Green is the colour of cowardice
Do ye, aye?
Well, yer ontae plums, son.
Because this isn’t North Korea and nobody needs your permission to report the news. There are no “claims” about what Andy Wightman did today, just published facts.
And if anyone were to contact him, we’re pretty sure that all they’d get would be more woeful, self-pitying whining like this, and we really can’t be bothered with that.
There is no justification for the committee refusing to publish Alex Salmond’s submission. It breaks no laws. It does NOT identify any of the complainers in his case – it was vetted carefully by Mr Salmond’s lawyers beforehand for that very purpose.
We know this, of course, because it was published – entirely unredacted – a full month ago and to the best of our knowledge nobody has been identified as a result.
Nor, contrary to a remarkably dishonest statement posted tonight by the committee, would publishing a redacted version create any such danger by drawing attention to which passages had been redacted. 34 of the original document’s 35 paragraphs are still readable on the website of The Spectator – whose lawyers, we must assume, have also concluded that they breach no laws and can be safely read by anyone.
(Having also seen and indeed published the redacted paragraph, we can see no way in which it does such a thing either. It provides no information which even obliquely suggests the identity of a complainer. Ironically, by the committee’s own logic, it is only the forced redaction of that paragraph three weeks ago by [REDACTED] that creates such a risk. We look forward to the committee urging the Crown Office to pursue the guilty party, whoever that may have been.)
So the committee could of course just publish the current Spectator version without adding an atom of new information to that which has now been in the public domain for over a month. But in a bewildering twist, they – or at least, five of them – have instead attempted to blame the people who published the submission for keeping it secret.
That entire paragraph makes no sense, for the reasons noted above. It’s farcical to pretend the committee alone haven’t read something that anyone else in Scotland with any interest in the case has read. The cat isn’t just out of the bag, it’s flown to Dubai, gone through a couple of weeks quarantine and is lounging on the beach.
And at no point has the committee actually addressed any of the enquiries from Alex Salmond’s lawyers about which parts may or may not be problematic. Time after time after time, Levy and Macrae’s legitimate and fair questions have simply gone entirely unanswered, as comprehensively as all the ones asked of Peter Murrell yesterday.
There was never any chance that the four SNP members of the committee would do anything that would damage Nicola Sturgeon. With them cancelled out by four Unionist members, all hope of the inquiry not being a sham rested on the ninth member.
So it is Scotland’s tragedy, and democracy’s tragedy, and transparency’s tragedy, and decency’s tragedy, and justice’s tragedy, that Alison Johnstone had to step down to attend hospital for an operation and was replaced by a gutless, spineless, snivelling weasel like Andy Wightman. (We don’t know if she’d have been any better, of course, but she at least deserves the benefit of the doubt.)
Wings will not be joining the loud chorus on social media tonight of those speculating about what nefarious reasons may possibly have lain behind Wightman’s decision. We’re choosing to prefer the simpler explanation that he’s merely a wretched, pathetic coward – as illustrated by the last time his courage failed him, all too recently.
We hope that the imminent end of this benighted failure of a Parliament is the last Scottish politics sees of him.
So you go and take some advice on that, pal. And if you’ve got any spare time left, go and buy a dictionary and look up “refute” while you’re there.
The SNP could have a Death squad annihilating the Public at current time and their devotees would say its the victims fault for being in the wrong place
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned earlier bu Alan Massies piece in the Times today absolutely nailed it for me.On the money BIG time. There IS trouble ahead!!!!
Andy Wightman is the lowest, most craven creep in the committee. We expected it of the SNP – we see you, clear as day – but cry-baby Wightman will never see another ounce of support from me when he’s in trouble.
I’m now sorry I put towards his defence costs. I also take back any support I offered him in the past.
I’m not going to mention rogues and parcels – The Coward Wightman goes lower than that trope. I blocked that anti-Scot.
You tell him Stu!!!
He is a disgrace. Spineless!! The type of hypocrate who is happy to pretend to be all self righteous but refuse justice to an innocent man who was nearly jailed!
This lot would be more at home in westminster post ondependencecwhere there is plenty corruption to make them feel at home.
Alain Mack @ 7:41 pm
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned earlier bu Alan Massies piece in the Times today absolutely nailed it for me.On the money BIG time. There IS trouble ahead!!!!
Details, man. Details!
Stuart, You have expressed certainty all along that this affair will end with Nicola Sturgoeon resigning. Is your certainty not dented? It looks to me that she will get away with it.
Looks like Murray Footes finally catching up on all the work he has studiously been avoiding since he was slipped into his cosy wee job. No surprise that the Record as usual are getting all the anonymous SNP representatives quotes and never naming them. Is Murray Foote a self I’Ding alphabet woman.?
He does not approve of breaches of code of conduct ?
Better to hide them then.
@newburghgowfer
I wish I could say that you’re wrong. I cannot understand why so many are still burying their heads in the sand. They appear to have lost all sense of what is right. You can’t build your newly independent country on the sinking foundations of a corrupt party.
@ alain mack – any chance of an archived version of the article you referred to? Please?
was wondering if they are refusing to question sue for the same reason as liz
I, too, contributed to his defence costs against Wildcat Haven Enterprises. Am bemused exactly why he said nothing to the Fabiani Inquiry.
The Scotsman is reporting that:
“It is also understood that a key legal action will take place on Thursday in Edinburgh’s High Court. An application is listed at the court to be heard on Thursday, but no information about it has been made public. It is believed the hearing may be linked to the decision by some media outlets to print the submission in full.”
Fucking Hell Stuart, come down of that fence will ye.
My regard for Wightman is dropping almost by the minute. I urged him on twitter to join us in the ISP. I hereby withdraw that information. We need peple of fortitude and principle. I will have more to say about that later this month.
It is now beyond time for the parliament to pass this inquiry to a Inner Court judge with powers to compel witness attendance to give absolute sworn testimony on pain of a perjury charge carrying gaol time if proven along with the power to demand any and all relevant documents regardless of how sensitive. If we don’t trust a judge of the inner Court with sensitive material we are beyond saving.
Rattled.
I just wish we could all see it. Is there anyway possible for this to happen? A whistleblower?
– and so the nonsense continues..
link to heraldscotland.com
There is definitely deals being done, but how can any inquiry refuse to hear the evidence and claim to be justified?
The truth will come out, it always does.
For my speculation, there are too many ‘important’ people who have so much to loose if they were exposed.
Many are bought, many are coerced , some blackmailed.
Its the only conclusion i can find to explain this shambolic farse.
As the days get longer his yellow streak gets broader.
You got him telt, again ?
Question mark was supposed to he a smiley
“So you go and take some advice on that, pal. And if you’ve got any spare time left, go and buy a dictionary and look up “refute” while you’re there”.
That’s the problem – to ‘refute’ them they (he)would need to mount a detailed defence and explain why the allegations are wrong.
But these days merely to ‘deny’ (without explanation, let alone ‘refutation’ ) is to ‘refute’
The debasement of the language (you know, where words actually have meaning) goes hand in hand with the debasement of politics and pubic life.
There’s a bloke with a YouTube channel, “We got a problem”, who has read out the entire submission of evidence by Alex Salmond including the redactions. And I mean the whole thing, line by line. And has had >20k views. So the content is hardly a secret.
He’s no fan of him or Sturgeon or indeed the idea of independence. But admits his astonishment at the unlawful corruption at the heart of Sturgeon’s Scottish Cabinet.
Any ideas what the court case on Thursday – re HMA v Salmond – is about?
Muscleguy at 7:53 pm
My regard for Wightman is dropping almost by the minute. I urged him on twitter to join us in the ISP. I hereby withdraw that information. We need peple of fortitude and principle. I will have more to say about that later this month.
And referencing a point I made a few weeks ago on this site; you need to be 100% positive about board, office bearers etc when embarking on the pro-independence political party/crossing swords with the biggest, extant corrupt country on the planet – you almost permitted a Trojan Horse to walk right into your home.
“Cup of tea, Andy?” “Make it a Pimms, please”..
This Holyrood inquiry has been a complete sham. We argue for independence but yet shit like this would get called out right away if it was in Westminster making the idea of being trapped in an independent Scotland with governance like this scary. I think there needs to be a quick overhaul and MSPs with a hint of moral fibre need to back it.
Next week the cult teflon queen confidently walks into the inquiry knowing all the prickly questions have been forbidden so basically it will be over in 10 mins however Salmond has a few more cards to play including a full press conference and an appeal.
Hopefully the Hamilton inquiry reports fairly and accurately and is only a few weeks away!
The wall was certainly not missed here and has been well and truly torn apart!
Please keep going Rev until this disgraceful bunch are truly exposed and justice is served.
Ben Madigan @ 7.50pm
Here you go …
link to archive.vn
(My 1st Wings post)
– that was “cask strength”!
Unless AW’s kids have been kidnapped by Albanians, “Taken”-style, then his behaviour is inexcusable.
I think the REV is channelling Frankie Miller-
link to youtube.com
Al says:
9 February, 2021 at 8:09 pm
Any ideas what the court case on Thursday – re HMA v Salmond – is about?
—-
Not a clue, but given the Scotsman wrote this paragraph in the article which is linked earlier in the comments:
Mr Salmond’s final decision as to whether to appear in front of the committee will be made after the result of that application, which could provide a way for the Scottish Parliament to publish the evidence.
Maybe Alex has petitioned the court to clear his written submission legally in respect of anonymity orders.
If a High Court Judge rules in his favour then that would most definately clear any legal hurdles that the committee are hiding behind giving them absolutely no reason to not publish it, other than purely political reasons of course.
The above is entirely my own speculation, but in light of any details of the court petition it is certainly a possibility.
The secret’s no longer a secret, but we have to pretend it’s still a secret so that we can continue to be secretive about the truth!
Its ludicrously funny because its just delaying the inevitable
I am sure Andy Wightman is a good man, caught in a nasty snare.
On the other hand the snare is in the hands of others less so.
Scotland’s anglicization goes back a long way.
Written in English in 1560.
Even then there were cowards, cultural cowards.
Then there was the personal and parliamentary ‘Unions’.
The roots of corruption and the snivelling cringe run deep.
Funny how it always involves the nation’s leaders aka proud Scots….
After 300 years, Scottish people, do wise up!
Cosyfeet Pete has tweeted that “Poor Andy stood up for the integrity of the inquiry”.
Astounding stupidity.
“So it is Scotland’s tragedy, and democracy’s tragedy, and transparency’s tragedy, and decency’s tragedy, and justice’s tragedy, that Alison Johnstone had to step down to attend hospital for an operation and was replaced by a gutless, useless, snivelling weasel like Andy Wightman.”
I agree with this statement.
Does anyone know of any up and coming Holyrood Polls ?
I’d love to know what the state of play is.
If polling falls for the SNP, will Sturgeon delay the election ?
While most of the chat on here is about the ISP, we haven’t discussed possible moves from Unionist parties in ‘gaming’ the election. Are we going to see a full roster of unionist candidates in all seats ? Or is the continued demise of Labour a ploy for them to put forward less candidates ?
Would love to hear predictions beyond that don’t include the words plebiscite, ISP, Independence – ie all the stuff we’ve been talking about for months incessantly.
@Robert Louis says:
9 February, 2021 at 7:56 pm
“– and so the nonsense continues..”
Welcome to North Korea.
Yeah,
the next time some politician states ‘… I refute …” to a journalist, I’d wish for that journalist to respond:
“with what evidence? Or do you merely mean ‘deny’?”
The secret’s no longer a secret, but we have to pretend it’s still a secret
This is what’s so crazy. It’s one thing having an entire media and political establishment ‘in the know’ about things us mere plebs are in the dark about. That happens all the time, especially in a cliquey, incestuous country like Scotland where they all seem to be family and friends. It becomes ludicrous when increasing numbers of the population know the secret(s) as well. I’m imagining Nicola’s next covid review being “And naw, yous’re no getting pubs back until after May 6th. Ah cannae trust yous no tae get pished and blab things you shouldnae.”
How the hell could you give this up Stu. The fact that you’re able to piss off politicians from both sides shows what a great job you’re doing.
Garavelli Princip says:
9 February, 2021 at 8:03 pm
“So you go and take some advice on that, pal. And if you’ve got any spare time left, go and buy a dictionary and look up “refute” while you’re there”.
That’s the problem – to ‘refute’ them they (he)would need to mount a detailed defence and explain why the allegations are wrong.’
In fairness after his exposure to Scottish politics and ‘justice’ he probably suffers from a Pavlov’s Dog type reaction and ‘refute’ automatically gets translated into ‘redacted’ quicker than spell check on an ipad.
Wightman? Bought and sold for Sturgeon’s Gold?
This one line has been brought to by Yes.Scot contributors
Been sayin it for a long time ,
the Greens are the cause of all that is rotten/ing in Scottish politics,
woke virtue signalin c@nts the lot of them.
