High Court update
The Spectator’s application to the High Court for a variation of the anonymity order in HM Advocate vs Alexander Salmond has just finished. It seems to have been agreed by all parties that Lady Dorrian will now amend her order to read thus:
“An order at common law and in terms of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, preventing publication of the names and identity and any information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, as such complainers in those proceedings.”
The newly-added words are highlighted in bold.
This is potentially very significant, because it clarifies an interpretation Lady Dorrian described in court as “absurd”, but nonetheless appeared to be the interpretation being applied by the Crown Office and the Fabiani committee in respect of the order.
In short – and remember, WINGS OVER SCOTLAND IS NOT A LAWYER – the order as it previously stood appeared to prohibit a person who was a complainer in the case from being identified even in ways totally unrelated to their being a complainer.
In other words, you simply couldn’t safely mention this person’s name in ANY context without putting yourself at risk of prosecution. So you couldn’t, for example, say “Nicola Sturgeon’s bank manager is Jane Doe” if Jane Doe was one of the complainers, even though that sentence doesn’t say anything at all about her being a complainer.
With the amended version of the order (which we assume will take effect more or less immediately, although we don’t know if it’s also retrospective), you would now be able to say that safely, UNLESS it had also been published somewhere that (say) “one of the complainers was Nicola Sturgeon’s bank manager” – because those two pieces of information together would form a jigsaw identifying Jane Doe as the complainer.
By our reading – and please do continue to remember at all times that WINGS OVER SCOTLAND IS NOT A LAWYER – the change removes any possible issues with Alex Salmond’s submission to the committee, and so clears the way for the committee to publish it and have him appear as a witness.
(We don’t know if it would have the same effect on Geoff Aberdein’s written evidence, because we haven’t seen that, but Craig Murray certainly believes that it would.)
And at least three members of the committee seem to concur with that reading.
Lady Dorrian said that she’d deliver her written reasoning no later than the start of next week, which would still allow the committee plenty of time to accept Mr Salmond’s evidence. If they do not, further serious questions will be raised about their integrity.
What will be left when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down?
Let’s hope his lawyers interpret the revision 1st and advise him.
Only fly in the ointment is the complete and utter lack of integrity of the enquiry committee and chair.
You can’t question that which does not exist.
Stu, would you be able to clarify whether Lady Dorians amendment becomes active from today or from when she publishes her written reasoning?
I think that will be importance for plenty of readers to understand given the context and magnitude of court proceedings today.
The Legal Attempt to End the Fabiani Farce
link to craigmurray.org.uk
Ball back in Fabiani’s court.
“Stu, would you be able to clarify whether Lady Dorians amendment becomes active from today or from when she publishes her written reasoning?”
I would expect it to be from today, but – and I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this – I’m not a lawyer.
I wonder if she’ll still be calling for Salmond to appear, now that’s it’s possible that he can discuss his evidence…
Veritas vincit.
I now have a vision of John Swinney and Peter Murrell rushing around Holyrood telling everyone: “Don’t panic, don’t panic” and: “We’re all doomed, doomed Ah tell ye.”
Spartacus will walk down the Royal Mile once again amongst his adoring public.
Sturgeon’s Junta will now collapse. Absolute fannies….the lot of them.
I would expect it to be from today, but – and I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this – I’m not a lawyer..
Let us know as soon as, Stuart – I want to bring attention to a newspaper article from Jan 2019 that mentions, by name, the person being in *that* meeting with Geoff Aberdein and Sturgeon.
Finally some half decent news. SNP hq shredders will be having a blow out. Mind we said that about Labour being ousted from Glasgow city council, how times change.
If one of the complainers was in sturgeons cabinet she could not be identified as anything other than redacted.
“Let us know as soon as”..
..mostly for benefit of folk recently visiting this site and trying to catch-up on historical events – and for the benefit of being in the public interest.
Two points can the Scottish government appeal against Lady Dorrian’s decision, and would that tie things up for ages , and effectively knock the inquiry charade on the head, and if necessary, which I think it is, can the inquiry board be replaced.
Can documents already subjected to redactions that have been published and currently available in the public domain now be updated in accordance with this change?
Craig Murray is saying:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk
“Lady Dorrian’s amendment certainly should sweep out the legs from under the Committee’s ludicrous excuse for not publishing the Aberdein and Salmond evidence, and thus pave the way for Salmond to appear before the committee. But my intelligence from a committee member is that, whatever today’s ruling, the SNP members will continue to refuse to publish, and they are confident that their lawyers will be able to argue the Spectator case has increased the risk of jigsaw identification.
So the mad charade of an “Inquiry” continues. It is, I think, the most shameless cover-up that could possibly be imagined. Wings Over Scotland have listed some 60 separate instances of the Scottish Government directly obstructing the work of the Inquiry. What has changed in the last fortnight is the SNP members of the Inquiry are no longer feigning that they too are looking for the truth.”
We are now getting to the core of what makes the SNP Gov and the Fabiani Farce a disgrace to Scotland – and unfit to lead us to independence.
It is now nakedly clear that Fabiani is excluding the evidence of Aberdein and Salmond (presumably on oder) because these make it clear that Sturgeon is lying now, has lied to Parliament and is unfit for office (and I am still a member of the SNP – I hope for better).
It could not be clearer.
I suspect the enquiry will continue to resist publishing the evidence. The enquiry finishes with interviewing Nicola Sturgeon on Tuesday and so if they can obfuscate and delay publishing until then, then they might think they can squeak NS through.
It’s a weird feeling to be looking towards Murdo Fraser and Jackie Baillie to preserve Scotland’s interests but that’s where we are. Hope they get stuck in!
Crzig Murray hearing the SNP members on the pane! will still vote against admission of evidence to delay its presentation for another legal challenge.
Nothing to hide eh?
John Martini at 2:22 pm
If one of the complainers was in sturgeons cabinet she could not be identified as anything other than redacted.
Are you saying someone in Sturgeon’s cabinet is a complainer?
It’s absurd that independence campaigners are having to rely on THE SPECTATOR to make the case for our right to know WTF our own government has been doing.
What happens if the inquiry refuses to publish Salmond’s and Aberdein’s info, regardless of what amendments Lady Dorrian added.
Could this new ruling affect the paper evidence that has been already submitted to the inquiry and that in some instances is so heavily redacted that entire pages have been rendered blank?
Could the committee on the basis of this new ruling go back to the government and demand the redactions made on the basis of the old ruling not the new one to be eliminated?
What about the whatsapp messages? Could this new ruling affect their protection from publication too?
Could this ruling also force the release of other evidence that has never been submitted to the committee due to this convenient “misunderstanding” of the original ruling?
Posing my questions at 2.24pm and 2.28pm, I/We should remind myself/ourselves that the Rev said he isn’t a lawyer.
Republic of Scotland
Prentice, QC for the Crown, accepted the amendment so won’t be appeal.
Correct me if I am wrong here but is someone previously redacted suddenly is now named or identified then it is clear that they were a complainer.
Or have I misunderstood again?
Feliks @2.32pm.
Thank you for the info.
What happens if the inquiry refuses to publish Salmond’s and Aberdein’s info, regardless of what amendments Lady Dorrian added.
—-
IMO if submitted evidence is now not re-evaluated and published in full then the members of the inquiry have no option left but to demand an independent Judge-led inquiry where it is up to the judge what evidence is admissable.
Failing that they have to collapse the inquiry citing corruption by members and obfuscation of crucial evidence via majority votes by members.
Those who have voted to allow the statements and evidence already will be in the clear ever since the vote tally was published the other day and it will be obvious of which committee members those allegations lay at the feet of.
Will this help Craig Murray?
Lady Dorian hasn’t yet ruled in his case
Forgive my appearing to be obtuse on a point from the above quoted tweet in the name of a Mr Murdo Fraser.
If, as claimed by Mr Fraser as a member of this Committee, the Committee to has the right to compel a witness to attend it would seem reasonable – at least to anyone inhabiting the reality based community – that:
(i) Such a power must by definition be a general one rather than limited to a single witness. ie it cannot and should not be selectively applied. If this power to compel exists in the case of Mr Salmond it also exists in the case of Mr Aberdein.
Perhaps someone should raise this question with Mr Fraser to ask why double standards are being applied by the Committee?
(ii) Such a power must also by definition apply to evidence. The Committee and its members cannot expect to claim any kind of credibility nor expect to be taken seriously if it/they also use their powers selectively in the case of evidence.
Indeed, in any due process procedure, if anyone involved deliberately tampers with evidence in such a way as to detract from achieving the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – as is clearly happening here – their feet would not touch the ground in terms of acting in a way which is considered contemptuous of the process and the body charged with responsibility for that process.
Again, perhaps someone could kindly raise this point with Mr Fraser and his colleagues to ask why they are acting in contempt of both their sworn duty and the process over which they preside.
