The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


And justice for some

Posted on March 02, 2021 by

We’ll say one thing for Police Scotland – when it comes to Freedom Of Information requests, dealing with them compared to the Scottish Government or Crown Office is a breath of fresh air. Responses tend to be reasonably swift and you actually get some straight answers, like these.

And in this case they’re pretty remarkable answers.

Because the case of Woman H appears to be one of the most clear-cut examples of perjury that you could ever identify. She claimed, in considerable and gory detail, that Alex Salmond tried to rape her in Bute House after a dinner.

But her own friend, Samantha Barber, who everyone agrees was present at the dinner in question, testified under oath in court that Woman H wasn’t there, and that indeed she COULDN’T have been there because she’d specifically asked Samantha Barber to go in her place, as Woman H had injured herself and had her arm in a sling.

Woman H didn’t appear in any of the logs or diaries that are kept of visitors to Bute House. The only witness who vaguely suggested she might have been there was a celebrity who the defence wasn’t allowed to cross-examine and who’d given a video-recorded description of a woman who was nothing like her – different hair colour, different clothing and forgetting the detail that she had her arm in a sling, which one might imagine would have been quite memorable in someone trying to eat dinner.

Rather than go to the police about such a serious assault, Woman H had supposedly instead waited three years and reported it not to them but to the SNP, and then been happy to have them merely “sit on it” and keep it in reserve in case Salmond ever tried to run for office again.

And her evidence was also verifiably contradicted by a former SNP MP:

So there appears to be a considerable body of evidence at least suggesting a strong possibility that Woman H was perjuring herself in court by completely fabricating a very serious crime that, if she’d been believed, would have seen an innocent man go to jail for several years.

Perjury is itself a serious crime, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years in prison, and the case of Woman H meets the required evidence standards, there being at least two credible witnesses and other supporting information.

Yet the Crown Office has not instructed Police Scotland to even investigate it almost a year later, and are answerable to no-one for that decision. But if we or anyone else so much as hinted at Woman H’s identity, we’d be up in front of Lady Dorrian in the blink of an eye and heading for jail ourselves.

(We even had to censor the song lyrics we’d wanted to use as the title for this post.)

It is very hard for an honest person to therefore escape the conclusion that the Crown Office is biased and corrupt. And that really won’t do, readers.

Print Friendly

    65 to “And justice for some”

    1. limey says:

      Thoae tweets by Philip Sim seem to wrap it up – people have been lying. No wonder Salmond was so composed last week – he was sitting on all of this. I’d say I was astonished, but sadly I am not, the SNP is a cesspit these days. I left last year over the GRA, I really don’t know who to vote for now.

    2. Toz says:

      Who can make a complaint that they suspect perjury has been committed, can it not come from Salmonds legal team or does it have to be from the crown?

    3. Liz says:

      Shamefully, NS is talking about easing Covid restrictions despite the dire warning of new dangerous Brazilian variant, believe what you want!

      This IMO shows that either Covid is not as dangerous as everyone is making out or she would do anything to divert attention from her wrong doings

    4. Colin Cadden says:

      Here’s to you!

    5. somerled says:

      Genuine Question. How many times had the celebrity been invited to dinner at Bute house? Could he/she have gotten their dates/occassions mixed up? Same with woman H? I believe Salmond & Miss Barber’s version butteyingto look at other angles.Really need more evidence that woman H deliberately lied.

      I accept she might have but why hasnt Salmond started Civil proceedings against all the women & Scot Gov ? Reading Sturgeon’s written evidence last night & whatsapp messages, meetings & calls, I feel the whole truth from Salmond hasnt been released, either about his behaviour or Sturgeons?

    6. Damning stuff. Have to laugh at your detractors now copy n pasting your FOIs.
      Good job!

    7. Name (required) says:

      the noose tightens
      (dramatic music rising to crescendo)

    8. Judicial review legal advice published this evening by the Scottish Government:
      https://www.gov.scot/publications/legal-advice-related-to-the-parliamentary-inquiry-into-the-scottish-governments-handling-of-harassment-complaints-sghhc/

      In short, not good for the FM. Scot Gov legal advisors were raising concerns about judicial review about 6 months before the Gov threw the towel in.

    9. Hatuey says:

      Also heard that H hadn’t been anywhere near Bute House in the months before and after the alleged incident date, so she couldn’t just have made a simple error on the date.