`Villainy wears many masks. None so dangerous as the mask of virtue.`
What a splendid fellow, strong backbone, stiff upper lip and a job well done.
IN HELL
Green is the colour
Fiddling is the game
We’re all in it together
And winning is the aim
Wightman is a member of the SPCB and also says he doesn’t want to bring the parliament into disrepute as he sees that as a conflict. He mentioned being a member in the committee minutes in relation to the vote.
This means he should not have been on this committee at all if it meant being conflicted or constrained.
All he has achieved is to protect the conspirators not the complainers as he claims and further damaged his reputation along with the partisan SNP members including Fabiani who has presided over a whitewash.
tartanfever, the polls will show whatever Angus wants them to show, and if not then you won’t hear about them
ANDY WIGHTMAN
! let us pray that never ever again will your mouth vomit the word ( transparency ) just like your boss. it would spread nausea throughout the country like like Covid 19. Spare the voters of SCOTLAND and take up fishing or golf and leave the running of this country to more intelligent grown ups who think more of Scotland as a whole community than their own selfish party policies. there’s a good boy….
The Green MSP may have sold his soul, but this matter is not done yet, I have a feeling there is more way to go.
We the people have a right to justice, and hope someone pushes this issue.
O/T
I saw that a few days ago John Swinney announced that covid restrictions are going to remain in place “for some time” even after the ENTIRE country has been vaccinated. If that is so the question needs to be asked what is the point of a mass vaccine rollout when the restrictions are not going to end and we are going to be living like this for many years. Wasn’t the whole point of this to end lockdown and restrictions sooner.
Has the Scottish government done any kind of cost benefit analysis of keeping a fully vaccinated population under lockdown/restrictions. I doubt anyone in the Scottish government even understands the massive damage that has and is being done to peoples livelihoods, health, mental health and education as a result of this and it doesn’t look like there is anyone in the Scottish government that has the courage to bring this to an end and it seems like the Scottish people are too terrified by sturgeons daily dose of fear propaganda to do anything about it. Some people are even convinced she has done a good job throughout this!
I probably shouldn’t be surprised. Covid is the gift that keeps on giving for nicolas dodgy scottish government, the longer she can stretch this self inflicted disaster out for the better for her poll ratings.
I want to know more about why The Spectator have had their article up for a month, with only one small recent chance, but Wings had to bin their article all together?
Deeper pockets for impending lawsuits?
Or another reason altogether?
Mark Hirst’s appeal fund: link to civillibertyscotland.com
Wightman is a worm along with the SNP members on the committee.
Independence is never going to happen until the creeps in the party start losing their seats which is all they really care about.
I never never never thought I would say this but I wont be voting SNP until, apart from a few this lot are cleared out.
I expect that of the SNP members on the Committee?
I don’t!
Are these people telling the electorate they don’t want transparency, truth or justice
in the Scotland they want to build?
What kind of idiot would vote for them or that type of country?
They have just established that they will cover up corruption to keep their nose in the stinking trough
And we talk about the travesty of Westminster hiding the McCrone report?
That at least was theft of Scotland’s resources, this is a deliberate attempt to
ruin and imprison an innocent man.
Rat.
It may be a problem getting the affair resolved by the committee but you can be certain the unionists will release the messages running up to the election they may even name the women in england
Nicola is really going to have to think about it because the light at the end of the tunnel is attached to a train. She can’t escape it and neither can the women. If they think the UK security services give a hoot about a Scottish court order they must be on drugs
Our own ‘malicious prosecution/misefeasance in public office’ case will require funding at some point in the very near future. We hate asking for money, but like Mark will return what is lent (hopefully) and share legal opinion in advance.
This is all a huge waste of public money.
How many more are in the woodwork and how many innocent folk have fallen victim to the corruption that now prevails?
link to tns2019.org
Why did the committee take the unusual step of releasing the votes? A good opportunity to campaign against pro-independence parties?
Did they “need” to show us that it is only unionist MSPs who are pursuing the truth while all the 5 pro independence MSPs in the committee are colluding to help the conspirators by restricting the evidence the public could see?
Whose idea was that?
The same “legal advisors” who told Mr Wightman he should vote with the SNP MSPs to stop Mr Salmond’s evidence being published?
Why do I think that everything related to this case is also designed to discredit the pro independence parties to derail independence?
Genderwoowoo and metoo may be imports from the USA but hell, here they have been relentlessly used for the last 3 years as effective tools to engineering division in the SNP, and oh boy they have worked wonders.
Now it appears the committee is divided right across the middle between those with low tolerance to power abuse and corruption and those who have a high tolerance to abuse of power and corruption so they have voted to keep the evidence under a lid to protect Sturgeon’s arse. Conveniently for the british state, the ones that are presented as wanting the truth are representatives of labour and the tories.
So what is all this? Another exercise to make us “see” that it it is only the anti independence parties who we can trust?
From where I am standing, those votes look staged and the “unusual step” of releasing the votes so the public can see who is helping to cover the arse of the conspirators, looks staged too.
The whole thing stinks at British state manoeuvring.
What a pumped up, pompous coward Wightman is. He thinks looking at his voting record amounts to a mere ‘claim’ about him which he will ‘refute’, because you have to ask him about it. Utterly ridiculous. Do any of these people have any understanding of the concepts of public service, accountability and transparency of the executive? What kind of inquiry does he thinks he sits on which prevents its own inquiry from taking place? If he feels he is being mocked and ridiculed, well he could start there, which is a direct consequence of his actions.
Really, I don’t see what the others, assuming they might have principles, although there is scant evidence of any of them having such a thing, can do except declare they are quitting this gutless sham whose sole purpose is not to inquire into the events that it was set up do. This is close to a constitutional crisis, in as much it is demonstrating we do not have a constitution fit for purpose which ensures good governance, accountability and transparency, answerable through the law to the Scottish people. That is where Sturgeon and her crew have taken us. And, astonishingly, they are brazen and shameless about it, close to succeeding in closing down every avenue which would give the electorate the scrutiny which should be guaranteed by right. Whatever happened to the Scottish Enlightenment – they are reversing it all for a new era of the Scottish Dark Ages.
someone replied to Fraser Nelson’s tweet of their copy of Alex Salmond’s submission sayin ’26 is redacted’ to which he replies ‘for now’
Dear Wingers I can’t get spellcheck to work properly so your pertinent question is this.
Is Wightman A) a shithouse or B) a shythouse
Meg, this was Facundo Savala
having now found the unredacted version i see why
But why is this redacted at all?
And why is the original Wings post redacted completely?
I am not sure we will get an accurate answer here, unless it’s from Rev himself
Since he can’t refute those allegations, I suppose he can always refudiate them.
Thanks to Sarah Palin (another political genuis), this word is now in on-line dictionaries:
Refuse to accept or be associated with anything that doesn’t serve my political agenda.
Deny the truth or validity of anything, especially when it is actually true.
Deny and disassociate oneself from the truth at all costs.
if you have a look for the unredacted version you will see why. i imagine rev is just erring on the side of caution
Seems it’s the Spectator going to court on Thursday to challenge the legality of publishing material
link to telegraph.co.uk
I can’t actually read that Telegraph article as it’s behind a paywall, so going by someone else’s Twitter summary there though.
You can bet your bottom dollar that they comb through every word on this blog looking for the smoking gun with which they can close him down. So I’d rather he plays it safe than sorry. Anyway, you can read a variety of sources to enhance the picture of what is going on.
If all the Spectator does is to be allowed to print the redacted paragraph, I do not see how that will change opinions of the Fabiani Inquiry members. Maybe they are going to argue for something more than that.
Is it just me or is anyone else waiting on Leslie Evans protesting that she was simply being economical with the truth? Because that is what this whole affair has descended to.
“If all the Spectator does is to be allowed to print the redacted paragraph, I do not see how that will change opinions of the Fabiani Inquiry members. Maybe they are going to argue for something more than that.”
Yes, you’ve entirely misunderstood what’s happening on Thursday.
“I can’t actually read that Telegraph article as it’s behind a paywall, so going by someone else’s Twitter summary there though.”
How can there still be Wings readers in 2021 who don’t know how to work archive.is? BE MORE ALERT.
The Rev said he was not allowed to say why the whole WoS version of the evidence was ordered to be redacted.
Am I right in saying that these women are claiming political anonymity
@Cath
Telegraph article
link to archive.is
Can someone tell me why these women still have witness anonymity
The following is from link to cps.gov.uk
The anonymity process is costing this country thousands of pounds, thousands of man hours and a threat to real justice. I do not see why they still need anonymity UNLESS it’s a political matter.
Anonymity
Applications for witness anonymity can be made pre-trial under sections 74 to 85 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The orders known as investigation anonymity orders can be requested at the very start of an investigation thus providing early certainty to people, who may have relevant information, that their identities will not be disclosed.
Investigation anonymity orders are only available in limited circumstances, which are:
1. that a qualifying offence has been committed (murder or manslaughter where the death was caused by being shot with a firearm or injured with a knife);
2. that the person likely to have committed the offence was at least 11 but under 30 years old at the time the offence was committed;
3. that the person likely to have committed the offence is a member of a group engaging in criminal activity and the majority of its members are at least 11 but under 30 years old; and
4. the person in respect of whom the order would be made has reasonable grounds to fear intimidation or harm if they were identified as assisting the investigation.
Applications can be made to a justice of the peace by police officers or prosecutors.
The granting of an investigation anonymity order does not guarantee that anonymity will be granted at the trial. A separate application has to be made for a trial anonymity order under sections 86 to 90 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The Director’s Guidance on Witness Anonymity sets out the procedure to be followed when considering whether or not to apply to the court for a witness anonymity order. The Act and the Guidance apply to all witnesses, including undercover police officers and police officers involved in test purchase operations.
Applications for witness anonymity at trial must be authorised by Complex Casework Unit Heads or Heads of Division.
“Stuart, You have expressed certainty all along that this affair will end with Nicola Sturgoeon resigning. Is your certainty not dented? It looks to me that she will get away with it.”
I’ve never said I was certain. I’ve always put the chances at 75-80%, and I still do.
@kapelmeister, 8.48
It puts me in mind of this
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” Martin Luther King
Cheers guys – I’ll remember achieve.is next time!
This is interesting too, just for the wording of the tweet:
“After David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and Alex Salmond, is there a pattern of “malicious prosecutions” by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)?”
link to twitter.com
Whitewash fears over Salmond inquiry after pro-independence MSPs block release of Sturgeon dossier
wrong heading Telegraph should read
Whitewash fears over Salmond inquiry after SNP MSPs block release of Sturgeon dossier
“The Spectator magazine is taking action in the High Court in Edinburgh on Thursday, seeking a ruling that would put the legality of publishing documents about the Salmond affair – which have been censored by the Holyrood inquiry – beyond doubt” @Dsanderson_85
Jesus wept.
This man is a moron.
can only imagine he was pished when he posted that.
Bipod at 21:16
Who cares… madness is the new norm, get over it.
@Muscleguy says:
9 February, 2021 at 7:53 pm
My regard for Wightman is dropping almost by the minute. I urged him on twitter to join us in the ISP. I hereby withdraw that information.
Invitation?
…curase thatr spleechuck…
imagine if an ex…. politician made a wee utube video
wouldnt that be interesting….
If what I have deduced about the signifigance of High Court matters on Thursday bears true, combined with all of the publicly available information about this enquiry then there will be quite a few pot lids blown clean through ceilings come thursday night, possibly well into friday.
So was it in 2016, following the Brexit vote, that Sturgeon was ‘activated’ with a direct order to kick the IndyRef2 can so far down the road it’d fall off the end of the pier?
Post 2014, the SNP swelled so rapidly that the impression was given, thanks in no small part to The Vow’s false prospectus, that Scotland woke up, weighed and measured the UK, and found it wanting.
Would the only way to preserve the UK be for the English Empire to leave the Franco-German Empire? To preserve the union of 1707, would the union of 1973 require to be sacrificed to close off any obvious bolt-hole for an Indy Scotland? If so, the electorate in England were played like a finely tuned instrument and delivered.
I’m sure that had the SNP gone quietly into the night post IndyRef1, the Leave campaign could not have used the preservation of the Union of the UK as a totem for big business to bankroll the campaign.
But how could Sturgeon deflect from the lack of progress towards IndyRef2? How could Team Murrell replace the hardliners within the SNP for cozy devolutionists and soft gradualists?
Easy…
* Brexit trade deal negotiations followed by COVID (Bonus!) – Now is not the time, wait and see, economic recovery comes first, yada-yada-yada…
* Woke issues; Bigger fish to fry before IndyRef2, a big helping of ‘divide and rule’ courtesy of those young Turks with their gender woo-woo swelling the ranks and encouraging the traditionalists to up sticks and set up camp elsewhere, (ISP). Oh, look! Squirrels!
The only problem was Salmond.
He was forging ties with Russia’s State Broadcaster, had his eye on The Scotsman, and he saw straight though Sturgeon like an empty bottle of Irn Bru. What to do?
