were taken to the police anyway.

    According to the civil-service union, Evans is being vilified and treated unfairly. A few months ago they were complaining that Holyrood provided more complaints about bullying Ministers than all other UK Parliaments/assemblies combined. Which is it to be?

    It reminds me of a line in a posting from a few days ago by the excellent Willie. He was going-on about how crooked our legal profession are:

    ‘If it all ends up with some nig-nog native hanging from a tree, that that’s allright.’

  16. Astonished says:

    The record used to sell roughly 900,000 copies daily. It was a terrible embarrassment then – it’s even worse now. And selling around a 100,000 a day ( they claim – I think it’s nearer 70.000).

    Luckily the first minister bunged Scotland’s yoon rags 3.5 million quid so they could continue to oppose independence.

    No one reads the record expecting journalism.

    If you want journalism without fear or favour then you come here.( Remember the Rev. called this out ages ago – and I for one didn’t believe him at first).

    They simply cannot keep this hidden.

  17. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

    I see this “exclusive” is attributed to Paul ‘bin raker’ Hutcheon the man who splashed photos of Craig Murrays house on the front page while accusing him of running a conspiracy blog and NOT Davie Clegg.

    Assuming because of Wee Davies ‘close relationship’ with the FMs Office being exposed previously.

    So did Liz Lloyd provide this exclusive or is Murray Foote still ensuring Bullshit to protect the Establishment gets on the front page, just like he did with “The Vow” in 2014?

    When will a Judge led Public Inquiry be announced into this whole tawdry episode?

  18. Republicofscotland says:

    The Daily Rectum has gone to their Greens source in MSP John Finnie who agrees wholeheartedly with them, and Sturgeon’s personal attack dogs Police Scotland have also been informed of the supposedly offending tweet.

    Strange though how all the women’s evidence was found to be not credible, and Mr Salmond was acquitted by a jury of his peers mostly made up of women, yet the emphasis remains on him and not the credibility of the women, we’re living in a Kafkaesque Scotland.

  19. Strathy says:

    Why didn’t the source (not a well-known, Government-funded body with previous by any chance?) report the crime of breaking the Anonymity Order to the police?

    The source claims to have all the details of the tweet.

    There are several possibilities.

  20. Normski says:

    The tweet does exist. You have to wonder why though the Daily Record suddenly decided to draw people’s attention to it?

  21. ahundredthidiot says:

    My money is on NS sending out the tweet – she’ll do just about anything to deflect the heat right now!

  22. Effijy says:

    Why are the women who were found not to have a case against Salmond
    While he gets attacked every day from all corners.

    That is criminal to attack those found innocent.

    We have posts from around the globe.
    Put everything on Twitter if it’s true.

    It’s still a scheming conspiracy even when it’s hidden!

  23. holymacmoses says:

    In the final analysis the Daily record rather than twitter could be in a lot of trouble with regard to illegal revelations. My guess is that their headline is meant to misdirect folk from the ever-emerging truth of Mr Salmond’s ordeal.

  24. Gregor says:

    Whatever the wrongs or rights, “Proud” BBC partner is complicit in this:

  25. Republicofscotland says:

    “Effijy says:
    14 January, 2021 at 1:16 pm
    Why are the women who were found not to have a case against Salmond”


    One woman was proven beyond any doubt not have even been in the same building when a supposed offence by Salmond took place. How this woman isn’t in the dock on trial herself is way beyond me.

  26. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    Ah the good old Daily Record. I often read its front page as I lift the many un bought Records, Expresses and Suns in my occasional search for the National which is usually at the bottom of the non selling newspapers.

    I wonder if Tesco have their staff conceal the National or is it the actions of some unionists who are afraid of a newspaper.

    I can’t help watching the few Record, Express,Mail and Sun readers as they buy their so called newspapers. All look like Trump supporters don’t know why that is.

    Luckily the crap newspapers are being kept afloat by money from our government, odd business.

  27. Captain Yossarian says:

    On a different subject, the Daily Telegraph is reporting that Michael Gove held a teleconference with the devolved Gov’s on Tuesday and asked them not to divulge the program of vaccine deliveries because it would put at risk the preferential deals we have with the vaccine manufacturers.

    24-hours later, Nicola Sturgeon did exactly what she had been asked not to do.

    UK Gov and the vaccine manufacturers are justifiably going mad and Sturgeon has had to withdraw the information she had just divulged.

    The damage is however done.

    Some are saying that if the manufacturers elect to reduce the amount of vaccine handed to the UK, then that reduction should fall entirely on the shoulders of Scots and not the rest of the UK.

    A measure of just how serious the trivial politics of Sturgeon can quickly become.

    When trust is gone, it is almost impossible to get it back again and that is what Sturgeon is finding, every day, just now.

  28. Desimond says:

    Its now getting like one of the US court dramas where the well funded Baddies try drowning evidence in Disclosure by sending the limited resource Goodies boxes and boxes and boxes of information which they hope will held hide and distort the key truths whilst making sure folk focus elsewhere all while the clock runs down..

    Its hard to get to the heart of the matter when the body is growing new arms and legs every day

  29. Mags says:

    I did find it convenient this has made the front page just after the remit was widened….

    (Love outbreak)

  30. NellG says:

    I’m trying to get my head around the fact that this current SNP are so deep in the gutter they would use the creators of “the Vow” as the vehicle to smear the most prominent Independence figure of the last generation. They can’t even get a credible tabloid to carry out their dirty work.

    Is anyone still arguing that they are not Unionist to the core seeking to destroy the movement from within? Are they just incompetent? I don’t think so.

  31. Dave Llewellyn says:

    Like the vow.

  32. James says:

    jeez this sites the real deal all hail the revs first class work

  33. Liz says:

    Shockingly Linda Fabiani wants Alex S, a man in his late 60s with underlying health issues to travel from the NE to Edinburgh, to give evidence, thus breaking Covid restrictions

    There is a cabal of evil witches running Holyrood.

  34. Chris says:

    Perhaps the Edinburgh Coaching Academy assisted.

    McKinnon is part of their team and so a discount might be arranged.

  35. red sunset says:

    You know, I’d be well up for supporting a crowd funder to provide a reward fund for whistle blowers.

    Just sayin’ …

  36. Lothianlad says:

    Had it not been for the bravery of AS, Stu, CM and MH, most of the truth would be hidden for years.