Hats of to Lady Dorrian for clarification, she seems to have a sense of fairness that is sadly lacking within the snp and Scottish goverment.
Hi Kenny.
Is this story what you’re alluding to?
The links below have been in the public domain for over two years.
link to archive.is
link to archive.is
link to web.archive.org
Things are moving so quickly! Can Wings now have a time stamp as well as a date stamp?
What pisses me off about this whole affair is that it’s all about protecting the rights of people of people who have brought claims that have been overturned in a fair trial.
Surely they should be named, and possibly in one case done for perjury.
Are the rights of the person unjustly smeared less than those of those who make false claims just because he is a man?
Some pigs are more equal than other pigs by the look of it.
Animal Farm and 1984 were supposed to be dreadful warnings, not a manual for government.
@Dave Hansell,
Everthing is a majority decision, and there are preset perameters. Fraser cannot independently set conditions. With that in mind who is stalling and why?
Anonymoose @2.36pm.
Thanks for your opinion on that, I doubt Fabiani and the other three SNP committee members and the rat Wightman will want to publish it.
Craig Murray hints that Fabiani is taking legal advice from a huge American law firm.
One has to remember, after today’s ruling there’s going to be a fair bit more msm interest in the machinations of the Fabiani committee.
And they know it.
Especially the fab 4 & AW.
JB & co. could (threaten to) walk tomorrow, with a press conference to follow.
Does anyone else remember that time when Boris illegally closed down parliament and there were all sorts of high drama court actions.
Which won… eventually! As the clock ran down.
Craig Murray’s article indicates the Inquiry intend to ignore the court ruling. And given Lady Dorian’s really, really slow ability to produce a verdict on his case, anyone want to bet that she will not publish her written conclusions for todays case, until well past lousin time next Tuesday? Anyone, go on, I dare you.
Alex needs to stand for Holyrood – and use parliamentary privilage to open up this can of worms.
Alex needs to go abroad for a bit and publish the whole damned shebang, and hell smack it intae them.
And if, if, someone was on the investigation team, into the allegations against AS, and then went on to become a complainer – into the same collective allegations – that person bears a huge responsibility for the case collapsing.
Anyone with even a tiny amount of civil and legal training, knows that you cannot do that – it compromises the integrity of each and every other complainers evidence. Totally discredits the whole shebang.
NS is a qualified lawyer, supposed to be a feminist. Incompetence on this level (and I’m being very generous with the term) is actually better described as Negligent.
And the subsequent actions of the Inquiry – corrupt as fuck.
My vote in May will be for anyone but SNP and I’ve only ever voted for them.
I’m in Sweinneys constituency so I will deliberately vote to have him ousted.
ISP I want to vote for you, but front and foremost it has to be Plebiscite Indy for Scotland as your manifesto… and you are running out of time. WON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN.
I have appreciated Andy W’s stance and action on wildlife issues, I own his book, I supported his legal fund appeal. I hope he changes tack with this news.
Kenny says:
11 February, 2021 at 2:26 pm
John Martini at 2:22 pm
If one of the complainers was in sturgeons cabinet she could not be identified as anything other than redacted.
Are you saying someone in Sturgeon’s cabinet is a complainer?
No. But if she was her name could not be mentioned.
And when is Craig Murray’s ruling expected?
This could further open the floodgates
“… it clarifies an interpretation that Lady Dorrian described in court as “absurd”, but which nonetheless appeared to be the interpretation being applied by the Crown Office and the Fabiani committee in respect of the order.”
And there we have it.
The Crown Office interpreted Lady Dorrian’s original order in an ‘absurd’ way.
But in a way which just happened to mean the Crown Office could suppress all the evidence of a plot to stitch-up Alex Salmond.
A stitch-up the COPFS played a very enthusiastic role in executing.
How very convenient for them that they managed to land on such an ‘absurd’ interpretation of Lady Dorrian’s order eh.
Boy they sure got lucky that someone there was having such an absurd day at the office. (Is the Lord Advocate David Brent by any chance?)
Absurd. Lady Dorrian’s own description.
It is not so absurd however if your are a corrupt Lord Advocate trying to cover up his bosses crimes. Then it makes perfect sense to apply such an ‘absurd’ interpretation.
The COPFS themselves should be under investigation for perverting the course of justice. THEY ARE A DISGRACE.
The Fabiani Farce, wow. Just when you think it cant get any more farcical… I should have know better to doubt Linda’s ability to deepen the farce, never again.
It is in the public interest that we see Aberdein’s submission.
If the Fabiani Farce will not publish – IT MUST BE LEAKED!
@ Dave Hansell: you can email the committee yourself and make these points.
“serious questions will be asked about their integrity”-And what integrity would that be?
Republicofscotland says:
11 February, 2021 at 2:47 pm
Thanks for your opinion on that, I doubt Fabiani and the other three SNP committee members and the rat Wightman will want to publish it.
Craig Murray hints that Fabiani is taking legal advice from a huge American law firm.
—-
No bother, happy to offer my thoughts.
re: fabiani
Fabiani has more things in her closet than at first appearance; Mark Hirst dug up information the other day which is published on the Scottish Parliament’s website and Companies House about her lobbying for Government funding on behalf of an NGO of which she has been a named director of since 2019, which is still an undeclared item in her register of interests 2 years later.
It would have been fair to say that it had “slipped her mind” if this was brought up a month or two after she took that position, but 2 years after she took the position of a director of an NGO she has been actively lobbying for should not pass any scrutiny.
She has also been playing evasionary, stalling and steering tactics regarding witnesses and evidence to the current inquiry, as well as silencing committee members lines of questioning under her role as chairperson of the haraasment procedure inquiry.
I do think that if those now stymied lines of questioning were allowed to continue then there would be a lot more truth coming out of this inquiry than there has been to date.
The noose draws ever tighter.
But the Spectator magazine published what the committee voted against publishing in full, yet today in court they (Spectator magazine reps/legal team) were found not to have broken the law. The info is already in the public domain.
Lady Dorrian found this absurd, we find it absurd, but the Fabiani led committee will still refuse to publish it.
Surely this means the Crown Office and the Sturgeon cabal have actually identified at least one of the complainers by their ridiculous legal manoeuvres?
Ah! I get it now. I had no idea that people or organisations were choosing to interpret the anonymity order in such a bizarre fashion.
With any luck Aberdein will send his statement to the spectator for them to publish too. Committee aren’t going to do it. “Double doon, don’t kneel doon” advice is as effective for dishonest orgs as it is normal folks.
Surely A Wightman’s reasons for siding with the SNP 4 are now out the window. He claimed his decision was taken so
he could follow the legal advice, time to stand up Mr W
Anonymoose @ 3pm.
Again thank you for the info, though I think someone posted something about this on a previous thread, however it just highlights that Fabiani, if she’s willing to break the law as you’ve stated above, that subverting the inquiry wouldn’t be that big a deal for her.
The non-SNP member of the committee must now insist on another vote, given the significant change of circumstances following Lady Dorrian’s clarification today. There is no need to wait for her written reasons. Perhaps the emergency meeting tomorrow has been called for that purpose.
I don’t expect the SNP members to budge, but perhaps Andy Wightman – after another bout of conscience-wrestling – could manage to reverse the decision. It wouldn’t be the first time he’s changed his mind.
“Fabiani is taking legal advice from a huge American law firm”
And there we go, the American connection once again.
How many actors and vested interests have been orchestrating and controlling this conspiracy? It seems that everybody else other than Scotland itself appears to be in control of this.
« The Fourth Industrial Revolution has the potential to empower individuals and communities, as it creates new opportunities for economic, social, and personal development. But it also could lead to the marginalization of some groups, exacerbate inequality, create new security risks, and undermine human relationships. »
Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum.
He is right about empowerment, for the rich, getting richer and more influential by the second. He is also on the ball about marginalization etc. He might have added to that list national governments, increasingly existentially distanced from the people who chose them.
That like the rest is probably just collateral to those « new opportunities »
Craig Murray’s article indicates the Inquiry intend to ignore the court ruling.
When people were posting from the case, there was mention that the judge seemed angry at some points. Most notably, I was getting a sense of tetchiness around ‘Why are you even brining this here? Nothing in the order actually says that…take it up with the committee”. I’d imagine if that was her attitude and the inquiry ignore it, that won’t dissipate her anger if it ends up back with her at any later point.
Hey Tommy at 2.15. I’ll see yer quote and raise you a
Nemo me impune lacessit
Brian Doonthetoon @ 2.44pm
I’ve never previously seen those articles on this site.
It is still not beyond doubt that they can continue to refuse to publish or examine the evidence on grounds of protecting the ‘victims’ etc – the same line they have spun from the start, and thus neatly preventing an inquiry from doing any actual inquiring.
With their track record, I can imagine they will be searching for the latest excuses to prevent evidence from sullying their whitewash.