Easy… no need for any recap here.
Plus… If everything went south and the Murrells ended up foundering on the same reef which they tried to steer Salmond toward, double prizes for the British State!
You couldn’t make this shit up! Oh, no, wait… somebody with an SW1A postcode already did.
My daughter said to me tonight that everything seems anger and anguish in the yes movement , but she understood why.
We have two factions of Independence fighting for different things. On one band people who are willing to put Independence first and foremost believing that if they get the chance ,everything can be sorted out afterwards. They are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to that end. There are no moral imperatives or boundaries which are exempt.
The second group are those who believe in a rather old fashioned morality, where the rules apply in all situations.
We are not rebels or deliberate dissenters but rather the custodians of values long since consigned to being unfashionable. The need to be seen to be acting for the values that normally glue society together. Truth,Justice ,decency.
I asked her in which group I should place myself. She laughed
” The one you’ve taught us to follow all our lives of course.Why would you change now? “
holymacmoses says:
9 February, 2021 at 10:22 pm
Whitewash fears over Salmond inquiry after pro-independence MSPs block release of Sturgeon dossier
wrong heading Telegraph should read
Whitewash fears over Salmond inquiry after SNP MSPs block release of Sturgeon dossier
———————————————–
sorry to be pedantic but ….
Whitewash fears over Fabiani inquiry after SNP MSPs block release of Sturgeon dossier
Interesting bit in that Telegraph article, it is not just Alex’s submission that they are wanting to get clarity on. Geoff Aberdein’s submission was also mentioned as being put into the public domain.
“It is understood that the application, if successful, could also see other documents withheld by the committee enter the public domain, including potentially explosive evidence from Mr Salmond’s former aide, Geoff Aberdein”
I have asked before why Geoff Couldn’t just publish it before as I thought the submission belongs to him, not the inquiry, (IANAL) maybe someone could answer that…?
Neil Wilkinson
sorry to be pedantic but ….
Whitewash fears over Fabiani inquiry after SNP MSPs block release of Sturgeon dossier
I’m all for pedantry – particularly when it reflects accuracy:-)
Interesting bit in that Telegraph article, it is not just Alex’s submission that they are wanting to get clarity on. Geoff Aberdein’s submission was also mentioned as being put into the public domain.
“It is understood that the application, if successful, could also see other documents withheld by the committee enter the public domain, including potentially explosive evidence from Mr Salmond’s former aide, Geoff Aberdein.”
I have asked before why Geoff Couldn’t just publish it before as I thought the submission belongs to him, not the inquiry, (IANAL) maybe someone could answer that…?
@Tony Henry says at 8:21 pm
(My 1st Wings post)
Thanks Tony. A useful first post.
And I bet it didn’t hurt a bit, eh?
I feel sorry for Mr Aberdein. he’s a young man trying to do the right thing but also get on with his career. He’s between a rock and a hard place
Sorry for duplicate comment
@Alan
I suspect Aberdein’s evidence would bring down Sturgeon and Murrell. (pretty damn sure actually)
I suspect he has been ‘advised’ not to publish.
An excellent article from Joanna Cherry in the NewStatesman , It’s definitely worth reading .
“ Joanna Cherry’s Diary: Why I was sacked, coming out as gay in the Aids pandemic, and turmoil in the SNP . A small but vocal cohort of my SNP colleagues has engaged in performative histrionics redolent of the Salem witch trials. “
link to archive.vn
Bob Mack 10.45
There are two factions right enough but only one of them are for truth , justice and independence. And NS is not part of it.
It does my nut in when people use ‘refute’ when they actually mean ‘reject’.
Stuart, who will replace Derek McInnes?
@ tartanfever at 8:53 pm
“If polling falls for the SNP, will Sturgeon delay the election ?”
If she did it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing,
Pro-indy parties could seriously get their shit together and also target constituency vote.
Of course Sturgeon could go (little chance of that really)
Robertson doesn’t have a seat so it would be Smith, the Dreghorn Dafty didn’t parachute him in for nothing (yes I am being serious)
The SNP I believe don’t have the money to campaign, what they have is limited coffers, I don’t see donators on this site, there are no big donors to pull them out the whole they have Dug,
Plus they have lost a serious amount of members
What’s the percentage? 35%? 45%?
If anyone can remember correctly the Weir’s lent the SNP million apart from donation a lot that was when AS was in charge, Brian Souter has also closed his wallet
Any big donor in the wings, has to think ,”They misplaced 500K,that doesn’t bode well, I think I’ll give it a miss”
I wouldn’t give them the used cat litter
I know what you’re say re the ISP and Indy and the mass eruption of extremely loud Unionist parties, put that together with loud and obnoxious wokeist blaming blaming Nationalist SNP critics
Alan Mackintosh @ 10:56
“I have asked before why Geoff Couldn’t just publish it before as I thought the submission belongs to him, not the inquiry, (IANAL) maybe someone could answer that…?”
Doesn’t he now work for some very wealthy extreme unionists?
stonefree @ 11:20
“Pro-indy parties could seriously get their shit together and also target constituency vote.”
Yes, there will be at least 6 pro-indy parties fighting the May election and some of them are proposing to have in their manifesto that the election is a plebiscite on independence.
So Scots can have independence in May and don’t even need to vote SNP to get it. #dumpsnp
Well done to the Telegraph to try and make the necessary documents public. However, on past form, we know Sturgeon and her minions, with the political and legal levers at their disposal, will leave no stone unturned in forcing some kind of block on it. They will be burning the midnight oil to cook up something. Let’s see how it pans out, but don’t get your hopes too high.
MaggieC @ 11:02
“An excellent article from Joanna Cherry in the NewStatesman , It’s definitely worth reading .”
But does it mention how she is going to deliver independence? Naw, thought not. Three successive Scotland majorities of SNP MP’s and they still won’t assert our sovereignty. What has Joanna got to say about that?
James @ 11.15
Wheesht!
Alf, not sure to be honest.
I do recall Stu, saying he (GA) didnt really want to have anything to do with it all, but it still strikes me as odd that he got dragged into it at the beginning with the meetings in March, requested by you know who. I don’t think he worked for Alex at the time, not sure how long he stayed with Alex after he resigned as FM.
Terrible terrible thing to ever have to conclude that Covid has been and still remains to be her (Sturgeon’s) best friend..
Covid has just become a ‘word’,
but it’s a word that means thousands of people needlessly die.
Well, I go away and binge watch on netflix and by the time I come back… there’s now a
STURGEON DOSSIER
In the PRESS.
Hopefully that will appease her ego and she will finally go with minute shreds of what appears to be integrity covering her bits – a STURGEON DOSSIER.
James, a wee birdy tells me thst Cormack has Stephen Glass lined up for the job.
Alan Mackintosh
This might explain a few things.
link to opportunitynortheast.com
This Unionist is pleased that the four of his persuasion voted against this craven suppression of the truth.
But is that the limit of their protest?
Is a mass resignation too much to ask for? What with the whole Inquiry being doomed to ineffectual pointlessness and all.
Dearie me, you Nats worry who to vote for, but spare a thought for the other side, is there nobody with the balls to stand against this Scottish Government gone rogue?
Thank f*ck for Wings and The Spectator!
Hi Stu,
Is it possible that the Spectator will be able to get a ruling on the Murrell/Ruddick texts on Thursday as well the Salmond and Aberdein submissions?
LUTB, this has gone beyond political allegiances, into more fundamental questions of how we are governed and what kind of democracy we do or don’t have. It has mushroomed into very important issues of what oversight, and sanction, exists for those who would seek to manipulate and exploit the system for their own benefit. Fundamental questions about democracy, the law and justice.
After this drama is over, there is going to have to be some very necessary debate on Holyrood, civil service and the legal system reforms. If we are allowed of course, which i wouldn’t bet on.
That New Statesman article from/about JC is a belter.
I will not be re-joining the SNP before May elections (if they go ahead).
But if enough people with JC’s integrity START SPEAKING OUT. I will be back.
In the mean time, if only on the second, vote I will vote for Plebiscite Indy. And given I’m in Swinney’s neck of the woods, on vote number 1 – it will be ‘out damned spot, inquiry be damned.’
More than one way to clean a drain.
A few comments and people referring to sides, my take on it is people who support Alex Salmond ,well the well known ones anyway have been systematically threatened with the full weight of the Scottish legal system in pretty dubious circumstances .
The other side of this fence we have blind loyalty to a leader who has lost her way and she is allied to people who would stop at nothing to silence any supporters of Alex and the main point of all this “Gain Independence” This one point is missing from Nicola Sturgeons repertoire she has forgotten this is what the SNP are supposed to represent.
The term keep our eyes on the prize widely used as a defence of Nicola and backed up by the incessant LOOK AT THE POLLS mantra cuts no ice ,there isn’t any bloody prize ,a question for the lurkers from WGD show a single piece of progress the SNP have made towards gaining the PRIZE just one .
Alf, yes I see where he is. The great and the good.
I do recognise Peter Cook from the Agri college…
@LUTB,
I don’tknow if your comment is genuine or false flagging on Wings, but either way know this. We all want Independence.
What you should be learning is that we want the same treatment for everybody including you as a Unionist. We do not excuse people simply because they wear an SNP rosette.
I hope you are as magnanimous. Think on that.
@ Alan Mackintosk @ 12:07
I recognise Peter Cook from Inverurie Academy. He was School Captain I was Vice Captain. 42 years ago!
@Bob Mack.
Indeed.
Where-ever we all end up, we must all respect where we all came from.
FWIW I think Boris should have been done for treason for his illegal prorogation of WM. Abuse of power is wrong and dangerous regardless of your cause.
link to caltonjock.com
But the relentless increase in the incidence of rape, sexual assault and complexity of the work has stretched the organisation well beyond its capacity and this has resulted in a growing backlog of cases in which the aggrieved person has yet to be provided with aid or assistance.
Whae the fuck is ‘Andy Wightman’? Cannae be bothered keeping up wi the greased pig race.
link to youtube.com
LUTB, aye, I spent a year at Conglass just outside Inverurie- Stephens, That was a winter like this, I didnt like milking coos at 4am.
Like all politicians Wightman lives in a rareified bubble blissfully untroubled by the rule by fiat that’s destroying our society. Right now I would say we are poorly served by our political class as they preside over the cluster fuck of Brexit and Corona.
I received a letter from the Electoral Registration Officer with boldly printed advice on voting by post. I don’t trust the postal vote after 2014 or the recent election in Washington. However the polling stations will probably insist on mask wearing and physical distancing. It may turn out to be a long process. I have a suspicion that the vote won’t go so well for the SNP in May if a vote is actually held.
That last sentence cracked me up. I actually said that in an early reply to his tweet, but of course I was ignored.
If people get away with saying “refute” when they mean “deny”, because they don’t actually know what it means but they think it sounds clever, what word do we use when we really need to say something has been refuted?
At what point does an ignorant malapropism get into the dictionary? (I have a friend who insisted that “enervating” now meant “invigorating” – the exact opposite – because she and one magazine article thought it did.)
Alan Mackintosh says:
9 February, 2021 at 11:42 pm
It is a puzzler. One explanation that makes sense is that based on his new career direction, the cabal thought they might be able to sign him up. That would also explain why he was worried enough after the first approach to talk to Kevin Pringle and a solicitor.
If that was the case I would have thought it would have come out by now, not least during his testimony in court. Although I can think of a legal reason why by the time of the trial that line of questioning might have been inadmissible. It would also explain why nobody is talking about it now.
Why did they approach Geoff Aberdein?
Because she said it so very, very well and it needed said, and with a little bit of cut n paste. Joanna Cherry…
The reasons for my sacking were not made clear.
For some time a small vocal cohort of my SNP colleagues has engaged
in performative histrionics redolent of the Salem witch trials.
The question – do you believe or have you ever believed that women are
adult human females? – is one I must answer in the affirmative, but it is not
popular with some who have the ear of the leadership.
Advocating for women’s sex-based rights under the Equality Act,
expressing concerns about self-identification of gender and opposing curtailment of free speech,
are not evidence of transphobia.
The 2016 SNP Manifesto committed to reform gender recognition law
but not specifically to introduce self-identification.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects free speech, and the SNP is committed to expanding human rights not diminishing them.
It’s LGBT+ history month but these days the L is very much an afterthought.
Many people have forgotten the contribution made by lesbian feminists of my generation to fighting homophobia and discrimination.
At a time when the SNP was still undecided about Section 28, I was out on the streets campaigning against it.
A large part of my career as a lawyer was spent standing up for women’s rights and prosecuting sex crimes against women and children.
So it is particularly galling to be misrepresented by those who have come late to the field of the battle for equality.
Well done Joanna.
Incidentally, today’s public apology from the Lord Advocate Wolfe, was important for 2 reasons…
The first is that while all the MSP’s asked important questions regarding this astronomical dispaly of corruption, the 2 questions they did not ask were…
How the fuck are you supposed to make enquiry into this mess, and somehow be impartial – you twat.