    It is admirable that people still are prepared to speak the truth. Honest john let himself down, NS is a Liar, and the useless MPs and msps who line their pockets at freedoms expense are a disgrace.

    The Alphabet women are not completely stupid. They knew their actions were setting up an innocent man and are not brave enough to come out and tell the truth.

    They also know that so many now know their identities anyway. They know also that through time it will be exposed eventually.

    Time for honest people to come forward and tell the truth.

  37. alzyerpal says:

    Woman A) = Charlize Theron

    Woman B) = Noomi Rapace

    Woman C) – A lassie called Senga that works doon the deli, she’s been skelly ever since a Milanda boy scudded her ower the heid wae a breidboard.

    There! It was definitely in the public interest so I’ve said it.

    One side Assange, Manning, Murray and Snowden, I’ll show you how to blow a whistle!

  38. Saffron Robe says:

    I’m sure there will be a lot more than just the Record who will teeter and topple having bet their house on the wrong horse.

    And my message for Alex:

    May G-d bless and keep you always
    May your wishes all come true
    May you always do for others
    And let others do for you
    May you build a ladder to the stars
    And climb on every rung
    May you stay forever young

    May you grow up to be righteous
    May you grow up to be true
    May you always know the truth
    And see the lights surrounding you
    May you always be courageous
    Stand upright and be strong
    May you stay forever young

    May your hands always be busy
    May your feet always be swift
    May you have a strong foundation
    When the winds of changes shift
    May your heart always be joyful
    And may your song always be sung
    May you stay forever young

    (Bob Dylan – Forever Young)

  39. holymacmoses says:

    I don’t think they’re Unionists: I think they’re ‘Selfists’. They don’t give a toss about Scotland inside or outside the Union.
    BUT that’s not all the members of the SNP. It’s the members of SNP and Government officials who have got themselves well-paid, expenses-heavy, cosy, pensionable situations where they can manipulate others and expect to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed for the rest of their days.

  40. James Che. says:

    And number (4) is to create censorship from twitter of Scotland’s voices, this was the aim, the record would like nothing better, they are already aware Scotland does not have its own media, but I do not think Twitter would now be so stupid as to do the same as it did in America, it’s stocks and shares not only plummeted in America, but around the world.
    Now that other countries have focused on social media platforms and what they did are considering banning them for interfering in their countries, especially around election times. And all other social media platforms would have to consider their stocks and shares plummeting if they went down the same route,
    People are turning to alternative media’s, and ditching those that censor them, they are going on other platforms in alternative countries, people are not stupid, if big tech continue along its censorship lines the same way as MSM, it will also be abandoned and left speaking to its self.
    Trying to instigate censorship here, of our country, by a newspaper that is experiencing its own downfall in numbers along with the down spiral of twitter, would be below intellect for big tech. I doubt they will continue on this path for much longer if they do not wish to be banned in the majority of countries,
    It is the small mindedness and the need to control free speech that has been the downfall of MSM to date, including people leaving the British broadcasting media, their days are numbered,
    These poorly thought out comments by this newspaper to have people deleted or taken off social platforms will be its own downfall. Nobody will return to them as a source of genuine news,

  41. Socrates MacSporran says:

    The Establishment, both English and Scottish is absolutely terrified of Wee Eck.

    Fabiani now telling him off, but narry a word against Sturgeon.

    Is there nobody inside The Establishment who has ever heard of: “When you’re in a hole – stop digging.”

  42. kapelmeister says:

    Has Fabiani been promised a quango appointment?

  43. Gregor says:

    Apologies to go off-topic. Here is some interesting ‘Covid Lock-down’ related information that the public might find interesting:

    “Assessing Mandatory Stay?at?Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID?19


    While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions”:

  44. Republicofscotland says:


    A guest post on Iain Lawson blog, that shows that Scotland would not only takes it place within the EU family, but would be head and shoulders above far bigger nations asset wise.

  45. Saffron Robe says:

    As regards other platforms: what need have we of other platforms when we have Wings?!

  46. Monsieur le Roi Grenouilleverteetprofonde says:

    I think it is inevitable that the complainers in the case will be identified eventually. One is already widely known and easily identified by a simple reading of widely published material. The fact remains that there a lot of people who believe there has been a corrupt process and mendacity at the heart of the affair. At some point the anonymous women will have to come out and defend themselves. The other uncomfortable aspect is that the principle of anonymity for assault victims is called into doubt and that would be a great pity for the many victims with credible accounts of their abuse. So far from bolstering the of bringing sexual abusers to boo, these women and any supporters/manipulars have almost certainly set their (not unjustified) cause back by many years, How ironic, as one also senses that the whole story was confected to poke the ‘patrirchy’ in the eye, and re-inforce the efficacy of complaints regarding sexual behaviour, which for many reasons are often ignored or tolerated or swept under carpets.
    I am still mystified by how there has been no action over the attempted rape allegation which was so robustly refuted by a witness stating that the complainer was, like Schrodinger’s cat, or maybe TS. Eliot’s ‘Macavity’ just not there. I can’t see how this can be interpreted as anything but perjury or some other related offence, I also can’t see how the police and PF responsible for the charge are not brought to book for what seems like monumental incompetence, or possible malfeasance in not establishing with absolute certainty the exact date and time of the alleged offence. This is jaw droppingly ridiculous. Surely there would be disciplinary action against those responsible but we near nothing, which simply adds to the sense that there is real monkey business here.
    The accuser/ investigating officers must be questioned to establish how such an egregious error could have got as far as court.
    There was some other seriously questionable testimony where there was a suggestion that one of the complainers was anxious to be nominated fas a candidate for a parliamentary seat and was rejected. ( providing a motive to seek revenge.I am not so surprised that some people are clinging to the wreckage of this affair behind their anonymity. This person will almost certainly be known by astute observers and insiders. it is inevitable that identities will leak out. Better to get the testimony straight , rather than allowing speculation. to fester.

  47. Mia says:

    The whole article in the Record seems like a fabricated pile of manure.

    I have read it and it is not clear who the Record’s actual source for the existence of that tweet is (or that there is indeed a source for it) or who alerted the Record of its existence (if it indeed the infamous tweet exists).

    The second thing that is not clear from the article is how on earth the Record can verify the tweet does in fact identify the correct person, unless they have seen it by themselves and know who the accuser is.