The most intriguing thing in Craig Murray’s piece that the ‘legal advice’ they sought was from a US commercial law firm. Did they scour the globe to find a law firm who would tell them what they want to hear? And what expertise or authority would such a firm possess?
America has a *great big* interest in Scottish politics. It’s called Trident. #Justsayin.
Mia at 3:09 pm
“Fabiani is taking legal advice from a huge American law firm”..
Where’s our ring fenced?
Apropos of nothing & entirely coincidentally, Sandy Brindley (RCS) was on BBC Radio Scotland lunchtime’s ‘news’ programme today, calling for a permanent guarantee of anonymity for complainers in sexual assault cases in Scotland.
What’s to stop Salmond now appearing and saying what he likes other than the names of the complainers which of course are not relevant to this evidence and hardly his focus here?
Achnababan @3:01
NS & her cabal will cause more distress to the alphabet women/complainers than anybody on Twitter. The more she tries to hide, the more determined people will be regarding transparency. This is not about politics – it is morals, decency and justice.
Could it be that if, when the findings of the Hamilton inquiry are passed to the FM and Deputy FM, before, of course, any publication, the FM will attempt to force Mr Hamilton only to refer to the ‘trivial’ breach that the April 28 meeting was a few days earlier than the earliest date at which the FM first asserted that she knew about the acusations? Even though Mr Hamilton will have had the documentary evidence that the meeting had actually been set up at the behest of the FM’s office, 3 weeks earlier, specifically to discuss the issue?
Here at long last is a real example of a Catch 22:
‘You may not refer to that piece of evidence, because it names a complainer’
‘ But it doesn’t say anything about her being a complainer!’
‘ Indeed — but I just said that she was one’
In a puerile attempt to prevent the name of the person who cannot be named, being mentioned at all, they have unwittingly provided that person’s name.
After all, the tight group of collaborators in Sturgeon’s kinky cabinet is a small one.
And all one has to do is check off that short list against all the names who have been mentioned so far and you end up with just one that is never mentioned at all.
If they had just proceeded as normal, this blatant clue would not have arisen. Of course, the primary reason is that they are using this bullshit excuse to prevent evidence from being heard because it blows Sturgeon’s fairy tail claims out of the water.
One might also wonder at the bizarre behaviour of the complainer who must not be named.
I think in America it’s called witness tampering, a Federal offence by the way. Except in this case, the person allegedly doing the tampering appears to have chosen to add their own name to the witness list as if doubling down on the allegations like a poker player who is convinced they have the winning hand.
If that isn’t ground’s for a charge of an alleged attempt to subvert justice, I’m not sure what is.
The American connections are curious. Tony Blair was very similar in this regard… and he was a wrong’un.
I recall reading that the secret services will get around domestic legislation forbidding them from doing XYZ by farming it out to another secret service in another country.
For example if the secret service was expressly forbidden from assassinating one of its own citizens it simply asks a secret service of a friendly country to do it for them. Sidestepping that little problem.
So has the destruction of the SNP been done by the CIA say on behalf of the UK secret services. Very possibly. It is also arguably very much in the US’s narrow selfish interests to keep Scotland in its box.
We will be able to tell more seeing who rewards Sturgeon after leaving office. Assuming of course she is not in jail. (I can dream.)
Bob Mack
Thank you.
Regardless of the voting on the Committee the minority, by continuing to be associated with its untenable position, make themselves complicit in the Committee’s contempt actions.
Mr Fraser and his other minority colleagues on the Committee do themselves and their reputations no favours in remaining to die in that particular ditch and provide cover for the other charletans on that body.
It would therefore seem reasonable to anticipate, as others have already articulated, that sooner rather than later that minority will withdraw their participation from the Committee even if only to protect what remains of their reputations (if any) from the contempt being displayed by the majority on that Committee which is dragging them down with it.
Sarah,
Again, thank you. If anticipated events do not overtake I may indeed find time over the next few days to take the suggested route.
If Mr Salmond’s full statement is now published then comparing it to the redacted version will clearly allow the identification of one or more complainants?
So it may be that the ruling allowing the person to be named results in their not being able to be named.
At last I now know who was involved, how, and why, it was planned very carefully prior to being put into action,
Thdy needed a trigger to use it. Thst trigger came in November 2017 when Alex used a speech at Caird Hall in Dundee to over 2000 attendees, to criticise the leadership on their lack of Indy progress given the state of the UK at the time.
He was becoming a threat. The plan was given the go ahead when out of the blue Nicola asked Evans to create a policy to deal with former Ministers that same month.
This was cold ,calculated character assasination and nothing to do with womens complaints which were used as the tool of destruction.
Teetering says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:15 pm
What’s to stop Salmond now appearing and saying what he likes other than the names of the complainers which of course are not relevant to this evidence and hardly his focus here?
Answer: Fabiani. She’ll cut him off
Stu, can you have a look at the latest tweet from the crown prosecution service, seems off to me?
I totally get the right to anonymity for victims in sexual assault charges . But surely when the accused is found innocent on not 1 but 13 charges , then they are no longer ‘victims ‘ ?
Mac @3.21 You are very warm – almost boiling in fact.
Crikey when you think the sanctimonious stance Sturgeon’s SNP has taken over Tory cronyims etc, bloody hypocrites of the worse order.
montfleury says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:23 pm
If Mr Salmond’s full statement is now published then comparing it to the redacted version will clearly allow the identification of one or more complainants?
So it may be that the ruling allowing the person to be named results in their not being able to be named.
If you do not already know the name – you are living on another planet. The idea that this name is not known is a legal fiction.
It really wouldn’t surprise me that much if we now see the Inquiry Committee disintegrate entirely before ever completing the task it was set by Parliament. Could be 100% wrong but it may be the next manouvre to avoid the truth coming out.
Cant help but picture the glee on Murdo Frasers face at texting that last line..hung by yir own petard Nicola
Hi Kenny.
I think the first time I posted the Shropshire Star one was 5th August last year, where I was commenting on Kirsty Wark giving out jigsaw information in her documentary.
I’ve posted it around three or four times since.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Garavelli Princip says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:28 pm
Answer: Fabiani. She’ll cut him off
Well of course but he’s smart and there are ways round this including just dropping what you want to say into an unrelated answer. It’s then said before Fabiani can intervene.
Most likely is that they’ll refuse to publish to prevent him appearing and therefore this possibility from occurring. Of course if Wightman suddenly grows a pair then…
ALISON – Did you read Craig Murray’s article “that this specific “absurd” advice actually comes at source from a large US commercial law firm”.
Unless she set a date for it (which doesn’t look like the case) it should be effective today. She will just follow up next week confirming the order and setting out her reasoning.
Time for protests perhaps if this farce by the committee and sturgeon gang goes on.
Obi-Wan Fabiani… The Farce is strong in this one.
It beggars belief though, that the complainers, are in the eyes of the law still seen as victims when they are not, none of their spurious accusations were upheld in a court of law, yet this charade revolves around their anonymity.
It would be fair to say that the real victim here is Alex Salmond.
@Sylvia, ah no had not, bloody hell, has he cited the proof?
You know I’ve a bad feeling about today’s judgement, almost seemed too easy, surely they will simply argue that unredacting now is tantamount to identifying a complainant.
Hope I am wrong, we shall see.
Full text of the order as amended
“Made an order at common law and in in terms of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, preventing the publication of the names and identity and any information likely to disclose the identity of the complainers in the case of HMA v Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond, as such complainers in those proceedings.”
by adding the last 6 words it changes everything. From The Scotsman link to scotsman.com
So, an increase in the chance of the sewer rats getting their comeuppance – it’s a thumbs up from me.
Imagine Scotland had a fairly well-known & well-read pro-independence legal blogger, or something. I’m sure they’d be *all* over this.
Oh…wait..
Sylvia @ 3-40pm
Who is paying for that advice and if as I suspect it’s the Scottish taxpayer what are the reasons for using overseas lawyers who most likely will not have anyone qualified to actually go into a Scottish court.
Plenty of comments here queering the pitch.
I’m suddenly having a smidgeon of sympathy for some of the sad alphabetties who were duped into this criminal venetta.
at a minimum
Evans should be sacked & jailed
the ‘record’ leaker should be sacked & jailed
the ‘record’ hack should be sacked & jailed
the SNP leader, deputy leader & CEO should be sacked & jailed
what an effin mess
both votes SNP (aye right)
So has the destruction of the SNP been done by the CIA say on behalf of the UK secret services.
I read the Cult of Trump recently. One thing it said about his is he is a malignant narcissist who will always get his revenge on anyone who he feels slights him in any way. He despised Salmond, especially after Salmond Tweeted that “Once, twice, three times a loser” thing. He even took out full page adverts in the Scottish press against him. This happened after Trump came to power. Co-incidence? Especially given all the US connections we’re seeing?
This was July 2017. Interesting timing?
(can’t seem to post the YouTube link here even without the http at the beginning so trying with a tiny link to the video – Alex at his finest. link to tinyurl.com)
X_Sticks says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:12 pm
America has a *great big* interest in Scottish politics. It’s called Trident. #Justsayin.