And
Why did the previous Lord Advocate – Frank Mulholland, having been in charge of this cluster bourach, get promoted to being a HIGH COURT JUDGE. You useless, corrupt, wanker. OK the last bit is a wee bit close to the bone, but you get the gist.
So a last minute trawl around the twittersphere found this…
link to twitter.com
So it seems that it was Judith Mackinnon who was sending the texts/emails to Anne Harvey requesting any information on Alex
This was deemed collateral evidence by Lady Dorian, and we didnt hear any more about it then.
Sorry I see I’m still “Peter Murrell”. I changed my name to post a joke (which I think got modded as a result) and I forgot to change it back.
Oh, and the second reason it was important, is because, publically it has now been admitted that the Crown Prosecution Service in Scotland IS NO LONGER IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR MALICIOUS ACTS OF PROSECUTION. ie they can no longer say oh it was a muddle, not a fiddle, so fuck off.
Very, very interesting that Mr Lord Avicaddo Wolfe was clinging big time to the ‘legal defininition’ of no individual evidence of acts of malice in the prosecution.
To which I would suggest there are – certainly with the Police – very specific individual responsibilities with regards carrying out the duties of Constable.
(All Police Powers rest within the rank of Constable, hence the reason why Chief Constables … have to be Constables.)
While it is a disciplined service, all Police Constables have a right and a duty to refuse to carry out orders that are unlawful. And they are individually responsible if they do not… every Chief Constable in the land has established that precident with regards officer safety training.
I do believe Mark Hirst, his legal team and the Police Federation of Scotland need to be having a wee sit down chat, very, soon.
Alan Mackintosh says:
10 February, 2021 at 1:54 am
That’s really interesting and helpful Alan. But who is the poster and who is the interviewee?
And now I’m becoming paranoid Because the minute after I watched it Norton blocked “suspicious activity” by a program called KMS that I use to allow remote repairs to my computer…
LGBT/SNP
=
Largely GREAT BRITISH TRANSGENDERS / ‘SnotScottish aNymore Party
Baird says:
9 February, 2021 at 11:23 pm
Alan Mackintosh @ 10:56
“I have asked before why Geoff Couldn’t just publish it before as I thought the submission belongs to him, not the inquiry, (IANAL) maybe someone could answer that…?”
Doesn’t he now work for some very wealthy extreme unionists?
***********************************************************
FFS Alf! Where do you get off accusing everybody and their brother of being MI5 agents, secret Yoons and taking the unionist coin?
Did you miss the Rev’s post about Sturgeon hiring lawyers (at the taxpayer’s expense) to threaten the Committee over disclosure of evidence, almost certainly on the grounds that it breaches the anonymity order re the complainants. That it is because one of the participants to the meetings referred in the evidence was also a complainant. GA almost certainly has been threatened along with the Rev, which is why GA has withdrawn his statement and the Rev pulled Salmond’s written statement as neither can risk being sued.
The real reason Sturgeon wants to suppress GA’s and Alex’s statements is they refer to GA being contacted by a Spad in Sturgeon’s office in mid-March and asked to come in to discuss an issue relating to Alex. It is at that meeting that GA first heard about the complaints and following it that he told Alex. The Spad then arranged for GA to meet with NS on March 29. When you know the identity of that Spad it’s inconceivable that she would have not immediately notified NS the moment she heard even rumours about her predecessor let alone an actual complaint, real or false.
That opens up a whole can of worms for Sturgeon – not only she lied to Parliament but when did she know in reality. If you subscribe to the theory that the complaints were fabricated to fit-up Alex, then NS’s involvement goes back well before April 2, 2018 probably back as far as November 2017 when Ms A spoke to Ian McCann.
Anyone in GA’s position would be justified in wishing the whole thing would go away. While everyone else in these hearings is on full salary he is presumably having to take unpaid leave to appear before the Committee. (Does he even live in Edinburgh?) Given the legal minefield with COPFS and Sturgeon’s lawyers threatening everybody with contempt of court charges he’s probably had to pay for legal advice out of his own pocket. Can you honestly say you wouldn’t feel the same way
A lot of people are becoming increasingly baffled by why information is not being published outside of the UK. It’s not as simple as that. Let me explain:
I’m outside of the UK so I’m immune from prosecution for contempt of court. But I face key problems:
1 Current information. I only know the names of two alphabet women for sure. But I don’t even know which letters they are. That’s pretty thin gruel to be starting with.
2. More information. In order to find more information I need a whistleblower. But how do I make myself known to such a person? And that raises a series of new problems:
3. Technical: How does a whistleblower in the UK get information to me without leaving an electronic trail that could lead to their prosecution?
4. Trust: I don’t have much profile. How can a whistleblower be sure that I’m not a set-up designed to entrap them?
5. Getting the information out there. How do I publicise the information? I can post it on Twitter as that is hosted outside of the UK. But anybody in the UK who retweets or links to my tweets or refers to my tweets will render themselves liable to prosecution. And if they do it on publications like WOS it will render the owner liable to prosecution too.
6. And finally, even discussing ways of getting around these problems on publications like WOS could be construed as aiding and abetting the identification of the alphabet sisters. So don’t do that either. If I come up with a solution I will certainly let you all know.
Just watched on Parliament TV the apology by the Lord Advocate given in Parliament. I have to say his apology raises more questions than answers. While correctly noting that the malicious prosecution of the Rangers Administrators Whitehouse and Clark was done under his predecessor, he neglected to apologise for practising lawfare while defending an indefensible civil case for FOUR YEARS.
That having inflicted personal and financial harm to two citizens without due cause he had the gall to argue at first instance that the Crown had no liability whatsoever to compensate them. That forced the Administrators to go to appeal, then having won the appeal sue a second time.
Asked what he’d done to ensure that such malicious prosecutions don’t happen again Wolffe said that we can rely on the “reputation, integrity and skill” of the prosecution staff. Which begs the question – where was the integrity and skill of the COPFS staff in this case?
Wolffe said that he couldn’t comment further because of the remaining outstanding cases and that on the conclusion of those cases he’d make a full statement about the facts and the next steps about a judicial Inquiry. My immediate thought was that gives him an incentive to stretch those outstanding suits as long as possible to avoid scrutiny.
This is the text of Wolffe’s apology and statement given in the Scottish Parliament on February 9th.
link to parliament.scot
Malicious Prosecutions
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Lewis Macdonald):
The next item of business is a statement by the Lord Advocate, on malicious prosecutions. The Lord Advocate will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
15:19
The Lord Advocate (James Wolffe):
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity—[Inaudible.] I am sorry about that sound issue, Presiding Officer.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement following the disposal last week of the actions that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark brought against me. Those actions concerned events that predated my appointment as Lord Advocate, but it was and is my responsibility, as the current incumbent, to account for them. The on-going proceedings that relate to the matter constrain what I can say today, but I welcome the fact that I am now free to begin the process of public and parliamentary accountability and to reiterate the commitment that the Crown has given to that process.
The prosecutions that gave rise to the cases arose from police investigations into the purchase of Rangers Football Club by Craig Whyte in 2011 and into the administration of the club and its sale to Charles Green in 2012. The investigations were large and complex. Ultimately, seven individuals were prosecuted. This statement concerns only the position of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse.
On 14 November 2014, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse were detained and brought to Glasgow. They were held in custody before appearing in court on 17 November on a petition that contained charges that related to Mr Whyte’s purchase of Rangers. That started the clock for a statutory time bar that, unless extended, required the Crown to serve an indictment in respect of the charges by 16 September 2015.
In High Court cases, after an accused has appeared on petition, the Crown undertakes a process of investigation and analysis that is called precognition. When it is completed, the precognition contains a detailed narrative of the evidence and an analysis of whether the evidence is sufficient to support criminal charges.
The precognition is submitted to Crown counsel for a decision on whether to issue an indictment. Precognition is not a statutory requirement, but it is a long-standing, routine and essential feature of Crown practice in relation to High Court cases. It provides assurance that there is a proper evidential basis for the indictment and, along with Crown counsel’s instruction, it provides a record of the basis for the decision.
This case was exceptional in its scale and complexity. By early September 2015, with the expiry of the time bar approaching, the precognition process was incomplete and essential investigations were still on-going. On 3 September, the Crown applied to the court for a nine-month extension of the time bar; the sheriff granted a three-month extension. An appeal by Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse against that extension was refused. In the meantime, on 2 and 3 September, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse appeared in court again on a second petition that contained new and separate charges that related to the second matter that the police had been investigating—the administration of Rangers and its sale to Charles Green in 2012.
On 16 September 2015, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse, with five other accused, were indicted. The charges against them derived from the November 2014 and September 2015 petitions. At that time, the precognition process in relation to the November 2014 petition was still incomplete and there was, demonstrably, no precognition in relation to the September 2015 petition, which had only just been initiated. Essential investigations were still on-going in respect of the charges that derived from the November 2014 petition, and there was evidence available that was—objectively—obviously inconsistent with the charges against these two accused that derived from the September 2015 petition.
On 2 December 2015, a second indictment was served that superseded the first. At a preliminary hearing in February 2016, following legal argument, Crown counsel withdrew certain of the charges. On 22 February, the judge dismissed the remaining charges against Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. Crown counsel advised the court that consideration would be given to a further indictment against them. A Crown Office press statement that was issued that day indicated that a fresh indictment would be brought, but that was corrected by a further statement the following day.
On 25 May 2016, the Crown advised Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse that there would be no further proceedings against them. On 3 June 2016, Crown counsel formally advised the court of that position.
In August 2016, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse initiated civil actions against me—I had been appointed on 2 June 2016—to seek damages on the grounds of malicious prosecution and breaches of articles 5 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. They also advanced claims against the chief constable of Police Scotland.
I advanced a defence that relied on established legal authority that the Lord Advocate is immune from common-law liability. That defence was upheld at first instance, but, in October 2019, the inner house of the Court of Session overturned the previous legal authority and allowed the claims to proceed.
On 20 August 2020, I admitted liability to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. Those admissions followed the conclusion of a very substantial and lengthy investigation that was undertaken by the legal team, including external counsel, instructed on my behalf. As a result of that investigation, I concluded that the decisions to place Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse on petition in September 2015 and to indict them were indefensible in law.
I concluded that those decisions proceeded without probable cause—that is, without a proper evidential basis—in circumstances that met the legal test for malicious prosecution. That legal test can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had malice, in the popular sense of a spiteful motive. My acceptance of liability in this case did not depend on any individual being malicious in that popular sense.
I cannot, at this time, disclose in detail the basis upon which liability was admitted, but, when it is free to do so, the Crown will disclose the basis for those admissions in full—including to this Parliament. What I can say is that there were, in this case, profound departures from the normal practices, including precognition, that are designed to ensure—and routinely do ensure—that any prosecution in the High Court has a proper basis.
I also admitted breaches of article 5 in respect of the detention of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse in November 2014 and September 2015, and of article 8 in respect of the incorrect press release of February 2016.
After the admissions of liability, mediations took place with both pursuers, and agreement was reached to settle their claims. Each of them has been paid £10.5 million in damages, and, to date, more than £3 million has been paid to them in aggregate by way of expenses. Those two pursuers were very high-earning professional people and the damages paid reflect a reasonable estimate of the loss that they sustained as a result of being prosecuted. I have written to the Justice Committee about the financial implications.
On 24 December 2020, I issued written apologies to each of Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse. They should not have been prosecuted, and, as the current Lord Advocate and head of the system of criminal prosecution, I apologised unreservedly for the fact that they had been. I reiterate that unreserved apology publicly to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse today.
Although the case involved significant departures from standard practice, lessons have been learned and will continue to be learned. The precognition process has been reinforced, and, in 2018, I established new arrangements for the management and oversight of large and complex cases. Those arrangements are now well established and provide a substantial safeguard against anything like this happening again.
In my JUSTICE human rights day lecture in December 2016, I said this:
“a fair and independent prosecution service, taking decisions rigorously, independently and robustly in accordance with the evidence, is, I believe, essential to the freedom under the law which we enjoy as citizens of this country.”
Scottish prosecutors and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have a justified reputation for fairness, integrity and independence. The seriousness of what happened in this case should not obscure the truth that, day in and day out, Scotland’s public prosecutors and the staff who support them fulfil their responsibilities with professionalism and skill. They take hard decisions rigorously, robustly and in accordance with the evidence, and they secure the public interest in the fair, effective and robust administration of criminal justice in Scotland.
In this case, there was a serious failure in the system of prosecution. It did not live up to the standards that I expect, that the public and this Parliament are entitled to expect and that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service expects of itself.
What happened in this case should not have happened. As the Lord Advocate and head of the system of prosecution in Scotland, I tender my apology to this Parliament and to the public for the fact that it did happen and for the consequent cost to the public purse. I confirm my commitment and that of the Crown to supporting a process of inquiry into what happened in this case once related matters have concluded, and I express my determination that nothing like it should ever happen again.