    The third thing is how they can possibly verify the “source close to the woman” mentioned in the article is really a “source close to the woman” without that source identifying “the woman” and hence breaching her anonymity, or the Record already knowing the identities of both, “the woman” and the “source close to the woman”.

    Because if they don’t anybody self identifying as a “source close to the woman” could have given them a call and telling them a pack of lies or alternatively “somebody” simply telling them what to publish and when.

    Whatever of the options, the Record article isn’t journalism. It is crap.

  48. Captain Yossarian says:

    As I understand it, this inquiry is failing because the full legal opinion has not been published, only a heavily redacted version of it has been published.

    I recall all at Holyrood were going to go for a vote of no-confidence in Mr. Swinney if the legal text was not submitted.

    What happened and why is this not being done?

  49. Davie Oga says:

    I certainly wouldn’t post anything on Stu’s website or the web pages of any independence blog by people residing under the jurisdiction of the court, however I am not

  50. Tannadice Boy says:

    @Captain Yossarian 2:18pm
    The Inquiry were allowed to read the legal advice before Christmas and were promised a paraphrase version. Instead they got a heavily redacted version. Cole Hamilton did say if they needed to go back to Parliament a third time they would.

  51. Joe M says:

    Get the mob searching for the shiny thing over there, then get the carpet-wrapped body out the door and into the van.

    In spite of the Records collapsing circulation, most of their readers buy it for the football and the racing pages. Everything else is just filler.

  52. Davie Oga says:

    One tweet for each penny they stole from me with their referendum fund scam.

    40 down, 4960 to go……

  53. Davie Oga says:

    Memo to Scotgov

    Fuck you, you don’t get to tell me what I can and can’t say.

  54. Well if the Rectum wanted to go with an acronym on their front page they could’ve had “Connivance Of Vipers Is Disintegrating”.

  55. Davie Oga says:

    My next question would be

    We know that Scotgov civil service withheld evidence (documents)

    Did the First Minister’s withold evidence from a defendant in a criminal trial in an doomed, amateurish, attempt to secure the conviction of an innocent man?

  56. Captain Yossarian says:

    @Tannadice Boy – I seem to remember they set up a ‘reading room’ or something like that, didn’t they.

    In that case, all I will say is that it was not obvious to me that the inquiry team read anything which they found disturbing…..and I find that disturbing!

    Nothing about conflict of interest, for example. Who was the investigating officer and did the investigating officer have any prior contact with the witnesses. We are given to believe that the SG’s legal team only found out about this a few days before it was due to go to court…..surely not?

    I have little confidence in this Holyrood inquiry team and I count myself perhaps 50% less perceptive than Alex Salmond.

    Maybe old Alex smells a rat.

  57. Rookiescot says:

    Does anyone still pay attention to the Daily Record? The only ones who appear to are other anti independence outlets like the BBC.
    Poll after poll shows a majority in Scotland want independence.
    People have stopped listening to publications like the Record and the rest of the MSM.
    In part because we get the truth on sites like this.
    But also because people are not stupid.
    You can lie to some of the people some of the time but you cannot lie to all the people all of the time.

  58. Mist001 says:

    I asked right from the very beginning when on here and elsewhere, people were falling over themselves to identify these women, what is the point?

    What are you going to do when you find out who they are? Throw bricks through their window? Shout at them in the street?

    Desperation to discover the identities of these women is nothing more than sheer nosiness and fishwifeness.

    Fucking leave them alone. They’ve been granted anonimity by the courts. Let them get on with their business and let us get on with our business, which is supposed to be independence for Scotland, not a witch hunt against a bunch of women.

  59. Gaelstorm says:

    I suspect that the type of people you are taking to task, will not be reading Wings.

  60. James Che. says:

    Ot. But a little concerning to anyone that wishes to come from another country to make Scotland their home,
    Does Nicola sturgeon have a legal right to ban anyone from coming to Scotland? If so why does she not do this during covid? This would decrease transfer of the disease from other countries.
    Or was she just mouthing of to keep herself with the in crowd, like children in a playground.

  61. Tannadice Boy says:

    I am old enough to remember the reputational damage to law enforcement arising from the miners strike. Damage that took many years to recover from and even longer to restore public trust. Two full days after Stu published ‘The Duty of Candour’ article I have seen no movement to investigate criminal allegations arising from the AS submission. I note little interest in the MSM if any and have only noted a reference to tumble weed from an old friend of this blog. A situation that is untenable. Is the public interest being served by allowing these allegations to stand without investigation? Meanwhile I have to be scrupulous in my adherence to the latest Covid restrictions. (Which I have been)

  62. Cuphook says:

    When Murray Foote, ex-editor of the Daily Record and architect of The Vow, became the SNP’s head of communications and research, it was reported that “He will have to guide the party’s media strategy through the forthcoming Alex Salmond trial…”

    A curious relationship has developed between the party of independence and that Unionist newspaper.

  63. ScotsRenewables says:

    I suppose the thing that would really blow this open is if one or more of the alphabet women came forward and revealed the pressure they were put under.

  64. Ian Mac says:

    So Police Scotland have ‘confirmed’ that a complaint has been made. Or that they passed on the info to the Record for their own purposes, and to keep the case against Salmond in the news, as opposed to the case against Evans and Sturgeon. Same old same old. I have no interest in the tweet or the identity of this woman, funny that the police and the Record want to publicise it. Does it even exist?

  65. Davie Oga says:

    I think using the “alphabet women” monikor plays into the hands of the conspirators because it implies a solidarity and equality between the accusers.

    There isn’t.

    The granting of anonymity to all, is designed to to cover the involvement of some, who have committed criminal acts in course of this farce. Anonymity prevents us from getting to the truth so we would be prevented from asking questions such as,

    How many of Salmond’s accusers were given promotions, plus substantial pay raises in the aftermath of the trial?

  66. SilverDarling says:

    Are the Record implying that if the names are known harm will come to them because those who divulging the names would be AS supporters and that means…?

    Sounds like they are associating AS with ‘cybernats’ and Indy nasties like the first IndyRef. Typical Record insinuation and smear.

    Like many I have no desire to see their names in print or otherwise as I have a good idea of a few thanks to Dani Garavelli and co. However should those who were coerced into making a complaint want to speak out, then fair enough.

  67. Joe M says:

    “I suppose the thing that would really blow this open is if one or more of the alphabet women came forward and revealed the pressure they were put under.”

    No one can reveal their identities, not even the women themselves. It would be contempt of a court order.