    10. Robert says:

      As a private citizen can you report this to police Scotland for them to investigate? I’m assuming if so then it would’ve been done already however I don’t see why this is any different to any other crime

    11. Cossie says:

      The women’s name is Ms Schrodinger and I’m hoping Craig Murray thinks this information is worth £25,000 since I’m now probably destined for a long stretch(!) in HMP Barlinnie!

    12. Hatuey says:

      “ The Scottish Conservatives said there was “no longer any doubt that Nicola Sturgeon lied to the Scottish Parliament and broke the ministerial code on numerous counts.”
      The party said they would be submitting a motion of no confidence in the first minister.”

      Hahahahahahahahaaaaaa

    13. Wow I knew the fear of Alex’s possible return to Scottish politics given his stature and respect, was palpable amongst the mediocrities who took the reigns but this evidence is devastating on the corruption between executive power and the justiciary. The LA must resign from the cabinet. Perjury charges must be brought or our entire system of justice is a laughing stock. COPS need to meet uniformed cops! I had heard inducements were offered to rally witnesses once it was known the judicial review would fail to stop Alex in his tracks. The fear of Mr Salmond’s RT show too played a part as the SNP leaders went to war with him on that issue given it was advertised he would be starting his first show just as witnesses were marshalled. NS has played the Yes Movement like a puppet master and I have been personally savaged on FB by former friends because I dared suggest corruption – such a comment was derided as putting barriers to prevent Independence then another slandered me plus other comments were sent about my sexuality in a picture! Laughable all. There is a litany of broken promises and chaos in various projects left behind with a price tag running into £100s of millions of our money wasted through incompetence and malicious prosecutions yet not a head rolls, no one is sorry and the innocent man is still branded guilty. NS picks her jury, picks her evidence and picks her judge for the inquiry then goads Alex Where is the evidence Ive hidden! On tv. Then she questions the legal systems verdict implying its wrong and rewrites the jury’s decision. If this is not against the ministerial code then it must be rewritten. The body politic is rotten with corruption and needs forthwith a new anti corruption unit established at holyrood. Cult of the personality and worship of title post and pension leads to corruption and blights democracy. When loyalty to the party becomes Orwellian dystopia Independence has become the last thing on the minds of those running the SNP. The SNP needs this poison cleared out for the sake of the country and Scotland. Justice MATTERS. Let it be done or the heavens fall

    14. PB says:

      There’s one part of the whole story that leaves me a bit confused still. It’s pretty clear that at least two of the complainers played absolutely central roles in the whole affair. They were, let’s say, in touch with the Scottish government and SNP figures coordinating and searching for more complainers. And if I’ve understood correctly, one of them had pretty clear political motives for her actions that involve some other SNP big names. Given all of that – why is Salmond not baying for their blood? All of his efforts so far have been directed against the Scottish government, Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon. He gives the impression that he considers the complainers themselves to have acted in good faith and he doesn’t want to go over trial material again. He even points out that he pushed to secure their anonymity. But the role those two women played is inseparable from the Scottish government’s procedure, so why is he letting them off the hook? Why is he not calling for the inquiry to look into the fabrication of complaints?
      I suppose he might be waiting for the inquiry to handle the question of the procedure and judicial review (its remit stricto senso), after which he’s turn his attention to the rest, but it still puzzles me a little.

    15. Boudleaux Merkin says:

      Mr Salmond should be suing people left right and centre.

    16. Alison Brown says:

      Such a coincidence – I was just discussing this with friends and we all couldn’t understand why Woman H had not been persecuted for perjury. Also surely when the inquiry is all over Alex will take her to court for defamation?

    17. SilverDarling says:

      For those asking why AS is not pursuing these women, why would he? He must be utterly exhausted, not to mention skint. He will never clear his name for some people but the more the story unravels the more he looks vindicated. He has more dignity this way and maybe that is all he wants now.

      Revenge is a dish best served cold.

    18. X_Sticks says:

      BLAM!

      Collusive corruption in the Crown Office. Who knew? (apart from the Crown Officer, the Lord Advocate, the Justice Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Permanent Secretary, Judith Mackinnon, Nicola Richards, Peter Murrell, Sue Ruddick, Ian McCann and Barbera Allison, but definitely NOT the First Minister, oh, no definitely NOT her)

    19. Al Hunter says:

      Interestingly (to me at least)

      Instead of Swearing the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, there is this

      The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012

      I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.

      Maybe that’s why you got such a swift and clear answer.