The Q&A following Wolffe’s statement. Note the MSPs focus almost exclusively on the cost to the taxpayer of the payouts and are oblivious to the cost to the innocent parties that gave rise to the payouts in the first place.
Had Whitehouse and Clark not had the resources to fight THREE court cases in their malicious prosecution suit on top of the criminal case they would have been penalised even though found innocent. You have to wonder how many other people have had their lives ruined by COPFS who didn’t have the means to seek redress.
************************************************
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
The Lord Advocate will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con):
I remind members that I am a practising solicitor, and I thank the Lord Advocate for advance sight of his statement.
There has been an extraordinary catalogue of unexplained and profound departures from normal practices. What is “indefensible”, to use the Lord Advocate’s word, is that, given that the
“decisions proceeded without probable cause—that is, without a proper evidential basis”,
the prosecution was malicious.
Let us be absolutely clear: this was not simple human error or an obscure legal mistake. Rather, our system of prosecution has admitted that it acted with malice in its move to throw innocent men behind bars and destroy their reputations. That begs an obvious question: how many times in Scottish legal history has there been a malicious prosecution?
In any event, I note that the Crown is, crucially, committed to a process of inquiry. Can the Lord Advocate confirm that there will be a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry that demands to know why malicious prosecutions were pursued in defiance of evidence? Will it investigate the actions of the Lord Advocate, his predecessor and all agents who were involved? If not, how on earth can the Crown expect the people of Scotland to conclude anything other than that it is brushing this appalling state of affairs under the carpet?
The Lord Advocate:
Given that I have come to Parliament at the first opportunity when I have been free to do so, I hope that nobody would suggest that I could properly be accused of “brushing” anything “under the carpet”. I have committed myself and the Crown to supporting a process of inquiry once related matters have been concluded. Those matters need to be resolved before the process of inquiry can proceed.
On Mr Kerr’s first point, as I observed in my statement, the legal test for malicious prosecution can be met in circumstances even when no individual has malice in the popular sense of their having a spiteful motive. I should make it clear that my acceptance of liability in this case did not depend on any individual being malicious in the popular sense. That is not for a moment to minimise the seriousness of what happened. Quite the reverse is the case; as I observed in my statement, what happened represents a very serious failure in the system of prosecution in Scotland.
I have been asked how many times there has been a malicious prosecution in Scotland. As I emphasised in my statement, a process that is known as precognition is undertaken routinely in High Court cases. That process necessarily involves careful collection, investigation and analysis of evidence. It involves a system of cross-checking and should provide significant reassurance to the public that, in our system of prosecution, cases are routinely brought on a proper basis.
As I explained in my statement, in this case, that process was incomplete when the case was indicted; essential investigations had not been completed. The normal processes that are routinely followed in every High Court case were not followed, but the public should take reassurance from what I have said that the prosecution system in Scotland is robust, fair and independent, and is one on which they can rely.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
I, too, thank the Lord Advocate for advance sight of his statement.
This case raises serious concerns. That it was thought that the Lord Advocate was immune from common-law liability would suggest that he should also have been beyond reproach. We imagine that there are, in the system, checks and balances between the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, with both of them challenging and questioning the activities and evidence in a case. That appears either not to have happened or to have gone seriously wrong in this case, with both being sued by David Whitehouse and Paul Clark.
How could that have happened? Were concerns raised, internally or externally, about the actions of both organisations at the time, especially when it came to light that there was inconsistent evidence?
The Lord Advocate said that the system has been improved, but there cannot be proper scrutiny until we know exactly what went wrong in the first place. Until that happens, how can we expect to restore confidence in the system?
The Lord Advocate:
The first thing that I should say is that, at this time, there are continuing live proceedings relating to the matter, which regrettably—I do regret it—constrains what I can say.
I have committed the Crown to engaging fully with public accountability in the matter, and the Crown has committed to making more information available when it is free to do that. That includes the basis upon which liability was admitted in this case and supporting the process of inquiry when it is possible to do that. I hope that that gives some assurance to Rhoda Grant that lessons will be learned and that there will be public understanding of what happened.
Perhaps it is worth noting—I do not say this to minimise, in any sense, what happened in this case—that the court fulfilled its functions in dealing with certain charges and the Crown fulfilled its responsibilities in withdrawing charges and ultimately confirming that no prosecution would proceed. I do not say that to minimise the significance of a prosecution having been brought without proper basis. However, on those issues the checks and balances in the system fulfilled their functions.
As I explained, there is, in the Crown Office, routinely preparation of High Court cases, which involves cross-checking of cases by staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service initially, and ultimately by Crown counsel, on the basis of there being a full narrative of the evidence and analysis of that evidence. Those processes are designed to ensure that we can be confident—I am confident—that, across the system in Scotland, prosecutions are brought properly and that this case was wholly exceptional.
Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP):
Can the Lord Advocate reiterate what lessons have been learned and what improvements are being made to ensure that this will never happen again?
The Lord Advocate:
The key lesson relates to the management of large and complex cases. As I said in my statement, I have instituted new procedures for internal management and oversight of the particular category of case. The arrangements involve early agreement of the investigation and prosecution strategy; early and continuous engagement with the police; a project management approach to case preparation; a system of case management panels to scrutinise case strategy and to keep under review the progress of the case, with reference to the strategy; and any issues that might emerge being addressed.
All of that aligns with a protocol that the High Court issued in 2018, with my support, in relation to the management of such cases once they are in court. That protocol, again, encourages a proactive approach to the management of such cases.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
The Lord Advocate referred to the payment of £24 million that was made to Whitehouse and Clark, but that sum might well be just the tip of the iceberg, because the report suggests that the total cost of the case could top £100 million, given that there are outstanding cases.
Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether it is correct that, in addition to those payments, Whitehouse and Clark were also given tax indemnities so that, should HM Revenue and Customs pursue them for payment of tax, that demand would be met by the Scottish Crown Office, and that the cost to the Scottish taxpayer will therefore be far higher than the £24 million that has been paid out already?
The Lord Advocate:
I acknowledge the significance of the sum involved. Murdo Fraser is correct in observing that, with other cases pending, the cost to the public purse will increase and the ultimate cost is yet to be seen.
The approach that has been taken in settling cases was to make a reasonable estimate of the actual loss that individuals could demonstrate. An arrangement was entered into such that if—it is “if”—they can properly show that they have sustained additional loss of the type that Mr Fraser described, that loss will be borne.
If that happens, the Crown will account to the Justice Committee, as it did last week, for the costs in the cases.
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP):
Now that it has been established that the Lord Advocate does not have absolute immunity from civil liability, will the Crown be more cautious in pursuing prosecutions, and will that mean that criminals are less likely to be convicted?
The Lord Advocate:
I am determined that any change in the law regarding the immunity of the Lord Advocate should not have that effect. That is one reason why I have put in place measures to strengthen the management of large and complex cases.
It is essential that there is a proper basis for prosecutorial decisions in all cases. As I explained in my statement, the process of precognition that is routinely undertaken in all High Court cases provides confidence and assurance both to prosecutors and to the public.
I have confidence in the robustness of Scotland’s prosecutors. They make difficult decisions every day, in exercising their judgment. I am determined to have in place systems that enable prosecutors to continue to take robust decisions in effective prosecution of crime.
James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab):
The decisions that were made in this case might predate the current Lord Advocate, but they raise serious questions about decision making and accountability within the Crown Office. Serious errors were made. The system failed, and we have been told that the cost to the public purse will be at least £24 million. What other area of the Scottish budget has had to be to be raided to fund the incompetence of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service?
The Lord Advocate:
As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told Parliament last week, arrangements have been made so that the cases will not affect the Crown Office’s resource budget or its operational effectiveness. The member’s question would be better directed to the finance secretary.
Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands) (LD):
This is a true scandal. In monetary terms, it is on a scale with BiFab and the Ferguson Marine shipyard. The colossal waste of taxpayers’ money runs to tens of millions of pounds. That money could have been spent on supporting businesses during the pandemic, on educational catch-up or on investment in mental health. There might be worse news to come, given that we do not yet know the extent of Police Scotland’s exposure or of the additional cases to which the Lord Advocate referred.
Given that the overturning of the Hester v MacDonald decision means that the Lord Advocate can now be held liable for serious errors from the past, what assurance can he offer that there are no other skeletons lurking in the Crown Office closet?
The Lord Advocate:
The principal assurance that I can give is the description that I have already given of the routine precognition processes that are carried out in every High Court case.
It is fair to say that this case was wholly exceptional in all sorts of ways—that is the principal answer to Liam McArthur’s question. We have a system of prosecution that has demonstrated robustness, fairness, effectiveness and integrity. This case was a serious falling below the standards that all of us expect of that system, but the very fact that those expectations are so high and that this case has occasioned the justified reaction that it has is a reflection of the high standards that our prosecutors routinely meet, day in and day out, in courts across the country.
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green):
I, too, thank the Lord Advocate for early sight of his statement. This was a serious failure of the system of prosecution, and public confidence in our justice system is vital. Can the Lord Advocate outline what further steps will be taken to reassure a public that might reasonably think, “Wow! If this can happen in such a high-profile case, with all that publicity, what chance do I have against the system?”
The Lord Advocate:
The first reason why the public should have reassurance is the point that I made a moment ago to Liam McArthur, that routinely—day in and day out—our prosecution system operates effectively, robustly and fairly, and it is understood and seen by the public to do so. Prosecutors take decisions that, if taken to court, are tested in the independent court and by the examination and cross-examination skill of those who represent accused persons. So, not only are there protections and reassurances to be taken from the well-justified recognition of the integrity and skill of our public prosecutors, but the public can also have confidence because of the reputation, integrity and skill of the defence bar in testing prosecutions that are brought—and, ultimately, because of our court system, in which any case that is brought to court is tried fairly and independently.
James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP):
Having previously been a precognition officer, I am surprised to see that the lack of precognition appears to have been a major failing in this case. Further to your statement, Lord Advocate, can you give some detail to help provide reassurance that the Crown is, indeed, equipped to deal with complex financial crime going forward?
The Lord Advocate:
Yes, indeed. The Crown successfully prosecutes thousands of cases every year, including complex financial crime cases. For example, an accused was prosecuted last year in respect of a £12 million Ponzi scheme fraud involving 140 complainers and laundering the proceeds of the crime. He was convicted and imprisoned for 14 years. Serious financial crime cases are dealt with in accordance with the arrangements that I have described for large and complex cases. Those new arrangements, which were put in place in 2018, should give reassurance that such cases will be effectively and properly investigated and prosecuted. In the course of this Parliament, the budget allocation to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service has increased by some 42 per cent. Although that was to deal with a range of pressures on the system, part of that additional budgetary resource has gone to ensure that the new system for the management of large and complex cases can be operated as it is intended to be.
Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con):
What happened was completely indefensible, Lord Advocate. I therefore have a simple question, to which I want an answer: was it incompetence or was it corruption?
The Lord Advocate:
I have said what I can say about the circumstances. There were significant departures from the normal practices that routinely provide safeguards against what happened in this case. I have made it clear that the admission of liability in this case was not predicated on any individual having subjective malice.
I should also say that the investigation that was carried out into the prosecutorial work on the case did not report any criminal conduct to me. Had it done so, I would have taken action. However, should criminal allegations come forward, that does not preclude their being considered and, if appropriate, investigated. I am putting in place arrangements, including the instruction of external senior counsel, so that such a process can happen if that is required.
Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP):
Do the former Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, Police Scotland and the team of prosecutors who worked on the case agree with the current Lord Advocate’s decision to pay out millions of pounds of public money on the basis that the prosecution was malicious? Is the Lord Advocate’s decision making in this case up to scratch and robust?
The Lord Advocate:
I have had to take the decision on the civil action that was brought against me. I took that decision following the conclusion of a substantial, lengthy and carefully considered investigation that was undertaken by the legal team, including a team of external counsel instructed on my behalf. That decision fell to me to take, and it is one for which I stand here and account to the Parliament.
Bill Kidd (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP):
Can the Lord Advocate provide reassurance to victims and witnesses that arrangements have been made so that the settlements that are made will not affect the service that the Crown Office provides?
The Lord Advocate:
Yes. A moment ago, I reminded members that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told Parliament last week that arrangements had been made so that the meeting of the settlements would not have an impact on the resource budget of the Crown Office. Indeed, the budget allocation to the Crown Office this year is significantly larger than it was last year. As ever, that, in part, reflects the commitment of the service to supporting victims and witnesses.
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab):
The Lord Advocate admits to a malicious prosecution but says that no one showed malice. That takes political doublespeak to a whole new level. Can the Lord Advocate answer these clear questions? Who is responsible for this expensive fiasco? Who is accountable? Where is the money coming from to pay for it? Those are clear questions. Can I have clear answers, please?