  68. Captain Yossarian says:

    I believe that old Jeane has just divulged the location of Scotland’s main Covid vaccine storage facility. Old Jeane was never the sharpest tool in the box. She thought that everyone know the location anyway. Well, I didn’t know, but I do now. This is creating a minor diplomatic incident. This stuff is more valuable on the world market than platinum or gold.

  69. Donibristle says:

    I used to enjoy fishing.
    But this feels more like a game of Kerplunk !
    Stu removes the straws one by one, but the f***in marbles still don’t thunder down.
    With each new indiscretion revealed, the number of marbles ready to fall increases. Good game !! Good game !!
    I could really do without all this during a white January.
    Go Nicola,you and Bawheid have been caught by the short and curlies. It’s just going to get more painful.

  70. Mia says:

    “As I understand it, this inquiry is failing because the full legal opinion has not been published, only a heavily redacted version of it has been published”

    No, not just a heavily redacted version, but only a section of the advice, the one pertaining to the very end of the process. As far as I can see, advice from the first and middle part of the process or from where the possibility of a judicial review emerged for first time was never been produced, alleging the convenient excuse of “legal privilege” or something down those lines.

    The advice, ALL of it, is in itself as important as the DATE when it was received and when it was requested. In line with Ms Sturgeon’s submission to the inquiry, at the latest, by June 2018 she was fully aware that Mr Salmond was very likely to launch a judicial review and she informed the Permanent Secretary of this.

    At the very least, at that point, the Permanent Secretary, if not Sturgeon herself, should have requested immediate legal advice before proceeding with the complaints procedure. Not doing so and Sturgeon not ensuring the Permanent Secretary did so might have breached the ministerial code because how otherwise would they ensure the procedure was lawful at all times?

    I can think in only 2 reasons why that advice has not been published:

    1. because the advice was never requested – this in my view might constitute a breach of the ministerial code as the government must ensure their procedures are lawful at all times.

    2. the advice was that the process would be likely seen as unlawful in a court of law – proceeding with the complaints procedure under these circumstances, in my view, might constitute also a breach of the ministerial code for the same reason indicated above.

    The possibility that the legal team gave them wrong advice is not one I entertain because if this was the case, the legal firm would have been sacked, sued and compensation immediately requested. Are there any records of this? I doubt Sweeney, Sturgeon, Evans and the rest would go to the lengths they have gone to obfuscate the inquiry if it was only to protect the reputation of an external legal firm. They are going to the lengths they are going to protect their very own arses.

    In line with information submitted to the inquiry by the government, already by 17th November 2017, a S government private secretary was made aware by an email from the Uk cabinet office that they were “uncomfortable” with the procedure. This was another point in time when legal advice should have been requested, because at this time, the policy was only a draft, had not been signed by Sturgeon yet and had not been officially given the green light to include former ministers.

    That was therefore a logical point to put any wrong right before start to harvest complaints and put the wheels in motion. That green light came from Sturgeon’s 22nd November letter to the Permanent Secretary. By 20 and 21, Sommers already had contact with one of the complainers, even before it had been signed and and even before it was official that it would include former ministers.

    The question at this time is if Sturgeon was made aware of this UK cabinet office mail or not. If she was not, then she cannot be blamed solely for not acting upon it, although, as FM, surely, the minute you start a new procedure, particularly a controversial one like this aiming to including former ministers who are no longer gov employees. So where is that advice that confirms former ministers could be included in the procedure before she signed the procedure in December 2017?

    If the civil servants did not pass the email from the Uk cabinet office to Ms Sturgeon and as a consequence legal advice was not sought, then they should be pulled out for it and should be sacked and disciplined. But Sturgeon must be also asked difficult questions as to why she did not ask for legal advice before including former ministers in the procedure if she was aware, as per her letter of the 22nd November 2017, that “the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code”

    There was another very interesting bit in that letter from Ms Sturgeon to the Permanent Secretary:

    “As you complete your review I believe it would be helpful for you to update Cabinet on the conclusions you have reached”

    What this tells us is that there is a very strong possibility the UK cabinet office might have been fully aware of what was being cooked in Holyrood. Let’s remember that the first reported communication with them was on the 16th November and this was after their email saying they were “uncomfortable” was received.

    Therefore knowing that their lawyers advised them to fold the case in December 2018 is of limited use. That is just the tip of the iceberg. What we need to know is when was the first time the Scottish government was alerted to the potential unlawfulness of the case, if the Uk cabinet office were aware the process was unlawful and when was the first time, on the basis of legal advice, they could have stopped the procedure to prevent wasting 500,000 pounds of taxpayers’ money.

    To me this is the key of the matter.

    The committee should grow a pair of balls and either demand that legal advice is to be produced immediately, or to hold a VONC on Swinney to release that information in full, or pass the matter to a court to force them to release the information or to declare that if the advice is not produced within a stipulated deadline, the assumption that legal advice was never sought in the first place will be made, with the corresponding implications: not requesting legal advice in Nov 2017 after the email from the Uk cabinet office may be bad enough. But not requesting it after the letter from Mr Salmond’s lawyers sent in May 2018 is negligence on steroids and has to constitute a breach of the ministerial code.

    It is time to stop this farce. Until now the inquiry is progressing at the speed of a snail because the Sgov has been given full control over the narrative, the pace of the inquiry and the scope of it. It is time the committee takes that control away from them because otherwise this is not going anywhere and the committee and the inquiry will be seen by the electorate at large as another expensive and farcical exercise in whitewashing.

  71. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Scots renewables, Or what about the Alphabet woman who pulled out and didnt give evidence so they had to drop the charge, cant remember which letter it was. At least one of them had some qualms about the thing, or nerves, who knows.

    Their anonymity wont last, because all the journo’s who were at the trial know who they are and people talk. Even Garavelli outed one (or two?). I could probably guess at several names, but I don’t know for sure. Scotlands a small place and people talk.

  72. Heaver says:

    If any of the alphabet women came forward, said who they were, would any of them be prosecuted ?

  73. Tannadice Boy says:

    @Captain Yossarian 2:38pm
    I picked up from Cole-Hamilton that the reading was interesting. It is usually the case that these type of legal documents are difficult to internalise in one reading. (They couldn’t even take notes). Hence his frustration at not receiving a paraphrased account. He should go back to Parliament and arrange a third vote on an accessible format of that advice or even full publication of the legal advice. The Parliament themselves have been sheepish in allowing their hands to be tied behind their back.