Which reminds me, prior to 2014 ref AS said that there were certain aspects of Pres Putin he admired and refused to withdraw his comments.
The cabal would be wise to note the following
The motto of Scotland is “Nemo me impune lacessit”, or: “No one provokes me with impunity”.
“But the Spectator magazine published what the committee voted against publishing in full, yet today in court they (Spectator magazine reps/legal team) were found not to have broken the law.”
As a legal point of order – although I AM NOT A LAWYER – that isn’t the case. It could be fairly reasonably surmised from today’s events, but it was in no way legally established by today’s events. It was not the matter being determined today.
I wonder if the Crown & parly lawyers will now try to continue to block publication, on the grounds that looking at what names are now published but could not be published before, would, in conjunction with the change in the court order, allow jigsaw identification – and thus the the names (and the evidence) must still be hidden.
That would be completely loony as it would argue that the act of allowing a name to be published (i.e. the new court order) prevents a name to be published under the new court order, but I feel it be about par for the course for the Crown & parly lawyers…
Eileen Carson says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:46 pm
Full text of the order as amended…
—-
Please do correct me if I am wrong in thinking that the amended order now reads that the anonymity order should only be applied to items that directly mention the criminal trial in which Alex Salmond was found innocent.
Therefore as the Socttish Government inquiry is about failed government policy, i.e. not directly related to the criminal trial, that the committee and witnesses in the Scottish Government trial are now free to state and publish information in so long as those statements and that evidence does not mention the criminal trial.
montfleury says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:23 pm
“If Mr Salmond’s full statement is now published then comparing it to the redacted version will clearly allow the identification of one or more complainants?”
There is only one redaction and it could simply be left as is. We haven’t seen the Geoff Aberdein submission so no one can know the difference between a redacted v non redacted version.
So there is no good reason for not publishing or being able to refer to them.
I wonder if the Crown & parly lawyers will now try to continue to block publication, on the grounds that looking at what names are now published but could not be published before
Because of the cover up, we cannot now uncover the cover-up as that would blow the cover-up even more uncovered than it would have done had we not covered it up to start with.
It’s quite Yes Minister that.
It looks like a lot of people on here are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Today’s ruling is unequivocally good for one very important reason – forget the whitewash Inquiry and all other constitutional crap. This was always going to be a trial by media.
Tonight you can assume at least 3 newspapers and media organisations are working on stories regarding the Salmond scandal with a whole new sense of freedom. A judge has ruled that they can now freely discuss details of the case that are central to everything, as long as there’s no reference to whether those involved were complainers or not.
Now, that means there’s a whole new dynamic in play. If a newspaper talks about the role of one of someone in a context that corroborates the claim that someone lied, for example, that’s now fine, regardless of whether they were complainers or not.
Of course, the Scottish Government May choose to take that newspaper to court, claiming that the story assists in jigsaw identification. But that wouldn’t be a very good idea, would it? It would not only draw more attention to the case generally, and that’s something a lot of people don’t want, but it would draw attention to those mentioned in the story in particular, and doing that (more so than the story in itself) might assist towards jigsaw identification.
To blazes with the Inquiry. To tell the truth, we’ve got far more from it than I ever expected anyway. That goes for the Hamilton Inquiry too. The MSM has this.
It really doesn’t matter what any of these pencil pushers does. If the MSM establishes that someone lied to parliament, that person is toast; and if that person doesn’t resign right away, the MSM will hound them morning, noon, and night until they do.
Interesting Cath, never considered the old bad blood between Trump and Salmond.
I doubt Trump (or the American side) would have initiated this operation but had the UK suggested it I am very sure Trump would have leapt at it (for the reasons you describe). Trump is a very vengeful man, very, he boasts about it.
Yeah so the timing is very curious.
The UK side may have calculated all this when he took power and reckoned, previous presidents would have baulked at such a plan but not Trump, he would go for it.
We will never know most likely.
Looking back the set up of the committee, it was always flawed with four SNP MSP’s and a Green MSP and four opposition MSP’s, it was always going to split down party lines and factions when it came to it.
The committee should’ve been an independent one made up of no party affiliations, all that’s happened is that another huge chunk of taxpayers cash, (and God knows the COPFS are burning through our cash like it was firewood) has gone down the drain with virtually nothing to show for it.
AS needs to attend and to show them up for the farce that it is. If anyone can he can. He should reiterate at every opportunity that he was aquitted and is not on trial.
I wish the women could be referrred to as accusers rather than victims otherwise this gives the impression the verdict was wrong.
I’ve seen AS’ legal adviser, Duncan Hamilton discussed. AFAIK he is a good guy even if he did dally with a Smith. In fact he is said to be ‘the one’ who if he went back into politics could lead the SNP properly. He makes a good living as an advocate though. I bet if he was back in politics the SNP would not get away with the shoddy garbage passing as legislation now.
Oh well time for another squirrell soon.
“Most likely is that they’ll refuse to publish to prevent him appearing and therefore this possibility from occurring”
Agree Teetering – but Wightman growing a pair? Naw! All his years of campaigning have paid off – for HIM.
He’s not going to throw that away – and whatever it is he may be planning for himself after this phase.
Sturgeon actually said this at FMQ’s this week, the utter arrogance, imagine if we were watching another country run by a married couple, one the leader, the other the head of their party. Beggars belief.
“It’s clear to everyone why the opposition parties are so keen to drag Peter Murrell into a process he had no part in and try to damage him. Perhaps they know how integral he’s been to the electoral success of the SNP, and conversely the electoral defeat of their parties.”
What a development.
On another note I wonder what implications this is going to have for Craig Murrays’ contempt of court case.
The Crown Office did not dispute the word change.
The Committee acted on legal advice, from the Crown Office I’m assuming, and this interpretation was deemed “absurd” by the Judge.
What a week for Scottish Public Legal circles.. now the question is… who reviews these decisions and cleans house.. this recklessness cannot stand
Anything from Humza yet?
@Cath
Bravo..post of the day!
Yours
J Harker
PS coincidentally The National running story on Joanne Cherry not interested in top job also made me think of classic Yes Minister
@Desimond
The best he’s done is RT this BBC’s Philip Sim tweet, aye utterly useless, utter chancer AND not a very nice person, believe me.
link to twitter.com
Baxter @ 3:49 – I know nothing about the American law firm that Craig Murray has written about.
However, I repeatedly write about the American influence within the SG/SNP. American influence or “American university postmodernistic bollocks” = #MeToo, GRA, cancel culture etc.
Also how they have crept into the SNHS though the back door. Why would you hire an American company from Boston to reform the Scottish NHS? They have been paid thousands-Jason Leitch & Derek Feeley has close links to them.
It would be interesting to find out more about this American law firm and from where they’re from.
@ALISON BALHARRY
Sounds like Nicola trying to get early “But look at what the Romans did for you!” defence of her man in case he gets caught bang to rights in the coming crosshairs
Easier to seek forgiveness and all that…
@Sylvia
Did the US influence exist under Salmond or was it brought in by Sturgeon?
@Desimond
Exactly. Whatever else can be said about them the Sturrels and SNP lawyer, the nae very pleasant, Scott Martin are good strategists, they look ahead, plot the various scenarios, ahead of time.
Not quite the Campbell/Blair league but not too shabby.
What i don’t understand is why one of the complainers has not been charged with perjury as she stated she was assalted by AS at a venue she wasn’t even at according to a witness.
Clearly her anonymity should be lifted as she has committed a serious crime. Charge her and I bet she will spill the beans.
If there’s any American involvement it’s from private individuals and foundations. Wouldn’t at all be surprised if some people allied to the Clintons was helping their sister Nicola out. Then there’s the like of the Arcus Foundation who’d be keen on seeing Scotland as the world’s first Woke government.
I guess Trump might have had a hand in stirring it up for Salmond but it would not have been at a government level.
The State Department and the US government in general love stability in Europe. Well, Brexit threw a spanner in that and while they’d probably be happier if the UK stayed together it wouldn’t exactly freak them out if the union dissolved.
We’ve lots of friends in the USA and a newly independent country needs a lot of goodwill. It would be effortless for the USA to make sure their interests remain well served. In fact Scotland rejoining the EU would probably be a priority for them.
So there might be a need for the tin-foil but the thought control beams are probably not coming from the CIA.
Not something I want to see, but is there any possibility of Westminster getting involved if the Committee is seen to be obstructive?
Even if they can, I don’t think they would want to, but there has been a few voices raised about this on Twitter at least.
Just had a swatch at the Herald and Daily Record’s websites nada evident about today’s ruling. Whit?
Not being a lawyer, I can only guess that this makes Craig Murray’s prosecution even more unlikely.
McDuff says:
11 February, 2021 at 4:39 pm
What i don’t understand is why one of the complainers has not been charged with perjury as she stated she was assalted by AS at a venue she wasn’t even at according to a witness.