The Lord Advocate:
Yes. I proceeded in addressing the case on the basis of the relevant legal tests. As I explained in my statement, the legal test for malicious prosecution—I appreciate that the wrong has that description—can, in certain circumstances, be met even though no individual had malice in the popular sense of the word. That is the basis on which I accepted liability in this case.
In terms of our responsibility, ultimately, in our constitutional arrangements, it is for the Lord Advocate, as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of deaths, to answer for the conduct of criminal prosecutions, whether in court—as I do every day in relation to the prosecutions that are brought in my name—or here, in Parliament, as I am doing today. As the current Lord Advocate, it is my constitutional responsibility to answer to the Parliament for what happened at that time.
I have said what I can say today about the circumstances, given other pending processes. When it is free to do so, the Crown Office will disclose further information.
Gillian Martin (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP):
The Lord Advocate has already given quite a lot of detail, but I ask him to outline what additional steps he will take to support public accountability for and understanding of such cases.
The Lord Advocate:
As I have said, as and when the Crown is free to do so, it will disclose further information about what happened in this case. In particular, it will disclose the basis for the admission of liability. I and the Crown will support a process of inquiry once all related matters have been dealt with.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
We have a very brief final question from Graham Simpson.
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con):
Will there be a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry?
The Lord Advocate:
We will debate a motion in the name of Murdo Fraser on that subject tomorrow. In my statement, I have made it very clear that I and the Crown will support a process of inquiry when all other related matters have been concluded. The ultimate form of such an inquiry will be a matter for determination at the appropriate time.
I am seriously concerned that the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC is being severely underpaid. FFS the poor wee man has to appear in parliament in a cheap tatty ill-fitting suit. He cannae even afford a decent haircut or even get his eyebrows trimmed! How he and Lady Wolffe manage to survive on the pittance he earns and his wife’s meagre Judge’s salary I don’t know. You try living on 250,000 a year! 🙂
******************************************************
Seriously though, I hadn’t realised before I started reading Wings how incestuous the SNP and the establishment both are.
Wolffe is the Lord Advocate and his wife a senior Judge.
The FM and the CEO of her party are wife & husband.
Numerous MSPs and MPs are married to each other, used to be married or had affairs with each other.
Still others are children of sitting members.
Labour MP Dugdale is shacked up with SNP MSP Gillruth. That’s taking bipartisanship too far!
I know Scotland is a small place but this incestuousness is too much. The potential for nepotism within the SNP should be obvious.
So a handsomely publically funded Dingwall based publisher who is a huge SNP and Sturgeon is publishing a book of Sturgeon’s speeches 4 days after the May Holyrood election? For fuck’s sake we truly are living under the rule of the Sturrell Medieval Court, where adoring courtiers are rewarded.
link to archive.is
Nine of Diamonds, Scotland’s Curse.
Did The Scottish Government really need to pay a publisher 300k to prove that they would turn an independent Scotland into a a corrupt, totalitarian, backwater?
Still, The Mao Tsé Tung quote for title adds a touch of genuine cartoon villainy.
Did Confucious say, “Woman who make false allegation against man make man keep woman away from places of power.”?
How the f**k have I not seen Liz Lloyd once in all of this.
I did not even know what she looked like until I looked her up there.
It reminds me of the Diana inquiry where a woman who was killed in an automobile accident had written to a third party explicitly stating that she feared her husband planned to kill her in automobile accident.
“Former royal butler Paul Burrell has alleged Princess Diana wrote him a letter nine months before her death saying “I fear my husband is going to kill me. In an automobile accident”.
They had an inquiry and they never asked her husband to appear!
It was a farce inquiry and this is a farce inquiry.
Where the f**k is Liz LLoyd and why have I not seen anything of her. She is up to her neck in it.
The Fabiani farce mocks us all.
StuartM @ 5.33
You have to wonder how many other people have had their lives ruined by COPFS who didn’t have the means to seek redress.
Defamation and malicious prosecution are the means by which ScotGov policies are delivered when innocent people stand in the way.
This is the new norm and has been for several years: link to tns2019.org
Chairman Sturgeon’s book will be compulsory in all of Scotland’s universities and schools.
@TNS2019 – You’re bang on the money with that comment, as usual. Our Holyrood parliamentarians are really only crooked councillors and they are in the pockets of our lawyers and our lawyers are in their pockets.
That’s the way in works in Scotland, as you say it has done so for years.
Everyone is happy, and very wealthy, except the public but who in Scotland cares about them.
On a happier note: It looks like we have two sides to this Holyrood arguement – one one side we have Nicola Sturgeon, Linda Fabiani, Andy Wightman, alphabet woman H, Rape Crisis Scotland, James Wolffe, Peter Murrell and John Swinney. On the other side of the arguement we have Alex Salmond and Andrew Neil.
My money’s on Alex and Andrew.
“MSPs insist their hands are tied by the Scottish Parliament’s CORPORATE BODY, which had been advised by the Crown Office that it is not in the public interest for the content of the censored Salmond submissions to be published, even though the public already know what is in them. It is a ruling that could have come from the “Office of Circumlocution” in Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit.
link to archive.is
Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB)
link to parliament.scot
MEMBERSHIP –
Jackson Carlaw MSP
Liam McArthur MSP
David Stewart MSP
Sandra White MSP
ANDY WIGHTMAN MSP
The collected witterings of Chairperson Sturgeon should be subtitled ” Fifty Shades of Utter Shite “
Captain Yossarian
I am looking forward to seeing Andrew Neil getting stuck in! I don’t agree with his politics necessarily, but it is more the determination to ensure that wrongdoing is exposed.
TNS2019 – I forgot one combatant – that other tool of the Junta, Humza Yousaf. You may not have come across him as your case is much too complex for that idiot to understand.
Mark Hirst is planning to sue the Crown for unfounded prosecution. Through Civil Liberties Scotland a crowdfunded has been raised.
If successful, which very hopefully it should be, donations will be repaid. Here is the link –
link to civillibertyscotland.com
If the individuals in the Rangers case can succeed in pursuing a malicious prosecution I think our man should too. Let’s all get behind cleaning out the COPFS pig sty. The many contributing a little, contribute a lot.
With any luck that book of Sturgeon’s speeches will include her resignation statement soon enough.
“I want to know more about why The Spectator have had their article up for a month, with only one small recent chance, but Wings had to bin their article all together?
Deeper pockets for impending lawsuits?”
Something like that.
Ludicrous that future employers are not allowed to know the names of the Alphabetties! Information of that nature, allegations against a former boss, should appear on their employment records unless they were willing to report to police and put their name to it. There was no anonymity to hide your spite behind back in the 60s.
If there is a judge led inquiry into this whole mess I hope Lady Dorian will lift her ‘anonymity’ ruling as it does nothing but protect a bunch of liars!
Jim Sillars, a former MP who served as deputy leader in the 1990s, said he would not vote for the SNP at May’s Holyrood election which he said had its “toxic tentacles stretching into and around civic Scotland”.
If you want to see Andra Neil self combust get him to interview Pete Wishart.
Wishart must be the most annoying,ignorant ranter in Scotland. So lacking in self awareness.
The SNP used to train their candidates in public relations but no doubt Wishart skipped the class saying a man of my calibre does not need this.
BTW a good loyalty test for SNP staff would be turn them into unpaid volunteers.
By loyalty,I mean loyalty to independence,and yes,for many,many years I did it for nothing and that seems to be what I did it for.
David F, as far as I know the guys name is Dave Lewellyn and I think his twitter name is Bridges for Indy. The other guy in the video is Mike Fenwick, I think, just from a short clip where names are on screen at bottom left.
I was looking there as a couple of days ago, there seemed to have been a report of conversation that someone had heard as a result of not ending a phone call and it going on to answerphone, so I just went for a look to see if anything had happened with that.
It is quite rewarding having a wee wander round twitter and following random posts. Sometimes you find wee nuggets like the one the other night- the written women H testimony. Things are slowly coming out…
Tick tock…
David F. it appears to be these guys
link to indylive.radio
Havent tracked down which podcast that clip came from yet.
David F. the two men in the video have regular videos under the title “Twa Auld Heids”, They have interviews with Craig Murray, Mark Hurst, Denise Findlay etc.
Eileen Carson, I think Craig Murray was about to submit a court thingy to have the anonymity order lifted as they were abusing the privilige by continuing to attack Alex from behind the veil. Within a week he had been charged with contempt of court. Craig can confirm the exact timing I guess, but it was something like that.
Just had a quick shufty at Liz Lloyd’s twitter, link to twitter.com, she mainly RT’s others, she RT’d this Kevin Pringle ST column, oh the irony is not lost
link to twitter.com
Despite the pile BTL on Rev gets it bang to rights “The problem is an SNP leadership with no genuine intention of pursuing independence, and whatever happened we wouldn’t have been able to fix that.”
link to archive.is
If I may, I would like to ask a few questions hoping that somebody may be in the know.
Yes or no answers suffice at this point, thank you, unless you can be absolutely sure you can answer them further without risking contempt of court.
Considering that COPFS has proved it will go to any lengths to protect the identity of the real culprits on this and to hide their real motives, and in order to do so has forced everybody, including the committee of the inquiry and its witnesses to walk barefoot on burning coal, please do not take any unnecessary risks.
My questions are as follows:
1. Is information regarding dates when Ms Anne Harvey received the 17 text messages, content and who sent them to her available in the public domain ?
If not, are we allowed to know why not?
2. Has this information been blocked by COPFS?
If yes, are we allowed to know the excuse they used to block it?
3. Was this information considered in the criminal court case?
If not, are we allowed to know what was the reason they were not considered?
4. Are the dates when Ms Harvey received the first text message and when did she receive the last one in the public domain? IF THEY ARE, does anybody know if those texts were sent before the complaints procedure was signed off in December 2017 or after? If after, when was this, before or AFTER Mr Salmond threatened with the judicial review?
If any of that information is NOT in the public domain, and there might be a reason why they cannot be revealed, even if you know them, please DO NOT answer the question. We do not want to take unnecessary risks.
5. It is hard to believe Ms Harvey alone was targeted for this. Is it in the public domain if there was anybody else besides Ms Harvey bombarded with similar texts?
6. Is in which quality and with what authority the person sending those text messages to Ms Harvey was acting, in the public domain? If IT IS, were they acting as police officers, prosecution, SNP executive staff, civil servants? If if this person acted on their own accord sending those texts or was instructed by somebody else to do so, in the public domain?
7. Without having a clue of the content of those messages, I am guessing they could have been significant to establish a conspiracy against Mr Salmond. So may I ask if it is known if the phone of the person who sent those texts to Ms Harvey had been taken by the police/prosecution/defence to see who other people they might have been contacting and sending similar texts?
If not, are we allowed to know why not?
By the way, I am sorry my memory is a bit flaky (must be an age thing). May I ask to be reminded who was the person that was allowed to give evidence to the inquiry only by phone? My recollection is that it was only one person. That is bizarre. So can I also ask what was the excuse they gave for this (it cannot be they did not have a camera, as surely they would have a camera on their own phone)? Can I also ask which was the excuse given by Fabiani to the public and the committee in order for her to consider this admissible when the committee members could not be sure that the person giving evidence was who she said they were if their face could not be seen, the committee was denied the opportunity to observe and evaluate first hand this person’s body language that could have aided enormously to their assessment of this person being telling the truth when answering the questions and/or if anybody else could have been in the room telling this person what to say?
Rethorical questions, please do no answer:
Why are so many gaps in the investigation and why are so many obvious pieces of evidence which stand to the obvious as being absolutely required and pivotal to establish that this was a deliberate conspiracy against Mr Salmond, being either blocked by COPFS or rendered inadmisible by the judge in the criminal court case?
Could we be facing here some kind of collusion between COPFS and the judges involved on this to suppress information so the full scale of the conspiracy, its unlawfulness and the potential involvement of crown agents and British state agents at many different levels was not revealed to the public?
Thank you.
Lifted this from Barrheadboy’s Twitter… link to twitter.com
AnneDonBusybody #StayHomeSaveLives
@SovereignAnnie
·
18h
So an investigation into ScotGov’s flawed HR procedure will only accept evidence approved of, and redacted by, Lesley Evans – the civil servant responsible for the procedure.
And will not allow full evidence from the man who was the main victim of the flawered procedure?
You’d laugh if it wasn’t so pathetic. What a steaming pile of horseshit.
Where to now friends? Do we need Alex Salmond to start pursuing his own criminal prosecutions? Either of the criminal conspirators, or like Mark Hirst, target COPFS for wrongful arrest and false prosecution? Would anybody trust that process??? I’d struggle frankly…
The other alternative is a judge led Inquiry, but given the last hopes for judicious/political integrity now rest with a man from Ireland, how do we instigate a judge led Inquiry that won’t be a repeat of amateur hour at Holyrood? How do we secure a Judge led Inquiry with a foreign Judge untainted by Scotland’s apparently endemic corruption?