  74. lumilumi says:

    @ ScotsRenewables @ 2:54pm 14.1.2021

    Yeah, I’m wondering about the alphabet women. As per witness statements in the Holyrood Parliamentary inquiry, many of them did not want to go to the police, but rather have it dealt with as a workplace matter, according to workplace procedures.

    It seems, however, that Leslie Evans and the investigating officer went ahead, regardless, in their pursuit to “get Alex Salmond”, and then had the police fish for other allegations, interviewing hundreds of people, coming up with a few, laughable instances.

    Unwanted male attention is not rare. It can feel uncomfortable. Sexual harrassment in the workplace is a real thing. But the Alex Salmond trial trivialised it into “pinging of hair”, “throwing his arm around her shoulders” in public view. This trivialises the matter and makes it harder for cases of real, serious cases of sexual harrassment to be taken seriously.

    It’s a disservice to all women, not only those who’ve experience sexual harrassment.

    All for apparently a political motive.

    That said, I think the alphabet women deserve their anonymity – I just hope they will not abuse it, as seems to be happening as regards to a couple of them (e.g. the Mark Hirst case).

    My view tends to be that the alphabet women, with the exception of one or two, were used by the Scottish Civil Service headed by Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon for their own ends.

    Thrown under a bus. Like so many others, like Alex Salmond… for what?

    We should not direct our anger at the alphabet women, our efforts into a ghoulish desire to find out who they were. That’s a distraction.

    We shoud look at the head of the hydra. Leslie Evans, Nicola Sturgeon, others? What happened, who did what, why?

  75. Joe M says:

    “If any of the alphabet women came forward, said who they were, would any of them be prosecuted ?”

    Yes, they would be breaking Lady Dorrian’s non-disclosure order. If revealing themselves then allowed the jigsaw identification of any of the other women, doubly so.

  76. Cath says:

    I could probably guess at several names, but I don’t know for sure

    Which causes a big problem for the SNP, especially its female candidates, in May.

  77. MaggieC says:

    After seeing the reports that Alex Salmond has offered a date in February to appear before the committee instead of this Tuesday the 19th .

    Maybe the Committee could now invite Liz Lloyd to appear at the Committee instead of Alex as she was asked to submit written evidence . ?

  78. Liz says:

    The more I think about it, the more I realise that Linda Fabiani telling Alex S off, is to divert from the swamp oozing out of the committee.

    If compelled to go, he should just say, the Lord Advocate won’t allow me to answer that Q, for every Q.

  79. Morgatron says:

    It could be worse, she could be Richmond Leotard on the old labour.

  80. MaggieC says:

    Just heard on radio that Richard Leonard had resigned as the “English Labour Party” leader in Scotland .

  81. Garavelli Princip says:

    lumilumi says:

    “That said, I think the alphabet women deserve their anonymity – I just hope they will not abuse it, as seems to be happening as regards to a couple of them (e.g. the Mark Hirst case)”.

    A bit more than that. Illuminati. Some of them spoke to K. Wark allowing her to produce her travesty of a ‘documentary’ (hatchet job) – there were even doppelgänger actresses on screen – all a hand-wringing and angst, speaking their poisoned words.

    There is also evidence of briefing Rape Crisis Scotland, Ms Garavelli (no relation), and other pseudo-journalists – all with the intent of undermining the Salmond verdicts.

    The anonymity is a one-way street. And whilst it should and must be accorded to genuine victims, it must surely be questioned where, at least some of the women, appear directly involved in a possible criminal conspiracy to convict an innocent man.

    It is increasingly clear that some of the women appear to have been pressed-ganged into this, against their will, by one of the most evil creatures ever to have headed the British civil service in occupied Scotland – and having known personally at least two of her processors, that is hard field to lead.

    This whole thing gets smellier by the day.

  82. Mia says:

    “We should not direct our anger at the alphabet women”

    Nobody can ask for such a thing until the real motives that led them to place those accusations against an innocent man and serve the taxpayers with a ridiculous bill of millions of pounds unnecessarily wasted, is known.

    Let’s see proof that hiding behind those 14 accusers there were not unscrupulous, manipulative individuals seeking a convenient and expensive way to stop the release of compromising evidence to the parliamentary inquiry and I may consider having some respect for them.

    Until then, as a woman who is sickened by the attempt to destroy the political career and the reputation of a innocent male on the bases of unbelievably flimsy accusations, as a feminist who recognises the enormous irreparable damage that those women have done to the women who are real victims of sexual harassment and to the credibility of women in general, as a voter appalled by the cost on the taxpayers’ purse of all this has inflicted and as a democrat disgusted at how this corrupt government has been allowed to obstruct the parliamentary inquiry in such a blatant fashion and hold the committee and Mr Salmond to ransom, I am afraid that for the time being, the only thing I have on offer for them is my full contempt.

  83. Robert Louis says:

    And another one bites the dust. Richard Leonard of the ‘Scottishy’ branch of the British Labour party, headquartered in London, England. Dinnae let the door….

  84. Hatuey says:

    Not sure if any of you watched the Covid briefing today but it looks like the MSM is getting tired of the “don’t distract me in the middle of a global pandemic” format.

    It’s now clear that the MSM is turning against the SNP. We assumed they’d wait but if they take her out now and cause all sorts of carnage and scandal, they could ride the crest of that wave right into the election…

    When the MSM turns, it’s over. I guess that goes without saying. I’m calling it now, it’s basically over. Sturgeon looks like she knows it too, defeated.

  85. Black Joan says:

    J Baillie becomes interim leader. Does that mean she’ll be too busy for the Harassment Inquiry?

    Convenient, much?

  86. Astonished says:

    Mia @4.13pm – Well said. Those women are contemptible.

  87. lumilumi says:

    @ Monseur le Roi… @ 2:15pm 14.1.2021

    Meant to commend your comment earlier before I got distracted.

    What really chimed with me was the idea of this botched attempt to “get Salmond” (for political reasons?) has really hurt the cause of truly anonymous women, the multitude of “unknown women”, to bring real, serious cases of sexual harrassment, assault and even rape to justice.

    “Oh, she’s just another ‘alphabetty’, trying to bring down a man she dislikes,” says every male sexual harrasser, even rapist, from now on.

    Well done, Nicola Sturgeon. [slow clap]

  88. SilverDarling says:

    Who do we think will take the poisoned chalice next?