Clearly her anonymity should be lifted as she has committed a serious crime.
Exactly and why was the ‘celebrity’ who, in a pre-recorded testimony, at the trial backed her up, given anonymity exactly. What legal procedure was that about. I know who it is and utterly baffled as to why they’ve been so protected.
One source tells me it’s because it was the ‘celeb’s’ first dinner at Bute House BUT that still doesn’t make sense to me, how would revealing their identity jeopardise anything.
Why would Trump be involved when Sturgeon hated him? Isn’t it just possible that this was initiated by an insecure, jealous woman and then the monster grew arms, legs and everything else before rampaging out of control.
No sure why the CIA, MI5, Men in Black, etc. get brought up all the time.
And clearly heard from inside Bute House
Oh f/k
Get the door Frank that’s it I am offski fk this I have had enough fk the lot of them , officer get these bloody handcuffs off it’s that fkr Salmond that’s guilty and as for the stupid hunts on that bloody jury are they all deranged we had him by the balls and they fkd it up , Christ we can’t trust anyone now
Please feel free to ignore the fruity language
But I bet that’s pretty close to what’s been said Ha Ha
And suddenly the drama was reduced to a fight over the meaning of 6 words. as such complainers in those proceedings
As Craig Murray said, the only thing that’s clear is that the SNP never were looking for truth or a fair outcome. It was always about wash… whitewash , shitewash… never about finding out where it all went wrong.They know, cos they’re all in it.
If these f***ers are allowed to walk away from this,will this not create a ridiculous precedent for any unproven rape complainant to use in the future ? I’m not a lawyer either.No wonder people lose respect for the law.
Isn’t it just possible that this was initiated by an insecure, jealous woman and then the monster grew arms, legs and everything else before rampaging out of control.
Oh totally. But these things rarely grow such triffid like arms and legs if there aren’t other interests pushing things on. It doesn’t have to be one “conspiracy” where everyone’s in a room together. I suspect huge amounts of political game playing is people sitting around for months just watching events, drinking whisky and having discussions like:
“Why on earth are they doing that?”
“I have no idea, but is there a way we can use it to suit our purposes?”
“Oh, absolutely. OK, let’s…”
I’m increasingly thinking 90% of politics is theatre, tbh.
ALISON existed under Salmond – some info
“In 1999, two pipe bands and a small but enthusiastic group of Scottish Americans marched from the British Consulate to the UN—our first Parade”
Susan Stewart partner of Jeane Freeman -“Diplomat” 2001-2005 responsible for setting up and establishing the first Scottish office in the UK Embassy in Washington DS link to linkedin.com
IHI Boston – In 2007, the Scottish Government and Quality Improvement Scotland selected IHI as its partner to co-design and implement the Scottish Patient Safety Programme (SPSP).
link to ihi.org
Jason Leitch From 2005 to 2006 he was a Quality Improvement Fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, in Boston, sponsored by the Health Foundation.
Jason has worked for the Scottish Government since 2007. link to gov.scot
Derek Feeley – Scottish NHS Chief resigns link to archive.is
Promoted at IHI link to hsph.harvard.edu
Returns to UK – link to expressandstar.com
The Scottish Government has a strategic partnership with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) based in the USA.Paid
to the between 2012-2018 = £2,243,921.43 link to archive.is
Glasgow Caledonian Uni NY – link to gcnyc.com
And neither Paul Hutcheon nor Tom Gordon have fucking even tweeted about it, oh ok, what chats are going on behind the scenes with Sturgeon’s lot. Craven c****. Vraiment.
Cath @4:57 This was NEVER initiated by one woman.
I thought the “celebrity” dinner guest ID being withheld was more to do with jigsaw issues as they were known to be associates for the Yes cause?
The Spectator doing what the inquiry committee could, and should, have done if it was genuinely seeking the truth.
Cath @4:57 This was NEVER initiated by one woman.
Nope. And anyone who thinks any SNP leader of a devolved parliament has the power to pull this off and drag in all those people.organisations is a bit soft in the head, imo. I have no idea her role, but absolutely don’t believe it was prime instigator.
Sylvia says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:03 pm
Cath @4:57 This was NEVER initiated by one woman.
Yes correct BUT one woman’s historical, eh and BTW a fair claim, that had been reported and ignored by Sturgeon for years was used to set it up.
That is how utterly CORRUPT the Sturrells are.
Anyone know what’s happened to Dennis Canavan, btw? I know he’s had huge personal tragedy, but he’s one strong Yes voice who has gone totally silent.
ALISON/The “celebs” testimony was never given under oath – it was a video from where he was overseas. Why he was given anonymity I will never know-as his name has been published. I keep checking the website to see if it is there and it is. Nobody cautioned over that.
@Sylvia re the ”celeb” it wasn’t under oath? you’ve got to be joking, how the hell does that work? Fuck, that I’d no clue of.
Good! Thanks for the update!
ALISON – I believe some persons went on a “fishing expedition” and built up a case. I also believe those “fishermen” have convinced & poisoned NS mind against Salmond – probably telling her he has discredited her – however I don’t think the boat is in Scotland. “Things don’t always appear as they seem”
If nothing else this is a fascinating example of how far people will go for personal ambition. That applies to many of the players in this game because for some there is no benefit, only the destruction of a man they have personal animosity towards. But ultimately ‘their’ party and even their nation’s ambition may be destroyed.
Robert Graham ,brilliant. Hope Frank gets the door for her at Corton Vale
@Cath chatted to a good SNP bod recently and Dennis is doing fine and still working away behind the scenes.
Genuinely the MOST decent person I was in contact with when on the Yes Scotland media desk. An utter gent NOTHING was a problem, and the scale of his multiple personal grief, FUCK.
I’m not a lawyer and know little of these things but …
the court case today was hosted by the original judge, because that’s how it works.
She said that the interpretation in question was absurd.
If someone was prosecuted for contempt via an absurd interpretation, would not the case go before the original court allegedly being held in contempt ie Lady Dorian, in which case she would say ‘that’s absurd, case dismissed’.
I’m not advising you, but someone could get legal advice on this.
ALISON – It was the Police who made the video and presented it in court. I will try and find an article stating it wasn’t under oath.
Cath says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:08 pm
Anyone know what’s happened to Dennis Canavan, btw? I know he’s had huge personal tragedy, but he’s one strong Yes voice who has gone totally silent.
Last tweet 3rd Feb to say he had his vaccine appt …
@ALISON BALHARRY
“imagine if we were watching another country run by a married couple, one the leader, the other the head of their party.”
Like Romania? It didn’t end well for Nicolae Ceau?escu.
Sylvia, from Craigs article
link to publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk
Date of Award
17/12/2019
1.6.1
Term Contract Dates
Start Date: 31/12/2019 End Date: 28/02/2022
1.6.2
Value of the contract
Currency: GBP
Price: 51150
.8
Successful Bidders
1.8.1
Name and Address of successful supplier, contractor or service provider
Contract No:
Official Name:
Brodies
Official Name:
Anderson Strathern LLP
@sylvia My view they, the ”celeb”, were between spouses, as it were, in 2014, eh they may have had eh a liaison with the complainant. Seems about right.
Cheers Alison. Good to hear Dennis is still active. He was my MP as a kid back in the distant mists of time when buses taking roundabouts in Falkirk at 45 degree angles was a thing for some reason I can’t now fathom. He was one of the stars of the yes campaign. I wonder who from today’s youth will be Scotland’s “elder states people” in 30 or 40 years time? It’s hard to spot any right now.
Oh just been given, eh primary source, identity of the person charged re Cherry, oh meh goad. Where to start. Clearly I cannot but when it comes out FUCK.
@Alison Balharry
Do you know when this person is due in court and hence when they will be named?
Another brick off the wall!
ALISON “As the witness was confined to Italy by the coronavirus, the prosecution instead had to rely on testimony he gave to police over a Skype video call in June last year.
The absence of the witness meant that he was unable to be cross-examined by the defence, with the jury being advised to treat his evidence with greater caution as a consequence”. link to archive.is
Liason – doubt it-Night of dinner in Bute House he described as Woman H wearing jeans – Woman H said skirt – Samantha Barber said Woman H wasn’t there!
Why no standout statesmen or wummin Cath?
The me me me too generation have come of age. The individual and their selfish wants is woven into the systems of power.
No easy solution.
Setting an example is about as much as most can do to effect change/slow the rot.
@Mac, 3.21
Not to mention the ex-US army staffer employed by Angus Robertson.
Eh @Sylvia I mean there was a liaison at some point, who knows when, which made the ”celeb” testify. Eh that complainant, eh let’s just say, has form.
cirsium @5:37 Is “ex-US army staffer” in the public arena
crisiscult says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:31 pm
@Alison Balharry
”Do you know when this person is due in court and hence when they will be named?”