I’m telling you Scotland, time and time again I tell you, Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty is a covenant between the Scots people and their popular Sovereignty. NOBODY ELSE! It is neither Westminster’s, nor Holyrood’s place or power to interfere with that covenant. They do not have the power.
For Scotland to have such a corrupt and deeply compromised “Government” requires us, the sovereign people of Scotland, to denounce that ‘institution’ residing at Holyrood as something ‘less’ than Scotland’s Government, and / or see that lesser ‘institution’ impeached for violating the Sovereign integrity of Scotland’s Constitution.
Scotland can yet be rid of Westminster AND a rotten Holyrood by instigating a Scottish Constitutional Assembly which recognises the people of Scotland as constitutionally sovereign, and all the corruption and obfuscation of both the Union and Holyrood can be shed like a python shedding a skin which it has outgrown.
‘On the other side of the arguement we have Alex Salmond and Andrew Neil.’
Also, there is Craig Murray and soon, Mark Hirst.
The judgement in Craig Murray’s contempt of court case is imminent and will be delivered Lady Dorrian. Lady Dorrian made the order for anonymity in Alex Salmond’s trial.
link to craigmurray.org.uk
Mia re
”May I ask to be reminded who was the person that was allowed to give evidence to the inquiry only by phone?”
Think you may be referencing the ‘celebrity” at the alleged Woman H dinner.
If so they still remain anonymous and their evidence was pre-recorded, not even live by phone.
link to theguardian.com
Craig Murray
Trying to be a Good Citizen
“In the light of the decision of the Fabiani Inquiry to exclude the statement of Alex Salmond as well as the evidence of Geoff Aberdein, leading to the effective collapse of the committee, I am trying to assist them.”
link to craigmurray.org.uk
“Think you may be referencing the ‘celebrity” at the alleged Woman H dinner”
No. I was referring to one of the civil servants. But I cannot remember which one, though. I also seem to recall that some technical problems and dodgy sound during the interview were mentioned here.
Oops, sorry, already posted.
@Mia
Ah okay, I don’t remember but there’s someone I can ask, will
revert if I get the answer.
StuartM @ 2:32
The mostly privileged Anglophone SPAD’s and senior civil servants I have met were never interested in Scottish independence, quite the opposite in my view, despite ostensibly ‘working’ for SNP Ministers. Ongoing negative outcomes in a wide range of policy areas tend to reinforce this perspective.
@AlfBaird would agree re those who remain BUT
those who left with Alex really did; Stephen Noon, Geoff Aberdein, Kevin Pringle, Campbell Gunn and there was an excellent comitted female SPAD, who also left, can’t recall her name for the moment.
It strikes me as very odd that the procedure has only ever been used against Alex Salmond despite both Mark MacDonald and Derek Mackay having been former ministers.
Almost as if Alex’ reputation was ‘too clean’ to get any other way than on trumped up accusations ……..
Oh Lady Dorrian, if you read this, you simply must see the injustice of keeping the cloak of anonymity in place.
Ok to be clear this is in no way a question about the alphabet women or any of that shite.
Who are the suspected main plotters here? The people who orchestrated the stitch-up.
Salmond named three directly to Craig Murray:
Leslie Evans, Judith MacKinnon, Liz Lloyd.
Nicola ‘green lighted’ the stitch-up. The plotters executed the plot.
We know Nicola already knew of the allegations when she deliberately removed herself from the disciplinary process (in November 2017?) and replaced herself with Leslie Evans.
So we have to assume that the plan to stitch-up Salmond must have already been hatched well before November 2017. Probably months and months before… Not planned out to the extent of the criminal trial at this point but the internal stitch-up was, as the judicial review revealed / confirmed.
So is anyone else is a suspected main plotter?
I am thinking Nichola Roberts for one is a strong possibility but that is just my hunch from listening at the inquiry. (Baby voiced assassin was my thought at the time.)
What about the John Somers guy? Any question marks that he knew what was really going on? Anyone else?
And then you have all the convenient little helpers in COPFS and Police Scotland. Judith MacKinnon being the ex-HR director of Police Scotland by definition had pretty far reaching contacts into that organization.
Old Nicola assembled a Political death squad for Alex. And then set them loose.
Fortunately for Alex (and us) her predilection for selecting people based on their gender and not their competence meant they pretty much botched everything they tried to do. It really would be comical if all of this was not so horrific.
The plotters incompetence is mirrored by their arrogant belief that they can outsmart everyone else. This is what happens when you surround yourself by Yes-women and sycophants. Hopefully this proves to be their downfall.
Breeks,
How far would an organisation like Now Scotland have to develop before it could conceivably wrest control of the debate and maybe even the future of the country from the existing government?
If a Constitutional Assembly was created, what’s to stop existing power from simply declaring it as a coup or rebellion and acting accordingly.
It seems to me that if that sovereignty of the people really exists it should have some basis in law and so a Constitutional Assembly could conceivably become an alternative government.
Will it be tested in the courts or on the streets?
Mia@ 9:59/Alison ”
“evidence to the inquiry only by phone? Judith McKinnon audio only 27TH October 2020.
Redact, a verb in the vocabulary of people one would not elect to govern your country.
Sylvia says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:11 am
Mia@ 9:59/Alison ”
“evidence to the inquiry only by phone? Judith McKinnon audio only 27TH October 2020.
Cheers Sylvia.
And re my post on Spads etc who left with Salmond the woman was Lynne Currie, utterly excellent at her job and very comitted to independence.
@Mia at 9:59am
Judith MacKinnon has not attended in person and gave her evidence via video link even when in-person attendance was allowed.
Mia @9:49 Hope this answers a few of your questions.
link to archive.is
The final witness of the day was Ms Ann Harvey, who worked in the SNP whips’ office at Westminster from 2006-9 and 2011 to present. She had been present at the Glasgow East by-election. In response to a question from Gordon Jackson, she replied that she had witnessed nothing inappropriate there when Alex Salmond visited.
Gordon Jackson asked whether she had more recently been asked anything relevant? Ms Harvey replied that on 31 October 2017 she had received a series of 16 text messages to her private number asking for information and whether she could disclose anything about the past. Gordon Jackson asked what the messages said specifically and who they were from.
At this point, Alex Prentice rose for the prosecution and objected to this line of questioning. The jury was dismissed and a legal argument was held on the admissibility of this information. I am not allowed to report the legal discussion. In the end the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible and Ms Harvey was dismissed.
Duh I was mixing up trial and inquiry, dopey, re the telephone evidence.
Thank you Sylvia.
You can see why the anonymity was important to the success of the stitch-up.
Without it, it is so crude, so blatant, so obvious…
Preserving the anonymity of the witnesses is not to protect the witnesses. That is just used as the plausible excuse to gag people who do know the stark truth of it from telling anyone else.
What does it tell you that people are not allowed to discuss the plotters as that might enable a jigsaw identification of the accusers.
EH? So the plotters and the accusers overlap do they? Hmmm… well I am sure they were honest witnesses at the trial.
Take away the anonymity and secrecy and I think the plot and the plotters to stitch-up Alex Salmond would be as plain as day. These people are not very subtle and not very smart.
Almost as scary as the 3 women named above is the fact people like
Craig and the Rev have dissected every detail and it’s Blatant that a
Coordinated attack was directed at Alex Salmond and yet no one in any
Parliament has been able to nail the culprits for breaking process, the law
and reason.
The women above have bad histories for bullying, incompetence and malicious
behaviour.
Why would they land these jobs with that background and why have they not been named,sacked
and awaiting trial.
Orwell’s future awaits the corrupt English Colony of Scotland if these people and processes are
Not eradicated from this country.
“The jury was dismissed and a legal argument was held on the admissibility of this information”
If that information was not admissible in court as evidence, can the information be released to the public domain (even partially) or would the legal argument used to stop the evidence being admitted and heard by the jury also automatically block the release of this evidence to the public domain?
Mac @ 10:27
Aside from the AS case. A culture of secrecy has developed within the SG & Agencies for some time. ie We had the secret deal & subsidies re’ Ferguson Marine. Anyone remember the “secret joke” we were supposed to play on a woman by giving her confusing information/misinformation -everybody knew except her. Turns out that was a hoax!
@Mia, 9.59
It was Judith Mackinnon
Of course as has often been noted re the anonymity many media type people, including myself, have known the identities since before the trial,including the ‘celebrity’ that’s what’s so bloody frustrating.
Stuart MacKay says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:11 am
Breeks,
How far would an organisation like Now Scotland have to develop before it could conceivably wrest control of the debate and maybe even the future of the country from the existing government?
If a Constitutional Assembly was created, what’s to stop existing power from simply declaring it as a coup or rebellion and acting accordingly…
All true, / valid questions, but if Sovereignty is a binary distinction in International Law, that is, you either are sovereign or you are not, then it is that legal distinction which affects the power change, not the constitution (small ‘c’) of the agency seeking a judicial ruling from the International Court at the UN.
It’s the weight of argument which matters, not the person or agency arguing the point.
The Senate or Assembly only needs adequate ‘substance’ to instigate proceedings. Joanna Cherry has instigated Constitutional proceedings at the European Court, Gina Millar instigated Constitutional proceedings at the UK Supreme Court, and Martin Keating’s instigated Constitutional proceedings at the Court of Session, … all as Constitutional test cases instigated by ‘small’ parties beneath governmental level.
But just because there is a “minimal’ claim on the Assembly’s governmental credentials or capacity to represent the sovereign people, doesn’t preclude the option to bolster those ‘minimal’ credentials with a whole raft of corroborating constitutional principles which can withstand scrutiny and bolster legitimacy. In other words, the Assembly wouldn’t have to portray itself as a Champion for Scotland’s Constitutional Justice, but provided it’s integrity is sound, it wouldn’t hurt either.
And important distinction too is that the Assembly need not seek to take command of Scottish Constitutional Sovereignty as a would-be government in waiting. Sovereignty is a double edged sword, and the Constitutional Test Case at the UN need not declare Scotland sovereign- It should suffice merely to recognise that Westminster/ Holyrood is NOT legitimately sovereign, and thus Scotland’s forced Brexit is an act of unlawful colonial subjugation… which then in turn irredeemably breaches the 1707 Treaty of Union.
Wonder if the Spectator will be using an ”in the public interest” approach tomorrow. We shall see.
Woman H. The one who sent this message (before coming forward as an accuser) to another accuser (to be).
“I have a plan and means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions.”
If that message from Woman H to Woman (?) was actually sent between two of the main plotters (and I really don’t know and must be the last person on this website to not f**king know) then that message becomes clear.
We can be anonymous and hide our tracks by becoming an accuser and at the same time bolster our piss-weak (at the time) fledgling plot to stitch-up against Alex Salmond at the criminal trial.
That message also strongly suggests that the accusations from these two women in particular were fabricated and that women H lead that fabrication.
Mia, yep, it was Judith Mackinnon, see my post last night about 1am. I don’t see why it cant be in the public domain. I think the Judge viewed it as collateral evidence as it did not (the series of texts/emails) come from one of the accusers. That is my understanding.
We are drifting into the “Campaign Season” in Scotland for the Holyrood election.
I haven’t a clue as to which Party to campaign on behalf of.
I haven’t a clue as to which candidates to campaign for in my area.
Soon we will be down to a couple of months to get any sort of message out regarding who are the good guys and who are the villains amongst us.
This has been Sturgeon’s plan all along.
She will play the Covid card right up to the day of voting.
We have all known about these timelines,,,and frustratingly we are no further forward with coming to any kind of conclusion regarding the Salmond case.
You can just see the reaction now from the Sturgeon,,, very similar to the one she gave on live TV when the Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson lost her seat at the last uk General Election.
O/T Oh fer actual feck! PMSL
link to news.sky.com
Nicola Sturgeon’s forthcoming book of her speeches will contain the wisdom of this truly historic figure, a redoubtable champion of the people and defender of the truth, whose courage and example shines brightly and will act as a beacon for future generations.
And I think it’s called Frank Shut The Door.
Rikali.
They went up at the same time.
I wonder which parties/independents will stand against St Nicla in the constituency?
Mia/Alison/Alan
Fron Calton Jock re’ JUDITH McKINNON
link to caltonjock.com
kapelmeister says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:56 am
Nicola Sturgeon’s forthcoming book of her speeches
I think it’s called Frank Shut The Door.
…………….
Bugger he’s broken the internet thingy again
So we have two roles being played.
The role of the plotter.
and
The role of the accuser.
They hid their role as a plotter in the stitch-up by becoming also an accuser in the stitch-up.
Then all their grubby footprints and fingerprints and whatsapp messages and emails revealing their role as a plotter got swept up in the secrecy orders over their role as an accuser. Very clever eh.
All eagerly aided and abetted by the Lord Advocate and COPFS of course.
All of it is currently being propped by the exploitation of the anonymity laws and a quite frankly bent judicial system in Scotland.
It all needs to be leaked IMHO. Massively in the public interest.
How can the Court face the prospect of someone whose public reputation has been so tarnished as Mr Wolfe’s being elevated to the bench on retiral from his current post?