    My money is on Anas Sarwar who has been almost comical in his attempts at statesmanlike speeches recently. Jackie Baillie might be another. Please let James Kelly run just for the lols!

  89. Mia says:

    “Convenient, much?”

    Yep. The exact same thought came through my mind. Was there not an another SNP member of the committee that recently was promoted to a ministerial post?

    Isn’t just a wonderful coincidence that Ms Baillie happened to be the best of the lot at questioning?

    What a farce.

  90. Effijy says:

    That Dick Leonard gone!

    He was an embarrassment at Holyrood question time.
    He seemed to be the only one in the room not cringing
    at his questioning.

    Lanced Lamont
    Dim Jim Murphy
    Dippy Dugdale
    Dick Leotard

    Who is next to lead London Labour in Scotland into new depths?

    Jacqui Ballie with the whacky calculator?
    Sarwar not so good?
    Iain Drab Grey-again?
    Rowley Polly?

    Probably be Murdo Fraser for being in the wrong room?

  91. Livionian says:

    Rudyard Lanyard is away. Huge news (to absolutely nobody)

  92. Thomas Potter says:

    The BritNat MSM have been framing the Enquiry from day one as the Alex Salmond Enquiry whereas in reality it’s the Nicola Sturgeon Enqiry.
    Let’s start calling it what it is.

  93. Black Joan says:

    Mia @ 4.30pm. Yes. Angela Constance was made a Minister. By, er, Nicola Sturgeon.

  94. Captain Yossarian says:

    Mia…Jackie Baillie is utterly useless, believe me. She’s what my old-dad used to call a ‘sand-dancer’ – someone who gives the illusion that they are hard at work.

    What you said earlier I agree with re the legal advice. I think the inquiry is practically dead in the water and so it is left to this excellent web-site to uncover the truth.

    The only way they will re-gain authority and respect is to issue an ultimatum to John Swinney….give us all of the legal advice we require or we hold a vote of no-confidence.

    We will then see how effective our parliament is. It is either a parliament worthy of the best in Europe, or a parliament worthy of Central Africa. I suspect the latter, but we shall see.

    By the way, John Swinney has spent the past two days vexing about the price of fish post Brexit on Twitter. He needs put back in his box….agreed.

    No-wonder Eck is body-swerving this useless, toothless, leaderless inquiry.

    It’s another Holyrood cover-up. Back to the trough soon for everyone.

  95. lumilumi says:

    @ Gravelli Pricip (4:10pm) and Mia (4:13pm)

    Yes, apparently one or two of the alphabet women were on a mission (still are?) but many were apparently “pressganged” into the complaints procedure and police involvment against their will.

    I view those women as victims of the civil service/SG. They should have anonymity. It’s not ideal, and they did wrong to go along with the thing, but it’s not on their heads, it’s on the heads of Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon, and trying to find out who they were is pointless (and ugly and vindictive) when we should try to uncover the facts and the actions of the people at the head of the whole process and debacle.

  96. Monsieur le Roi Grenouilleverteetprofonde says:

    I rather doubt that anonymity is consistent with justice.Perhaps unfortunately, but carte blanche anonymity provides a shield for people bearing a grudge. I think it may be necessary to refefine the case for anonymity.

  97. Colin says:

    Bit hypocritical Stu, as you have now just given this a much wider audience. You keep saying no one buys the papers anymore and the ones who do probably don’t have twitter. So if anything you are just as guilty as the Daily Record.

  98. Garavelli Princip says:

    I wrote:

    It is increasingly clear that some of the women appear to have been pressed-ganged into this, against their will, by one of the most evil creatures ever to have headed the British civil service in occupied Scotland – and having known personally at least two of her PROCESSORS, that is hard field to lead.

    Bloody predictive text. That should of course have been “PREDECESSORS”

    I might also point out that in a funny sort of way (though not for Mr Salmond) Ms Evans may have done us all a favour.

    In broad terms, she has acted no differently from her predecessor colonial administrators on the ‘Scottish” Office/Government in terms of sleekit conniving malfeasance – its just that she is neither as clever nor as effective as her predecessors – and has shown us all the workings.

    She is actually, from the evidence of the above, and from her car-crash performances in the Enquiry, clearly pretty thick (wonder who picked her and why).

    If you are going to be an odious, conniving, despicable, duplicitous, double-dealing COUNTry and-western-singer you need:

    a) to be a lot smarter than she is and

    b) don’t try to stiff the smartest political operator Scotland has seen in my (long) lifetime.

  99. Cath says:

    What really chimed with me was the idea of this botched attempt to “get Salmond” (for political reasons?) has really hurt the cause of truly anonymous women, the multitude of “unknown women”, to bring real, serious cases of sexual harrassment, assault and even rape to justice.

    It’s even worse than that. In the US, a man known to be a serial sex offender – who even admitted it and boasted of “grabbing pussy” – is still president and has been able to destroy any woman who dared challenge him. Meanwhile, with the assistance of the police, CPS, Rape Crisis and government, in Scotland you can have someone in the dock, facing life in prison for hair pinging. But only, of course, if it’s someone inconvenient to powerful people.

    Whether a woman will be listened to about sexual harassment is entirely, 100% down to who he is, who she is and who she knows. We all knew that already, of course. This is just the ultimate in proof and trolling women who have been genuine victims. Good luck with any woman ever coming forward who needs to now.

  100. Mia says:

    “trying to find out who they were is pointless (and ugly and vindictive)”

    I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in finding out who those women are. None. In my eyes they are just scapegoats who should have thought twice where they were getting themselves into.

    But what I am most certainly interested in knowing is if the aim of the bogus criminal case launched against Mr Salmond at enormous cost to his health, political career and reputation, taxpayers’ purse and women’s credibility in general, was to stop damning evidence reaching the parliamentary inquiry and the public eye, in order to save the reputation of certain cowards and institutions that seemingly abused their positions of power to concoct what looks like a botched political conspiracy against the man who should have been leading us to independence right now.

    At this point, that is the only thing I am interested in. Nothing else.

  101. holymacmoses says:

    Colin says:
    14 January, 2021 at 4:44 pm
    Bit hypocritical Stu, as you have now just given this a much wider audience. You keep saying no one buys the papers anymore and the ones who do probably don’t have twitter. So if anything you are just as guilty as the Daily Record.