    20. Astonished says:

      Is woolfe untouchable ?

      Surely with an unwritten constitution someone could concoct a plan so that they could remain anonymous…….

    21. SilverDarling says:

      Me, personally I would love to see some of them in court, especially H.

    22. Liz says:

      @silverdarling agreed. Sometimes for a person to heal, they need to let go.

      The man’s health and bank balance are not A1

    23. Derek says:

      Her reputation has been somewhat blackened (to borrow from the same source).

      Incidentally, Harvester Of Sorrow” played on a cello is quite something!

    24. PB says:

      @Silverdarling, Liz
      That may be true, but the complainers’ involvement is absolutely integral to the whole thing. If Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon admit wrongdoing and step down, that’s one thing… but chances are at least one complainer will *still get what she wanted*. Justice wouldn’t be done.
      Being careful what I say here.

    25. Baxter says:

      So Nicola, that bus speeding your way needs deflecting. Take your pick of those to throw under it who might just cause it head off in a different direction. The list appears to be long, there is Peter, Leslie, your chief of staff, John Swinney or how about James Wolffe for a start although there are many others. Choose carefully as some of them might not be so willing to go.

    26. FrankM says:

      PB says “I suppose he might be waiting for the inquiry to handle the question of the procedure and judicial review (its remit stricto senso), after which he’s turn his attention to the rest, but it still puzzles me a little.“

      I think it makes sense that everything to do with the inquiry is Out in the open and concluded firstly. Then the lawyers can get to work. One thing at a time. This is the most sensible approach and doesn’t puzzle me at all.

    27. FrankM says:

      I agree Silver Darling.

    28. Frazerio says:

      Keep on this. Its one of the biggest holes in the dam.

      Also, has there ever been an explanation as to why the well known actor has never been named? Ive followed this whole mess pretty closely and dont recall it ever being fairly explained.

    29. Republicofscotland says:

      Crown Office biased and corrupt, sounds just about right, people will not have faith in it if it doesn’t act on this and soon.

    30. holymacmoses says:

      They wouldn’t get a fair trial. Would that matter?

    31. Michael B says:

      The practical difficulties involved in attempting to try Woman H for perjury may be insuperable, given that she has been granted anonymity until hell freezes over. If that anonymity were to be revoked to allow a perjury trial then the anonymity of the other complainants might be imperilled. Catch-22.

    32. wull says:

      I am wondering how Swinney came to the decision to publish the seemingly devastating material this evening. In particular, I wonder whether he took the decision together with Nicola Sturgeon or, as he was entitled to do, all by himself. My guess is that it must have been the latter, especially if it is indeed as damning for NS as it seems to be.

      In that case, is the split in the SNP about to come out into the open, even within Holyrood? And is Swinney going to be the one who jumps ship, and throw the whole thing up in the air?

      He could do so either by ‘spilling the beans’ (in accordance with his image as ‘honest John’ and ‘the most decent man in Scottish politics’), or, if there is an uglier and more Machiavellian side to him, by ‘wielding the dagger’? Maybe he realised the game was up, and decided (even as a matter of self-preservation) that he was no longer going to be the stooge who always had to cover for NS, and take the flak that was meant for her.

      Maybe even he has had enough of her. And just decided to pull the plug. Or else, more cynically, he realised she is going down anyway, and decided he wasn’t going to go with her. In other words, he has decided to save his own skin, no matter what – if he can. He is, after all, up for re-election.

      The alternative is that the two of them agreed on this move, and she thought she had enough up her sleeve to weather the inevitable storm it will cause, beginning from tomorrow. In which case, it might indicate she is now completely delusional, on the assumption that such would be a massive error of judgement on her part. She does have lots of sleeves – how big is her wardrobe, and how often does she change her outfit? – but on the evidence to date, there has never been anything up them.

      She does do illusions, all the same, and is not a bad magician in that respect. How long did she convince us all that she really did have a secret ‘plan’ that would be revealed at just the right moment, so that independence would be ours, when no such plan existed. Quite a trick, when you think about it, to fool so many people for such a long time.

      On the other hand, true enough, she DID have a hidden plan – so not a complete lie – but, unfortunately, it wasn’t the plan any of us had in mind. Hers was a plan for a Scotland of her own making, in her own image, even if it wouldn’t be independent. A Scotland where anyone could be any gender they wanted with a mere flick of a pen. A Scotland where anyone who disagreed with her on that or any other agenda dear to her heart could be put in jail at whim, for – the irony of it! – committing Hate Crimes. A Scotland, too, where there would be no more Alex Salmonds, or anyone like him. A Scotland where she would feel free, even as the rest of us were deprived of all such freedom. The thought police would see to that.