No don’t have that detail, will endeavour to find out BUT my guess will be post the election.
cirsium says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:37 pm
@Mac, 3.21
Not to mention the ex-US army staffer employed by Angus Robertson.
What, who? Meh goad.
I see STV is reporting that AS’ legal team says he will resubmit his evidence once Lady Dorrian releases the reasons for her decision, with a view to him appearing next week. AS and his legal eagles aren’t hanging about, are they? What this says to me is that AS really, really wants to give evidence. Murdo Fraser may have been premature tweeting “…compulsory, if necessary…”
Alison, she seems to like older men I guess…?
All went wrong for Angus Robertson when he “put the lotion in the basket”
I find it utterly repugnant we have a system whereby were forced to walk on eggshells to protect the identity of false accusers, liars & perjurers.
It’s time these women were named and taken to court for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and put an end to all this legal bullshit
montfleury says:
11 February, 2021 at 3:23 pm
“If Mr Salmond’s full statement is now published then comparing it to the redacted version will clearly allow the identification of one or more complainants?”
Yes i am sure that is what they will argue but it is absurd. FOI are redacted all the time when just about anybodies name or personal details are mentioned.
Andy Wightman will not use this excuse.
The cover up will just add another blanket. Hope i am wrong.
The original Wings article with the missing paragraph has been available all this time on Grousebeaters blog or was last time i looked and i have archived it.
Cath says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:07 pm
Cath @4:57 This was NEVER initiated by one woman.
Nope. And anyone who thinks any SNP leader of a devolved parliament has the power to pull this off and drag in all those people.organisations is a bit soft in the head, imo. I have no idea her role, but absolutely don’t believe it was prime instigator.
It seems to me that:
If it had been a ‘set-up’ you might be right. BUT this started as a little drop of water and Sturgeon didn’t think that she might need any drainage to ‘blackmail’ Mr Salmond into staying out of things. So she had no plug and the basin is now full to overflowing and she is going to drown.
IOW ‘For want of a nail’ logic
Fishy Wullie says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:46 pm
I find it utterly repugnant we have a system whereby were forced to walk on eggshells to protect the identity of false accusers, liars & perjurers.
I posted on a previous page the ‘rules’ laid out for anonymity and I can see no way in which these women fit in anywhere UNLESS it’s in the (political) public interest:-)
‘Andy Wightman will use this excuse’
For the first time i’ve actually looked up the remit of the inquiry. it is:
To consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s “Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers” procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code.At its meeting on 22 June 2020, the Committee agreed its approach to the inquiry and a written statement on handling of information and evidence.
Seems clear cut they need to know pieces of evidence of when the FM knew. It’s not about Salmond’s behaviour, it’s about the government’s conduct.
Still none the wiser why it really matters if Sturgeon knew 3 days before she originally submitted. It’s a good question to ask why Sturgeon cares so much about that. Equally good question to ask why Salmond’s side think it’s so important. Is it just because it leaves her open to misleading allegations?
Why wouldn’t she just come out and say she got the date wrong though, I don’t think many would give much odds? What significance does Salmond’s side attach to this?
The Founding Fathers (Mothers/transgender individuals) of an modern, progressive, and independent Scotland:
Craig Murray
Mark Hirst
Alex Salmond
Andrew Neil (!!!!!)
Re. Stuart Campbell
What we need now is Thomas Paine to set-out what we aspire to.
That should be Rev. Excommunication accepted.
Remembering that in America Kavinagh was accused of similar sexual allegations, and was also prevented from the use of certain aspects of admissible evidence that would help his case, some of you may be in thinking there are bigger players in this and the snp seem to employ them,
Surely the snp could have found legal help in Scotland if not Britain, it begs the question as to why go so faraway to a different country. Is there no legal talent here?
James Che @5:56
Look for the similarities NOT the differences!
Ross: It matters, as I understand it, because of who was at the earlier meeting, the purpose for which it was arranged, and what was discussed at it. I suspect that if these things are revealed, it will prove that there was a criminal plot against Alex Salmond, and that Sturgeon and an unnamed associate were involved in it.
Re the “celebrity” giving evidence by video about Bute House dinner . . . from what I recall of following the case via people’s live tweeting, the name was not hidden at the start of the proceedings (so people heard it and remember it) but something changed during the trial and it became another name which must not be spoken or written. No idea why.
assuming the Harassment Committee still obstructs/dithers as many seem to think likely, the ruling today is still very good news for Salmond, who can now hold his press conference, assuming that’s what he intends to do, with greater freedom to say whatever he wants to say. The shackles are off ..
@Skip_NC says:
11 February, 2021 at 5:45 pm
“Murdo Fraser may have been premature tweeting “…compulsory, if necessary…””
I think Murdo was having a dig at Sturgeon, and quite rightly too.
Alison Blaharry @4:19pm
Wonder if Lady Dorian underlining that the nine women cannot be identified as complainers in the trial is because we now know that the civil service made the complaint(s) on their behalf.
Ross. Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious criminal offense as you well know so your attempt to minimise this process is entirely worthy of a miserable bastard.
#BothVotesSNP been trending recently.
Absolutely nothing to do with either the Spectator or the latest poll dropping… sheer coincidence…
Jeezo what an end to a career and how memorable – “The Fabriani Farce”
@Ross re, ‘Still none the wiser why it really matters if Sturgeon knew 3 days before she originally submitted. It’s a good question to ask why Sturgeon cares so much about that. Equally good question to ask why Salmond’s side think it’s so important. Is it just because it leaves her open to misleading allegations?
Why wouldn’t she just come out and say she got the date wrong though.’
Hypothetically speaking, and mentioning no names.
But, if, the meeting on 29/3/18 involved a member of NS’s staff, as part of the official investigation into the allegations against Alex… and either then, or later, that same member of staff becomes one of the complainers against Alex – it invalidates the whole investigation because 1/ as complainer no-one would expect them to be impartial in the investigation and 2/ they are privy to confidential evidential disclosures from other complainers (particularly important for the Moorov Doctrin, which relies on the complainers not being connected to one another and their evidence being separate).
Lieing about the meeting date is itself irrelevant – what is important is that there is No Record of it. If records had been properly kept, they would have recorded the names of all the persons present, and would therefore have been one of the first pieces of evidence AS’s defence team would have attempted to recover.
NS did in fact come out and admit she ‘just forgot about the meeting’ to parliament, when she stated that Geoff Aberdein was an off the cuff, popped his head round the door thing.
It’s not about the timing of the meeting, its about covering up who was there.
@Ross
Really?
Are you coming into this as someone who hasn’t read or understood the timeline, the difference between government and SNP business, and who knew what and when?
Or are you taking the p*ss?
Ross suggest you read Craig Murray’s article today. He makes clear that there was another meeting 3 weeks earlier and hints at months earlier involvement by FM.
As Captain Yossarian has commented in previous posts, Watergate was a victimless crime and yet it brought down a President.
This was a ‘crime’ aimed at one specific victim to ensure that he was jailed for the rest of his life.
This is much bigger that Watergate.
Andrew Neil has done democracy a huge favour today, regardless of his political stance.
And, I believe, he has saved us for now from a catastrophic independence.
We have to define ourselves what sort of country we want to be. And it is not this.
Silver darling, he is taking the piss, he has been punting the same line for weeks now. Been absent for a few days but back again like a good little staffer.
@daisy
Fair doos hadn’t really thought about it that way.
Hypothetically, I can see why it would be tricky but invalidated in those circumstances? Is that really fair on a complainer that their complaint invalidates an investigation because of who they are or when they knew about a complaints process? Surely a complaint is a complaint regardless of who and and when it is received?
The question would be did they then recuse themselves after complaining or play an active part.
It is times like this that I wished I graduated in Law. A money fest coming up for lawyers. Former Lord Advocate up in arms, the Speccie case and Lawfare set to become common place. How about doing the right thing? A question to the Harassment Inquiry. You were formed to establish the failure of tainted bias of an HR process that lost of a significant amount of public monies. Any chance of complying with that remit? There is no legal constraint on you doing so. My word of the day ‘Absurd’
Hi Ross at 5:54 pm.
You typed,
“Still none the wiser why it really matters if Sturgeon knew 3 days before she originally submitted. It’s a good question to ask why Sturgeon cares so much about that. Equally good question to ask why Salmond’s side think it’s so important. Is it just because it leaves her open to misleading allegations?”
It matters because she told the Holyrood Parliament that Alex Salmond first told her about the allegations on 2nd April. Note the way that was worded. She didn’t say that 2nd April was a revelation to her – only that it was the first time that AS had told her about them.
It matters because NS “forgot” about the meeting on 29th March, where the 2nd April meeting was arranged.
Who was at the 29th March meeting?
See:
link to wingsoverscotland.com
link to wingsoverscotland.com
(and the following link at 2.29pm.)
Do you now see why NO official record of that meeting, held within the Holyrood Parliament building, was kept?