    That’s a curious statement

  102. Desimond says:

    Anas Sarwar is 5/4 favourite to be leader of the Scottish Labour party.

    Who said we dont have a sense of humour up here?

    Cue next few months of shouty Sarwar getting his facts mixed up and bringing A4 sheets on telly with him to back up his demands. I expect Monica Lennon to become the #2 and then step in after their next Election disaster.

  103. Iain More says:

    The Daily Redcoat returning to its true home.

    Meanwhile there is serial sex offender on the loose on a golf course somewhere. Thats okay though as he will be hero to the Brit Nat Press and Media when he starts shouting SNP bad, Scots Indy bad and Alex Salmond bad.

    Meanwhile the Brits are also refusing to extradite a Brit Royal to face justice and try on Bubba’s wig collection.

    It is quite clear that the Daily Redcoat doesn’t care for the safety of Scots women. The Sturgeon Cult has a lot to answer for as well.

    Did you have to shower after viewing the Daily Redcoat Stu?

  104. lumilumi says:

    @ Monsieur le Roi… @ 4:42pm 14.1.2021

    Yeah, this anonymity thing becomes problematic if it’s used in a malicious way, as seems to be happening with one or two of the anonymous alphabet women.

    As a general reply to some of the comments above, I’d like to point out that workplace harrassment and bullying is not the sole preserve of men against women. Female bosses can intimidate and bully their female (and, indeed, male) underlings. Been there, experienced it.

    This is pure speculation, but it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that some of the alphabet women were bullied into the process by their (female) superiors. Subtle hints at renewing contracts, career advancement etc. We don’t know, and probably shouldn’t speculate… even though I just did, ha ha!

  105. Pete Barton says:

    Hohoho radio shortbread dug up Jack Lord McConnell…
    Jesus, cringe worthy.
    Even Beattie is curling his toes.

  106. Pete Barton says:

    ‘Divisive sterile constitutional debate’ .. blah blah Labour can come through the middle between the Nazis I mean Nationalists and the tories’ hohoho

  107. Astonished says:

    “Colin says:
    14 January, 2021 at 4:44 pm
    Bit hypocritical Stu, as you have now just given this a much wider audience. You keep saying no one buys the papers anymore and the ones who do probably don’t have twitter. So if anything you are just as guilty as the Daily Record. ”

    So Stu should have just not mentioned it ? Then how would the rest of us find out about it ?

  108. Pete Barton says:

    I suspect Keir Charmer has looked at the poll datasets and made a phone call to Richard.

    Much the same as with Mr.Carlaw’s boss.

    Issues being many folk up here are moving their vote to the SNP.

    Tory voters too.

    Alarm bells have been ringing at head office.

  109. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    Sad news regards Richard Leonard of the English Labour Party.

    Always nice to have a dafty leading the opposition.

    Sarwar Favourite to replace Leonard? He will do nicely I suppose.

    Bring back Hugh Gaffney for Labour leader I say.

  110. Lothianlad says:

    Personally I dont think the alphabet woman deserve their anonymity, I think the should face perjury charges.

    Sure some may have been coerced, but they have allowed themselves to get further entangled in the web if deception.

    I realise it can be tough for some of them being coerced, involved then entrapped by the same people offering protection.

    Some were manipulated, some went along willingly, but all were responsible for almost having an innocent man jailed.

    Their identities are not that secret. Thanks to the brit nat media, we know who they are, they just dont know who knows who they are.

  111. Astonished says:

    Peter : Possibly the yoons are trying their hardest to keep Nicola off the front pages.

    So Labour are getting a new leader for May. Fat lot of Good that will do them.

  112. lumilumi says:

    @ Mia @ 4:57pm 14.1.2021

    I think we mainly agree. 🙂

    What I can’t fathom is Nicola Sturgeon’s motivation in all this. She’s clearly been involved from very early on, though not perhaps the very beginning.

    Was she trying to distance herself from Alex Salmond (for obvious political reasons) when she first heard of the allegations? Let the retrospective procedure put in place, let the botched inquiry go ahead, let the court cases go ahead, in the hope of saving her own arse?

    Now obstructing the inquiries in every way possible to continue to save her arse. Using the Covid pandemic as an excuse and a chance to grandstand and gain some positive PR?

    Ugh, what a horrible human being.

  113. Elmac says:

    A few posters standing up for the anonymity of the alphabet women. I totally disagree. A jury, mainly female, has not believed their accusations and there seems ample evidence they were involved in a criminal conspiracy to jail an innocent man for political advantage. The best thing you can say about them is that they were not the orchestrators, that privilege falls to others including, most likely, our dear leader. The alphabet women appear to have committed perjury at the very least and the only wonder is that our corrupt police force has not charged them with such. Any claim to anonymity should have been forfeited immediately following the trial of AS.

    In any case I have difficulty in reconciling the grant of anonymity for accusers if the same is not granted to the accused. Mud sticks even to the innocent and great damage can be done. The accused has potentially more to lose by being identified than the accusers if the charges brought are false as in the Salmond case. I understand and support the need to avoid dissuading victims bringing their cases to court but it has to be a level playing field. It should be anonymity for all until the court makes its decision or anonymity for none.

  114. Pete Barton says:

    Frankie Boyle for new ‘scottish’ labour leader.

    They could put anyone up, it wouldn’t matter.

    If their position doesn’t change constitutionally, they’re toast in May.

    Unless, it IS going to change.

    I had a certain amount of sympathy for Leonard, whoever led or leads labour up here would be on a loser with the present stance on Independence.

  115. Alan Mackintosh says:

    Lumi lumi, with regard to the women, it seems that some of them may have been coerced to go along with it(or equally have been very willing), but I have a feeling that perhaps one or two were at the heart of it, not just Nicla and Evans, someone even had several overlapping roles.

  116. holymacmoses says:

    Alan Mackintosh says:
    14 January, 2021 at 5:37 pm
    Lumi lumi, with regard to the women, it seems that some of them may have been coerced to go along with it(or equally have been very willing), but I have a feeling that perhaps one or two were at the heart of it, not just Nicla and Evans, someone even had several overlapping roles.

    All my instincts are that at least one of the women was one of the first to make a ‘complaint’ and the idea of ‘me too’ was part and parcel of the reason for making that compaint. BUT it is only an instinct

  117. Dan says:

    So Redux Logan’s run comes to an end, it’s off to the Sleepshop for him.
    Insert coin and select your player as the new game of Scotched Labour Whack-A-mole commences.