      So, is ‘honest John’, ‘Swinney the most decent’ a) about to charge; b) saving his own skin; c) preparing his ‘it wisnae me’ defence, ‘because I’m honest and decent’; d) finally sticking the knife in, taking his historical stand with a host of others from Brutus to Geoffrey Howe; e) now so confused, and his leader too, that neither he nor she now realises how damaging these revelations will be; f) a colluder with NS in some devious new plan that she has concocted in the belief she can still get away with it or g) NONE OF THE ABOVE?

      We’ll just have to wait and see.

      On another point, let me say hello to ‘Ex SNP Councillor’, posting btl here on 2 March, 2021 at 6:56 pm.
      Devastating post on your part, ending with ‘Justice MATTERS. Let it be done or the heavens fall’.

      It sounds like you have a story to tell. Without pushing – decision entirely yours – could I suggest that you write it up, or at least the most devastating parts of it, as an article somewhere? Maybe Wings would publish it? Of course, absolutely nothing to do with me: entirely, and quite rightly, a matter for the owner of this website.

    33. Scott says:

      Anyone in Scotland can report to Police Scotland an incident that they consider to be a crime. The Police must investigate as a result.

      If the Police lay charges on behalf of the Crown, prosecution of any charges then becomes a matter for COPFS within the powers conferred by the Crown.

      (The Crown of Scotland is the hat the monarch wears when administering the Seal of Scotland to Acts of Parliament enacted under Scots Law – all actions in Scotland are governed by Scots Law. No other legal system or “monarch’s hat” has jurisdiction in Scotland.)

    34. Derek M Morison says:

      Frazerio says:
      2 March, 2021 at 7:25 pm

      Also, has there ever been an explanation as to why the well known actor has never been named?

      I believe it was to avoid jigsaw ID of H based on the time and place of the dinner she…em wasn’t at?

      Although James Doleman it seems didn’t get the memo…?

    35. Mac2 says:

      Are we still allowed to hum the tune though? Do do do do do do do do do do do..

    36. John McNab says:

      Did they never take statements from the Syrian refugees at Bute House?

    37. Saffron Robe says:

      Biased and corrupt and in dereliction of duty to uphold justice.

      Can the police not act on their own initiative?

    38. Lenny Hartley says:

      somerled It would appear that Woman H allegedly read Mr Salmonds book on the referendum Campaign And took the date of the dinner From the book , presumably she/he/it wanted to ensure it
      Was a night when Mr Salmond was in Bute House and not elsewhere.

    39. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi somerled at 6:48 pm.

      You asked,
      “Genuine Question. How many times had the celebrity been invited to dinner at Bute house? Could he/she have gotten their dates/occassions mixed up? Same with woman H? I believe Salmond & Miss Barber’s version butteyingto look at other angles.Really need more evidence that woman H deliberately lied.

      I accept she might have…”

      Google, the Internet Archive and archive.is are mines of information, particularly the Internet Archive, because pages are captured forever and can’t be overwritten subsequently.

      When you discover her identity – and who her partner is – everything that’s happened since 2017 falls into place, particularly referring to the testimonies at AS’s criminal trial from (1) Isobel Zambonini and (2) Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.
      Perhaps browsing the Aberdeenshire local newspapers around July 2015 could be fruitful?
      This stink goes to the very top of the SNP – and, unfortunately, worked against Jo Cherry last year.
      From,
      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
      “Mrs Zambonini testified that she had been working as an employee in Alex Salmond’s constituency office when Ms H had arrived one day to do some paperwork and photocopying, and she had been told that Ms H was there to seek the parliamentary nomination. She had however been aware that Alex Salmond preferred another candidate.

      Some days later Mrs Zambonini had encountered Ms H again by her car. Ms H had asked Izzie how she found it working for Alex Salmond. After an initially pleasant conversation, suddenly Ms H had stated “He needs to remember who he is and how he got there, I was instrumental in making that happen”. Mrs Zambonini stated she had been shocked by how quickly Ms H had changed and got angry.”

      From,
      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/
      “McCall asked her if she remembered the date of the 13 June 2014 dinner. Tasmina responded yes, that was the day her father had died. She had received a message he was taken very ill that morning and had set off for London. At Carlisle they learnt he had died. (At this point the witness broke into tears.)