Geoff Aberdein just popped his head round the door? The 29th March meeting was set up at the previous March meeting that GA had with one of the participants at the 29th March meeting.
If the 29th March meeting was Scottish Government business, it should have been minuted.
If it was SNP business, it shouldn’t have taken place within the Holyrood building.
Are the pieces falling into place yet?
stuart mctavish says:
11 February, 2021 at 6:06 pm
Alison Blaharry @4:19pm
Wonder if Lady Dorian underlining that the nine women cannot be identified as complainers in the trial is because we now know that the civil service made the complaint(s) on their behalf.
Is that the case? Where is this being written?
Beaker, I must have missed that nuance. Mind you, it’s the start of the “hump” of tax season here. Trying to follow this, the impeachment trial and doing the odd tax return on the side does tend to dull the brain cells after a while.
@silver not only am I aware of it, it’s intrinsic to the point I made. Are you thick?
Once it comes out that Ms Sturgeon had the earlier meeting, it will emerge that the earlier meeting had been organised some 3 weeks before by Ms Sturgeon and it’s likely that she won’t be able to lie about when that ‘call’ was made and why it was made and it will probably reveal a whole pattern of inevitability of events should her purpose not be achieved at the first or second hurdle .
The jigsaw was never cut FGS!!
Who do nicla et al think they are fooling, taking the piss, etc, etc 🙁
Andy Wightman..
link to twitter.com
“ Whether the variation affects the publication of material that might lead to jigsaw identification and the risks in so doing can only be answered in full once Lady Dorian has published her written reasons. But, on the face of it, it does not appear to make a material change”
@Skip_NC says:
11 February, 2021 at 6:28 pm
“Beaker, I must have missed that nuance. Mind you, it’s the start of the “hump” of tax season here. Trying to follow this, the impeachment trial and doing the odd tax return on the side does tend to dull the brain cells after a while.”
Can understand that. So much to choose from 🙂
Sturgeon thought she had rigged the enquiry! Now her goose is cooked. What goes around! She has it coming.
I listened to the Jo Cherry interview on Holyrood blog. It’s an eye opener. Sturgeon is a nasty horrible woman. I can’t vote for her.
Didn’t Lord Goldsmith, then UK Attorney General, change his own advice about the legality of invading Iraq? He ruled it illegal without UN sanction, then went to the US, then said it was perfectly legal.
Nicola Sturgeon truly is Tony Blair with tits.
“No don’t have that detail, will endeavour to find out BUT my guess will be post the election.”
a) Is that because said individual is standing for election?
or
b) Very close to someone who is standing for election?
@ALISON BALHARRY says at 5:43 pm
Hi Brian
Appreciate the reasonable response.
“If the 29th March meeting was Scottish Government business, it should have been minuted.
If it was SNP business, it shouldn’t have taken place within the Holyrood building.”
To me this has been clear for some time and it should have been recorded better. I still struggle with why it matters to such an extent. Just come out and say it should have been minuted early doors. Just say your staff knew earlier in March and you were told later. She’d survive that no problem.
If she actively allowed a complainer to be involved in the investigation that’s different but I don’t see that the meetings farce proves that.
@ Ross, re ‘
Fair doos hadn’t really thought about it that way.
Hypothetically, I can see why it would be tricky but invalidated in those circumstances? Is that really fair on a complainer that their complaint invalidates an investigation because of who they are or when they knew about a complaints process? Surely a complaint is a complaint regardless of who and and when it is received?
The question would be did they then recuse themselves after complaining or play an active part.
——–
I’ll go through it bit by bit, and make it easy for you.
You say – Hypothetically, I can see why it would be tricky but invalidated in those circumstances?
Answer – Yes, in these circumstances it invalidates the whole thing. Imagine the Police arrested you on trumped up charges – you complain and they allow the same Police to investigate the complaint against them!
A fair process – no. It really is that fundamental, and established, time and again in law. Civil and Criminal.
You say – Is that really fair on a complainer that their complaint invalidates an investigation because of who they are or when they knew about a complaints process?
Answer – your question is a false one. It is not about who they are, it is not about when they made a complaint. It is about – hypothetically speaking – that they were in an investigative position, and as such had Duties to carry out, and were privy to confidential, and evidential material. For them then to add their own complaint to the mix, compromises the whole process.
——–
You say – Surely a complaint is a complaint regardless of who and and when it is received?
Answer – not if your also on the investigation team.
——
You say – The question would be did they then recuse themselves after complaining or play an active part.
Answer – this is actually a very good question, but since records of the meeting, which was then forgotten about, don’t exist, no-one can confirm their presence at the said meeting, and so no-one is getting to join the dots, and ask your very good question.
What I would suggest is their presence at the meeting on 29/3/18 would suggest they had crossed the line, and recusing themselves is something they should have done prior to that meeting, or if not, then they should not have attended.
Anyway Ross, glad to possibly clarify. Keep raising these points, there are others out there who haven’t quite joined the dots. It helps to pull it apart and run through all the possible motives from what, at first glance, seems like a simple bit of forgetfulness.
Jockanese Wind Talker says:
‘Disabled’ woo woo probably. SNP NEEDS A MASSIVE SHAKE UP. So much talent wasted 🙁
Well it looks like the Msp formerly known as a Green is not going to be any help if the inquiry team are called to a vote. Given Murdo and that Libdem guy can be distracted with a laser pointer I suspect the inquiry will do what it was designed to do and find the square root of bugger all.
Brian Doonthetoon 3:36 pm
Hi Kenny.
I think the first time I posted the Shropshire Star one was 5th August last year, where I was commenting on Kirsty Wark giving out jigsaw information in her documentary.
I’ve posted it around three or four times since.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Cheers, Brian. I try to read most, if not all comments (no work gets done!) – the comments sometimes as riveting as the post – but it’s not always possible, for no sooner have comments been posted when Stuart has another devastating update..
“Nicola Sturgeon truly is Tony Blair with tits”
Aye, Swinney and Yusaf are a pair of tits for starters @John says at 6:42 pm
🙂
O/T Bowie gets his erse back on a very large plate
link to twitter.com
Alex Salmond’s lawyers are studying the judgement
link to archive.is
@ Ross re, ‘To me this has been clear for some time and it should have been recorded better. I still struggle with why it matters to such an extent. Just come out and say it should have been minuted early doors. Just say your staff knew earlier in March and you were told later. She’d survive that no problem.
If she actively allowed a complainer to be involved in the investigation that’s different but I don’t see that the meetings farce proves that.’
Dear Ross, you ‘don’t see that the meetings farce proves that’. No-one else sees that the meetings farce proves that because the record of the meeting was not kept.
If it had been kept in the correct manner, it would have listed all who were at the meeting and the subject matter of the meeting.
Hence the reason for it being wiped from record and memory.
Your question is on a par with, I can see why, if there was evidence that someone committed a crime, it would be a big deal for them to hide the evidence, but since I can’t see any evidence, what’s the big deal about them hiding it?
Anyway Ross, keep asking these questions. You are not alone in not quite getting the bigger picture, some folks are coming in half way through. Happy to help.
O/T
Terry says at 3:53 pm
“The motto of Scotland is “Nemo me impune lacessit”, or: “No one provokes me with impunity”.”
No. It isn’t. That which you quote is the motto of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle.
The motto of Scotland, or to be correct the motto of the King/Queen of Scots, is IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND, usually abbreviated to IN DEFENS; appearing as the Slughorn (slogan) above the helmet on the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom as used in Scotland, and all other versions used in Scotland prior to the advent of the UK.
The motto of the Order of the Thistle was included in the Royal Arms of Charles II and retained thereafter. His version of Royal Arms used in Scotland then matched the arms used in England, in that they included the Royal motto, in England’s case “Dieu et mon droit”, and the motto of the chivalric order of that country “Honi soit qui mal y pense” (Order of the Garter) in the case of England.
In my defens
God me defend
and bring my saulle
to ane guid end
O Lord
ALISON Take your latest Twitter tweet down for you sake
Andy Wightman really isn’t doing his reputation any favours. This is his take on what today’s court ruling means link to twitter.com
I’m sure the Spectator spent a load of money going to court to ensure the accusers could be named on a parking ticket!
@holymacmoses
One of the findings of the review of the judicial review being that complaints were made directly to police against the wishes of at least one of the original witness(es)
(think I read it on wings – but google also found this):
link to twitter.com
It just dawned on me after reading an article from last year on just how crucial it is to the inquiry not only that they recieve the unredacted evidence from Alex Salmond but the unredacted evidence from Geoff Aderdein as well.
Some blanks in timetimes will definately be filled in if that evidence contains what I now suspect it does.
Without incriminating myself and by proxy Wings I’ll not be posting my theory of events on here, but this coming week is potentially shaping up to be very very interesting.