Will they use their decision in Craig’s case and others to drive a stake through his career to set justice free and preserve the credibility of the entre judicial process?
Perhaps not but this farce has to stop, will stop, somewhere, sometime.
Eileen Carson says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:54 am
O/T Oh fer actual feck! PMSL
link to news.sky.com
——-
So in Brighton UK babies are now chest fed?
Is breast fed transphobic? or do Brighton men now produce milk?
Or have i misunderstood?
Do you think the contemporary “West” will win its war on biology?
David Ferguson 04:49 I can assure you there are other ways to get the information into the public domain abroadia. I asked CM on this forum why as he was close to Wikileaks , they had not used them to put info into the public domain. The answer was that the first two woman deserved Immunity as they had done nothing wrong.
Craig Jones says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:51 am
We are drifting into the “Campaign Season” in Scotland for the Holyrood election.
I haven’t a clue as to which Party to campaign on behalf of.
I haven’t a clue as to which candidates to campaign for in my area.
I haven’t a clue what they will actually be campaigning on.
SNP – The current FM, the fight with our brothers and sisters of either sex, for trans rights or the (at last count) 11 point masterplan?
UK registered parties – no to indyref2 and better together?
Soon we will be down to a couple of months to get any sort of message out regarding who are the good guys and who are the villains amongst us.
This has been Sturgeon’s plan all along.
She will play the Covid card right up to the day of voting.
In gambling, the house is granted a limited ‘edge’ to maintain its viability.
The current owners do not like to gamble.
The edge will be unlimited.
We have all known about these timelines,,,and frustratingly we are no further forward with coming to any kind of conclusion regarding the Salmond case.
You can just see the reaction now from the Sturgeon,,, very similar to the one she gave on live TV when the Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson lost her seat at the last uk General Election.
One of her best simulations, cued up for the colour television news.
You’ll see the real thing if she returns a minority government
All this outrage, and they are laughing at you all.
They stand at a lecturn, and feed you shit. Do you all ever read what is written on that lectern? “Dieu et mon droit”. That’s easy. But the interesting one is “Honi soit qui mal y pense”. Now if you get your analysis from Wikipedia you will get some fairy story about chivalric deeds and ladies garters. That’s all shit.
The translation is “Shame on him who thinks ill of it”.
If I may further translate to the vernacular, it means “Fuck you if you don’t like it.”
And that is exactly what happens to whistleblowers, who by blowing the whistle have committed an “overt act or deed”. And do they get fucked in this fine democracy.
“In December 2013 the Ministry of Justice said that Section 3 of the Act….had been repealed in early 2013, without publicity.[11] However, the Government later stated that the announcement that it had been repealed was wrong, and that it was still on the statute book.[12]”
That IS wikipedia
C’mon Alex Salmond, hold a world press conference LIVE and tell the world everything. They leaked your supposed “crimes” to the Daily Record without your knowing…So now you tell THEIR REAL crimes to the world. You don’t have to name the “victims”, you will only be announcing what the Spectator and Craig Murray have already published. Then there is no way they can ever try prosecute or smear you ever again…because “games a bogey”.
Good work Stu, swamp creature Wightman will not be forgiven, hopefully this ends his ride on the holyrood gravy train.
Although the case involved significant departures from standard practice, lessons have been learned and will continue to be learned. The precognition process has been reinforced, and, in 2018, I established new arrangements for the management and oversight of large and complex cases. Those arrangements are now well established and provide a substantial safeguard against anything like this happening again.
So Mr Wolffe established new arrangements in 2018. Move on to 2020 and Mark Hirst’s prosecution which was thrown out because there was no case to answer. So much for “substantial safeguards“. So much for “a fair and independent prosecution service, taking decisions rigorously, independently and robustly in accordance with the evidence,“.
“lessons have been learned and will continue to be learned.” This standard conclusion will probably appear in the final report of the Harassment Committee.
When is the Lord Advocate going to resign?
Paula says:
10 February, 2021 at 11:17 am
C’mon Alex Salmond, hold a world press conference LIVE and tell the world everything. They leaked your supposed “crimes” to the Daily Record without your knowing…So now you tell THEIR REAL crimes to the world. You don’t have to name the “victims”, you will only be announcing what the Spectator and Craig Murray have already published. Then there is no way they can ever try prosecute or smear you ever again…because “games a bogey”.
This is why Alex Salmond employs Levy and Macrae.
If you know the truth, declare it yourself and face the wrath of the establishment.
Alex puts a foot wrong in this minefield and all his work will go up in a decade long puff of legal and lethal smoke.
There are plenty of matters that have not come to light just because they are true, the untimely death of that founder solicitor being just one.
Craig Jones says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:51 am
I haven’t a clue as to which Party to campaign on behalf of.
I haven’t a clue as to which candidates to campaign for in my area.
It’s a tough call for a lot of people no doubt.
Personally the SNP will not be getting my vote, my local candidate is a decent dignified and principled person whom I have known for a considerable length of time and have trust of, but I cannot vote for the party that I have voted for my entire life due to the current leadership, the attempted stitching up of Alex Salmond for high crimes, the blocking of democracy & justice by the SNP in the form of the Fabiani enquiry, the vilification & threats of physicial harm to SNP Ministers for upholding Human Rights, Science and Biological facts by members of the SNP’s woke brigade.
All of that is in addition to the fact that Independence is not front and centre of party policy anymore in the form of every election being a plebicide on Scottish Independence until it has been secured.
I am still a member of the SNP as I will only decide whether I stay a member after this enquiry and the fallout from it has ran its course as I want to be able to vote in party matters to help clear out the woke. I have a small sembling of faith that the good people who are still in the party can pull enough levers which will reverse its impending fate under it’s current agenda & leadership, that act will not happen before May however and only time will tell the future of the SNP which at the moment looks very bleak indeed.
If no alternative pro-indy party is standing in my constituency I will be spoiling my constituency ballot, by stating my reasons for doing so on the ballot paper.
My list vote will be going to a non-SNP indy party, whichever one of those who are standing in my area who is most likely to get elected.
I do not believe in the ‘Both Votes SNP’ crap we are being peddled by the party leadership. I think there are far too many people who disagree with the current direction and agenda of the SNP leadership and it’s complete stall on Independence since 2014, Nicola Sturgeon has done everything in her power to not have a vote on independence since she came to power.
Eileen Carson says:
10 February, 2021 at 10:54 am
O/T Oh fer actual feck! PMSL
link to news.sky.com
I wonder how many on the board of this trust has connections with big Pharma and Stonewall.
cirsium says:
10 February, 2021 at 11:24 am
….
When is the Lord Advocate going to resign?
When it suits him, or he is forced to.
The latter is moot, as who governs the highest officers in the land?
A jury of their peers?
Lots and lots of questions without answers going through my head.
Okay, so on the 31st October 2017, BEFORE the complaints procedure was allegedly even thought of, somebody was already either on their own accord or instructed by someone else fishing for “events” in London involving Mr Salmond?
Why?
Wasn’t this complaints procedure for civil servants working in Holyrood only? Wouldn’t those working in the Parliament of the UK, and therefore out of Scotland be abiding by different protocols and procedures? I mean, the Scottish police and the Scottish courts would not have jurisdiction on those London “events”, am I right? So why would those civil servants working in London would be abiding by a complaints procedure designed in Holyrood and not in the Uk cabinet office?
In other words, what are the odds this fishing expedition in London had nothing to do with the complaints procedure and that they were already planning the criminal court case at point?
Am I correct to think Ms Harvey was not asked about any other MP, just Mr Salmond?
Now, the 31st October is when things (allegedly) started with the complaints procedure in Holyrood. The letter by Sturgeon informing the Presiding officer of the intention to review procedures was sent, if I remember correctly, on the 30th October. It was only on the 3 November that Evans received a letter from the head of the UK civil service to review the existent complaints procedure for civil servants. Not to design a brand new one, mind, but to review the existent one.
So we are going to have to assume this “fishing” expedition for events in London, if it existed and Ms Harvey was not the only person contacted, might have started even before there was a plan for a reviewed complaints procedure, a request to review it, never mind designing a bespoke, brand new one with no precedence in the entire Uk.
I must admit I have always been convinced the review of the existent complaints procedure asked by Uk cabinet office was used opportunistically as the excuse to put this parallel agenda in motion. I think this texts sent on the 31st October could support that idea.
Was a fishing expedition for events in Scotland involving Mr Salmond also conducted? If yes, was that fishing expedition in Scotland simultaneous to the one conducted among civil servants in London? When did it start? Are the dates of those whatsapp messages between the SNP executive and within the vietnam group one of the reasons why the COPFS are stopping them entering the public domain?
If there was a parallel fishing expedition in Scotland to the one in London, was a different person in charge or the same?
If they were different people in charge of the two fishing expeditions, assuming there was one in Scotland, what was the link between those two people? Were they both SnP employees, SPADS, civil servants, other…?
Now, the whatsapp messages sent by Murrell regarding Mr Salmond having to firefight in several fronts and “Would be good to know Met looking at events in London” were sent in January 2019.
Evidently by this point Mr Murrell and whoever he was communicating with those messages knew there were “events” in London that “deserved” metropolitan police attention.
Who told him and the person he was communicating with about these events? Ms Baillie asked that question repeatedly but Fabiani let Murrell off the hook so thanks to Fabiani’s obstruction we are now none the wiser.
In any case, it is obvious that the fishing expedition had paid off by January 2019 and whoever was sending all those messages to Ms Harvey and presumably others found some “event/s”.
Now, who communicated the existence of that/those “event/s” to the Metropolitan police?
Was that the “victim/s” involved in the “event/s”?
Was that Murrell?
Was that the person sending the text messages?
Was that somebody else?
Was the person sending the fishing text messages who informed Murrell of those events?
When were this/these event/s communicated to the metropolitan police? Was that on the day the “event/s” were discovered/remembered or did they chose to sit on it to “deploy it” at a more convenient time?
Why somebody other than a person tasked by Murrell to find an event or other than the police in their course of investigating the events would be disclosing to Mr Murrell the existence of those events if the people did not put the complaints through the SNP? couldn’t that be a massive breach of confidentiality?
Has Murrell have any link to the Metropolitan police?
Has the person sending the messages any direct or indirect link with the metropolitan police?
How many job hats does the person sending the phishing text messages to employees in London wear? Which one were they wearing at the time of sending those messages? Were they sending those messages on their own accord or after being instructed by somebody else? If by somebody else, Who?
Paula says:
10 February, 2021 at 11:17 am
C’mon Alex Salmond, hold a world press conference LIVE and tell the world everything. They leaked your supposed “crimes” to the Daily Record without your knowing…So now you tell THEIR REAL crimes to the world. You don’t have to name the “victims”, you will only be announcing what the Spectator and Craig Murray have already published. Then there is no way they can ever try prosecute or smear you ever again…because “games a bogey”.
In addition to my earlier comment….
Also Alex why not expose the people who plotted against you and sue them for defamation ? ( you won’t be short of crowdfunding here or abroad. ) Not only would this bring down the house of cards that the current leadership of the SNP has proven to be, but it would still give the people of Scotland the chance of a Plebiscite in May’s election. Obviously you know all that but what you may not know, due to UK press censorship, is just how much support you have, especially if this truth goes global.
@Paula
To repeat myself:
This is why Alex Salmond employs Levy and Macrae.
If you know the truth, declare it yourself and face the wrath of the establishment.
Alex puts a foot wrong in this minefield and all his work will go up in a decade long puff of legal and lethal smoke.
There are plenty of matters that have not come to light just because they are true, the untimely death of that founder solicitor being just one.
You go headlong first, all you’ll get is a headache and a bankrupting bill.
Why do do something yourself, like asking a few pertinent questions of your local political representatives?
…and relay their replies somewhere like here?
Breeks,
Superb answer and very interesting – thanks.
“Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
9 February, 2021 at 10:14 pm
“If all the Spectator does is to be allowed to print the redacted paragraph, I do not see how that will change opinions of the Fabiani Inquiry members. Maybe they are going to argue for something more than that.”
Yes, you’ve entirely mis[REDACTED] what’s happening on Thursday.”
As it happens, I cannot access archive.is on my office computer. So I was unable to read the linked article and I choose not to subscribe to the Telegraph. So I was not in a position to mis[REDACTED] anything. Once I read the article, at home, I [REDACTED] a lot more than I did initially.
What an absolute shower of fucks the posters on this site are.
The one where the female tennis player was scratchin’ ‘er @r$€ was a classic…
Some of the sycophantic posters on this site really make my skin crawl
This is also a classic.
@Skip_NC
If you enter the link address in archive.is it will show several archived copies of that Spectator story. Click on the oldest copy, you’ll find it enlightening.
I don’t think this is fair. I do agree that the legal advice that the committee has been given is absurd and quite likely biased and maliciously so. But I am not sure at all if I would have voted against the legal advice…