      Before leaving Scotland with her husband she had messaged the First Minister’s office to say she would not be able to attend the Scottish women’s international football match the next day. (The point of this evidence is it contradicts Ms H’s evidence of her interaction with Ms Ahmed-Sheikh over the football.)

      McCall led the witness on to June 2015 when Ms H had contacted her about becoming the SNP candidate for an Aberdeenshire constituency. Ms Ahmed-Sheikh confirmed that in June 2015 she had received a text from Ms H about the chances of Alex Salmond endorsing her, including the phrase “it would be great to be working with Alex again”.

      Later Ms H discovered Salmond would not support her. Later texts read “Alex doesn’t think there is any chance for me against (name withheld)”, and then that she was withdrawing from the race and “Alex has it all to explain for”, alleging that Salmond had found another candidate to stand against her.”

      My SNP membership is still hanging on by a pinkie nail from that shoogly peg…

    40. Lisa says:

      Oh, I think I can guess the song.

      God bless you, etc.

    41. Clavie Cheil says:

      Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t perjury a criminal offense that carries a jail sentence. Why wasn’t she jailed? Why is Livingston still in a job as well?

    42. Lorna Campbell says:

      somerled: the thing about going after a witness whom one might suppose had lied (I’m making no judgement here) is that criminal intent must be proved to have been the motivating factor, i.e. that Ms H deliberately lied to achieve a certain outcome, so I agree with you that care has to be taken not to persecute a witness who might have been mistaken as to timeline/dateline. That is properly the job of the police at the behest of the fiscal. On the face of it, a mistaken timeline/dateline does not appear to be likely, but, whatever the evidence to the contrary, it could have been. There might yet be a police investigation. There might yet be grounds for prosecution or there might not. Women have been prosecuted for such an offence.

      However, opening up new cans of worms might not be such a sensible idea. Revenge, as they say, is a dish best eaten cold. Often, it is a dish that should not be partaken of at all. Sometimes, it can lead to a vendetta of tit for tat, Mafia style.

      The inquiry is being held into the actings of the SNPG and its various arms. If they are found to be at fault, Mr Salmond will have won again and be entitled to restitution/reimbursement.

    43. McDuff says:

      PB
      Yes I have wondered about that. AS even seemed reluctant to criticise NS despite her recent remarks about him and the poor complainers.

    44. McDuff says:

      You just know that if it had been Craig Murray, or Johanna Cherry that had been suspected of perjury they would now be behind bars suspected.

    45. Robert says:

      My understanding is mthat perjury is pursued as a crime only if the perjury results in a material change in the outcome of the trial – which can’t have happened here.

      Can anyone confirm this?

    46. Kcor says:

      That is overwhelming evidence of the extent of Woman H’s perjury.

      The Lord Advocate has deliberately protected Woman H.

      Any honest person can easily conclude that he is totally corrupt and in the pocket of the witch of Scotland.

      A very honest Freedom of Information reply from Police Scotland.

      Plenty of honest workers around, but like everywhere, totally corrupt persons at the top.

    47. Runner 118 says:

      It wouldn’t be perjury. It would be Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

    48. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It wouldn’t be perjury. It would be Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.”

      By perjury.

    49. Meg says:

      So if the conspiracy around the criminal case is proven to be true will there be any investigation into that?

    50. Isabel Melville says:

      Oh lol, look what I found!

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44643327

    51. Ian McLaren says:

      A desperate throw of the dice from Kenny F in the Times tonight….

      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmonds-conspiracy-theory-about-nicola-sturgeon-is-built-on-sand-7fqqrxlgl

      Tomorrow is another day!

    52. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Isabel Melville.

      Now there’s a coincidence!

      https://archive.is/SkBP7

    53. Daisy Walker says:

      Polis will not instigate an enquiry such as this, as the Judge (Lady Dorian) outranks them, and the ‘crime’ happened on her beat – so very much her call, (plus she’s the expert – although you wouldn’t know it to see it with regards her treatment of Craig Murray’s case).

      For the same reason, Joe bloggs public, attempting to report it, Police will refer it back to COPFs and they to the Judge.

      What might be possible, is a private prosecution by Alex (very expensive) this VERY rarely happens, and you can google the criteria by which it ‘might’ be accepted (this requires 3 high court judges, accepting that the case is in the public interest and stateable). Last one to happen was the Glasgow Bin man.