  118. Skip_NC says:

    So I have to ask – do the FOUR PAGES OF PUZZLES include a jigsaw?

    With Jackie Baillie up against the FM every week, what might that do to Labour’s chances of grabbing some SNP voters back in May? Always assuming the Labour front bench can hide the calculators.

  119. Alan Mackintosh says:

    I guess that some of the stuff that Alec wasn’t allowed to present at his trial, and is still being prevented from using is some of this whatsapp group material.

    I can’t remember who exactly it was said was in this group, but there were things like “A text from Woman H to Woman J appeared to say: “I have a plan and means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions.”

    And just a reminder Woman H was the one who claimed rape after the dinner with the Business woman and the actor and Alec, yet the dinner guest testified she wasnt there.

    I guess we are in the middle of the repercussions…

  120. ALANM says:

    With Leonard gone and Sturgeon on the ropes there’s a open goal for the next Labour leader to aim at. All he or she need do is come out in favour of independence and they’ll be First Minister within months. I don’t for a minute expect this to happen but it’s an interesting thought.

  121. lumilumi says:

    @ Elmac @ 5:31pm 14.1.2021

    I’m one of the people who’ve been arguing for anonymity for the alphabet women. That one or two are apparently not acting in good faith, but rather bearing grudges and continuing their attacks on an innocent man under cover of court-ruled anonymity is appalling.

    But the others should not be thrown under a bus any more that they already have been. Apparently bullied to go to the police and court with their paltry stories to bolster a political witch-hunt (the Moorov doctrine).

    They shouldn’t have caved in, right? But try to be in a workplace where the boss is leaning on you, assuring you, giving subtle hints, the mortgage to pay, assurances of anonymity if you cooperate, a general atmosphere of intimidation… I’m not saying it was like that, but for some at least, that seems a plausible scenario.

    I agree that both the accusers and the accused should have anonymity until an inquiry is concluded and possible court case delivers its verdict.

    But what can you do if the accuser party apparently leaks their inquiry to the press for sensationalist headlines (and political gain)?

    This is why this whole debacle has been so detrimental to people (mostly women) who’ve experienced real, serious sexual harrassment, abuse, even rape. Because this debacle has made many question the principle of anonymity.

    Many people (mostly women) are afraid to report, let alone press charges on real, serious harrassment, abuse and rape because they do not want to end in the public eye, face a backlash in case the accused is aquitted.

    It is callous to the extreme that the SG went on with the Alex Salmond case and mostly trivial allegations, probably for political reasons.

    It is a real disservice to real harrassed, abused and raped women. It sends the signal that women bringing these matters (harrassment, abuse, rape) to attention might be “just another alphabetty”.

    Thanks, Nicola Sturgeon [slow clap]

  122. Fireproofjim says:

    I always thought that Richard Leonard is a decent man. However he lacks the charisma necessary and is no orator. But his resignation shows an honourable character.

  123. Tackety Beets says:

    New Lab Leader becomes 1st minister within months …….even if Scot Lab promised IndyRef2 , who would believe or trust them to deliver?

  124. Gary says:

    Craig Murray is due before what I can only call a ‘kangaroo court’ for ‘jigsaw identification’ of one or more of the accusers. He put nothing more in his blog that any of the print or television media but, for some reason, only HE has been cited for prosecution. The ‘trial’ will see him up in front of a single judge with no jury and, if the prosecution have their way, unable to present his own evidence.

    If I had to guess why HE was selected for prosecution I would say it was because he was the only journalist to follow the trial AND put all of the publicly allowed testimony in a place where the public would read it (anything not permitted to be disclosed was NOT disclosed by him, this is not at issue)

    You know there’s a problem when those who report the news become the news. In Murray’s case he simply reported what happened. In the case of The Daily Record they are trying to use their influence to change the political landscape – and in bad faith too.

    A minority opinion is being pushed as though it were the majority by papers like The Record and, in the same way that the Labour Party had done, they challenge the readers (not voters) to find something else to read. The public, apparently, can sift truth from fact more easily than the paper’s owners.

  125. Fionan says:

    Mia @ 4.13pm I totally agree with you! I feel nothing but contempt for the alphabet women for their willingness to participate in this disgraceful hatchet job of an innocent man. Completely disregarding the fact that in doing so, they were seriously undermining true cases of misogynistic abuse and prejudice within the workplace and society in general.

    They have disgraced and humiliated women who truly have the courage to come forward to report real sexual abuse, and severely weakened the chances of women who have suffered real abuse of ever being taken seriously and gaining justice. There is only one way they can begin to redeem themselves, and that is by whistleblowing, but they are most unlikely to have the balls or the gumption to do that.

  126. cirsium says:

    @mia, 3.31 and @lumilumi, 3.47, good posts

    @lumilumi, 3.47

    many of them did not want to go to the police, but rather have it dealt with as a workplace matter, according to workplace procedures.

    That’s one of the things which puzzles me. Mr Salmond was not an MSP, he was not a member of the Scottish government and he did not work at Holyrood. How could these people think that a workplace code could be applied to someone who was no longer in the workforce?

  127. Margie Davidson says:

    I have just set up a monthly payment to Wings as a thank you for all he has done. I don’t pay for a TV license nor do I watch mainstream TV. I stopped my SNP subscription almost 2 years ago when I realised what was being done to Alex Salmond, a man I have always admired and still do.

    Thank you Stu, I think the end is near and after reading Robin’s piece tonight I think justice will be soon be done at last.

  128. Stuart Macdonald says:

    It is vital to take on board that NONE of the alleged cases were judged to be criminal – NOT ONE – and the ‘thinnest’ alleged case would be a joke if not included by those in charge of implementation of the procedure and subsequently taken for consideration in such serious circumstances.

    These ladies at the thinner end of the scale have surely it could be argued been effectively abused by their ‘advisers’ and possibly encouraged to get involved perhaps even against their initial wishes. Would it be too much to hope for an apology from one of them whilst retaining their anonymity if that was possible (perhaps extremely difficult I know). It would be a start…..

  129. Ferryboi says:

    Surely the person they are on about who published the names is Clive Thomson who has admitted naming them?

  130. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Surely the person they are on about who published the names is Clive Thomson who has admitted naming them?”

    No, the reports I’ve seen said that his tweets were taken down within 24 hours of being tweeted.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top