    54. Alison Brown says:

      Sorry prosecuted!! Not persecuted! Bloody auto correct! Why can’t I correct comment on here?

    55. John Cleary says:

      (The Crown of Scotland is the hat the monarch wears when administering the Seal of Scotland to Acts of Parliament enacted under Scots Law – all actions in Scotland are governed by Scots Law. No other legal system or “monarch’s hat” has jurisdiction in Scotland.)

      Hello scott. You sound very sure on that.

      I beg to differ.

      Have you looked at the insignia that fronts that new hub?

      It says “Dieu et Mon Droit” and “Honi soit qui mal y pense”.
      Do you think THAT is Scots Law being implemented?

      Have you ever heard of the Treason Felony Act of 1848?

      Have a look at the outside of the highest courts in Scotland. What do they say? (genuine question)

    56. Mark Young says:

      Is there an actual mechanism for members of the public to Report Woman H for Perjury.

    57. DMT says:

      I’ll admit, when Salmond first appeared outside that court house after his not guilty verdicts, my thoughts at the the were ‘oh he’s a sleaze’ and ‘it might not be criminal level conduct, but no smoke without fire’.

      But after I figured out who H was, and joined a fair few other dots about this whole sorry affair…I’ll admit I was completely wrong about Salmond. And what happened to him I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.

      I hope he can one day get passed all of this.

    58. Mac says:

      People are allowed to commit blatant crimes if it is in the pursuit of stitching-up Alex Salmond. In fact the COPFS and the police will not only look the other way they will aid and abet the cover-up of those crimes.

      This contrasts to people like Wings, Craig Murray, Mark Hirst and of course Salmond himself who get mega-investigated for imagined crimes.

      Suddenly the same COPFS and police force who could not see blatant crimes right under their noses now develop this amazing vision that allows them to see crimes that do not exist.

      Do these folks really not think this is obvious now.

      This is political persecution. All the weasel lawyer words in the world cant cover it up anymore.

      The Lord Advocate and the COPFS are applying the law completely differently depending on whether you support Alex Salmond’s efforts to uncover the plot against him or if you go along with it.

      If you go along with it then you can commit perjury, contempt of court, conspiracy to pervert the course and the LA and COPFS could not give a shit, if you don’t then you get arrested for fuck all and persecuted for non-crimes.

    59. Cath says:

      Same DMT. Once you discover a couple of names and look properly at the defence case, you can’t conclude anything but this was a plot designed to jail a totally innocent man. The irony, given the resources expended on trying to do it, seems to be they were trying to stitch up probably the cleanest bloke in politics. If that case was really the best they could do with 90 years of the finest prosecution minds in the U.K. working on it, there is nothing to see. And yet how many genuinely horrific abusers are out there protected by these same people and power structures?

    60. Kiwilassie says:

      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      2 March, 2021 at 10:01 pm
      Hi Isabel Melville.

      Now there’s a coincidence!
      The woman in that link is now married to Angus Robinson.

      Was that the wife he was married to when he was a MP in WM?
      If it was, she was the one Angus Robertson cheated on, as he had an affair whilst down in London.
      I hope she isn’t standing as a candidate anywhere.

    61. Kiwilassie says:

      @ Brian Doonthetoon
      OOPs! I got that wrong, Dempsie was the other woman. His wife must have divorced him, given that he is now married to her.

      Hmm She seems to have a bit of history, I often wondered why people posted unflattering remarks about Angus Robertson & especially his wife.
      https://www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20150915/281500750036975

    62. Willie says:

      If you think police are biased in what they investigate and what they don’t, you want to try and understand financial crime.

      Fraud and corruption they positive ignore. Steal a million, raid someone’s savings, investigate serious public corruption – no chance. With these things people try need to take things into their own hands because there is no rule of law.

    63. James says:

      Clever title Stu. Very clever.

    64. Jon Mac says:

      “We’ll say one thing for Police Scotland – when it comes to Freedom Of Information requests, dealing with them compared to the Scottish Government or Crown Office is a breath of fresh air. Responses tend to be reasonably swift and you actually get some straight answers”

      I don’t know who in the actual f*ck you think you are that you demand anything from Scot Gov, in particular your numerous tedious requests for FOI reports. You don’t reside in Scotland and aren’t a constituent and are owed nothing. Someone @ Scot Gov should just stick their neck out and have the balls to tell you to piss off.



    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