One positive outcome of all of this (if there can be any):
“” A public information campaign will now be launched, to advise people (men), and assist them navigate the potential minefield of what is now viewed as appropriate / inappropriate close contact in a professional setting.
The campaign called “Is This Inappropriate?” will launch in early March this year.
The campaign will feature a series of images of a man and a woman in close contact in a workplace setting.
The campaign message of “Is this inappropriate?” will feature prominently, complemented with a tag of Yes or No contained in the image, to drive home the simple messaging. “”
link to i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk
Recent documentary footage of a Sturgeon/SNP Holyrood meeting.
link to m.youtube.com
holymacmoses, Andy Wightman pinned Evans on this point that she had gone against her own protocol by informing the crown office rather than the police. I think it went to the Crown agent, Harvey, who apparently is a spook in place there.
Gordon Dangerfield’s blog and the commenters btl there have gone through the procedure methodically and painstakingly and Evans broke her own procedure. Its well worth reading his stuff and also the comments where things get clarified and expanded upon, particularly with “Contrary” who also comments here.
I haven’t read all the comments and no doubt this has already been said, but you all know what comes next don’t you?
The committee says, OK, it seems we could have published these submissions quite legally in the first place, oops. But we can’t publish them now, because all these shenanigans have made it clear to the public that the reason we refused originally was that some women were named in the submissions, because of their involvement with the complaints process, and we believed they couldn’t be named at all even though the submissions didn’t include the information that they were complainers.
Now everyone knows that the women named in the submissions are indeed complainers, even though the submissions don’t say so. So of course we can’t publish them now even though we could have published them in the first place.
[REDACTED]
What a mess.
Hi Ross.
From the Garavelli story at:-
link to archive.is
“The second woman was Nicola Sturgeon. She too was said to be on the witness list though never called. And yet, she was omni-present. Every time her name was mentioned, political journalists pricked up their ears.
When Salmond’s former Chief of Staff Geoff Aberdein told the court he and one of the complainers had first met with her on March 29, 2018 – four days earlier than the date she previously gave the Scottish Parliament – several of them almost spontaneously combusted. “
From my post on 5th August last year, typing about the Kirsty Wark documentary…
link to wingsoverscotland.com
“When the “edited” version of Monday’s programme was reuploaded to iPlayer, what I did was play the original version and the new version side by side, in synchronisation.
I fully expected to hear a jump in the audio at around 45m15s (Day 8), where Wark said,
“When Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein took the stand he added fuel to the political firestorm. He stated he’d met Nicola Sturgeon and one of the women on the 29th March 2018.”
This segment compounds the contempt of ‘the Garavelli group’. in that it provides sufficient ‘jigsaw’ info to do a Google search.
link to archive.is
Paste the next line into Google and see what turns up.
Aberdein sturgeon march
You don’t think this whole cover-up stinks?
Think we need to do a crowd funder for an honest friend
Just when you thought you were figuring out most of it
Surely not
link to twitter.com
Morag – the committee’s absurd interpretation, or inconsistent application, of the anonymity order has ALREADY made it very hard to ignore an identity. Stupidity? Or other motives? I don’t know, but if they don’t even have the sense to understand those basics, they are hardly going to be capable of doing their job. This has been going on from the start.
Like, I wrote notes down from Salmond’s submission with no references (it was just for context) – so I don’t know what the para 26 info was that I wasn’t meant to know! Jeez. I guessed from Wings article, but honestly – there are a whole host of things like that. If they just left the info intact, no one is going to suspect (unless they already know), so why not just leave it? That’s why I suspect it’s just to try and bait people into saying things they shouldn’t.
@daisy
Thanks , I do actually appreciate the breakdown there and it has helped my understanding of the date farce. At least some can have a reasonable discussion on here.
I’m not sure I agree with your assertion that hypothetically an investigator cannot complain without it invalidating a whole investigation.
A complaint is personal to them and they should be free to disclose it and for it to he taken seriously. What matters is when it was disclosed and whether they recused themselves. It also matters whether the person is actually an investigator or someone part of the investiagtion. There’s a difference.
It would be appalling for the actions of one complainer to invalidate complaints from multiple people. I can’t agree that’s right.
Just my view.
Jacqueline McMillan
You from Govanhill?
Wightman seems determined to interpret the (predicted) wording of Lady Dorrian’s ruling in a way that will support his original decision. It is a strain to interpret the language in that way.
Isn’t it quite plain that the ruling means the complainers can be referred to in evidence, but not ‘as such’, i.e. not as complainers in the case of HMA v AEA Salmond?
@ Mike Cassidy
“Just when you thought you were figuring out most of it…
Looks like the tweet has been deleted?
@ Mike Cassidy
“Just when you thought you were figuring out most of it…
Looks like the tweet has been deleted?
—> Just swap Caesar for alba. I used the Scots Gov double spacing technique below, just remove the spaces
link to twitter.com L B A/status/1359681403470950402
Sylvia at 5:33 pm
Your included link to the Archived article – link to archive.is – includes ‘journalist’ Chris Green’s slant;
The trial was also punctuated by the hacking cough of Gordon Jackson QC, for Mr Salmond, who had to apologise while he was cross-examining one of his client’s victims on the fifth day.
It appears that referring to ‘victims’ is de rigueur before and after a trial involving Alex Salmond, and certainly before a jury has reached verdict?
Don’t forget the “!”at the end of “Caesar!”.
Hi A Balharry.
RE: your tweet. I had already worked out two of them and had a suspicion that the actor was whom you named but couln’t find out any reference via Google.
The third wasn’t on my radar.
So, now I know 3 + the actor. Whit’s ‘e faird o’?
Joanna Cherry tweeted earlier today that the nature of the threats made against her, from an SNP member, were of a ‘corrective rape’ type MO.
That being the case, I would have thought it counter productive for the SNP as a party, or indeed the courts, to appear to be trying to preserve this accused’s persons anonymity.
I would have thought they would be issuing all round memos and public statements, encouraging anyone who has suffered similar ‘support services’ up to and including Police involvement (whether they want it or not).
It takes a particular kind of mind set to threaten a female with ‘corrective rape’, it’s not like calling losing your temper and calling them a bitch. I doubt if this is an isolated incident, and I doubt if JC has been the first target of such abuse.
I’m sure the SNP, keen as they are to encourage woman to join politics, will be all over this… any minute now, just wait.
The SNP is going to the dogs in a hand karte.
Anyway, if anyone does know the name of the suspect in this case, or even what legislative order has been passed preventing them from being publically named?
If they are keeping a weathered eye on Scottish Court Lists to see when that person attends at court, they should bear in mind, that the hearing might not be Stirling Court that they attend.
Legally it could be held at any of the courts in Stirlingshire, Fife and Tayside – its all the one Sheriffdom.
Or if, since it was a telecommunications act offence, the locus could be deemed to be Edinburgh – so worth keeping an eye on that one too.
If you happen to be scrolling down the court lists for the day, be aware also, that generally they are listed alphabetically, but if they get a late addition, it can be added in right at the end. Just so you know.
If found guilty, I hope the court grant s the accused, a custody sentence and h e is karte d off for a long time. There’s simply no excuse for that type of verbal violence.
Daisy Walker says:
11 February, 2021 at 8:25 pm
The name is now out there and I can just see what the defence will be.
Subtle naming, Daisy.
8=)
I think I finally found the missing parts of my suspicions.
I’ve sat here for half an hour in utter astonishment.
This changes everything and goes right to the top of the government and civil service.
I need a whisky.
+1 on the call for wings article timestamp along with date. Gets confusing for us to piece things together Stuart because we’re not lawyers you see.
It should be obvious to all who have reading WOS BTL comments over the past 6 months or so, WHO were at the 29th March meeting, in Holyrood, that was NOT recorded as a Scottish Government meeting.
From reports in the Mainstream Media, Nicola was there. Liz Lloyd was there, Geoff Aberdein was there.
Also, from Kirsty Wark’s documentary, we know that one of the “victims” was there and we know the same from the Garavelli story..
How many were at that “head round the door” meeting?
I don’t know what you mean BDTT.
I am only pointing out which courts, might be utilised, for the upcoming appearance of the accused who threatened JC.
I’ve seen no evidence that there has been any court order granted preventing the naming of sa id person.
And I cannot see how any kind of civil Interdict or Superinjunction could have been grant ed, since the very nature of the offence would have almost certainly invoked the person being released on both Standard Bail Conditions and Special Bail Conditions – which by their very nature cannot be ‘private and confidential’.
The alternative instead of that, is that the threats were considered so serious (and realistic) that the accused has been remanded in custody. And I doubt that, for some reason.
It’s all going to hell in a hand karte – as they say.
Anyway a l ert readers on w i n gs will make up their own minds and no doubt do their own research.
laukat @ 7.04pm
Totally beyond belief. The ruling is clear. Andy Wightman has been bought by the Sturgeon Cabal. God how he must regret it now.
Can I reiterate my full and unequivocal support of our first minister by echoing her call for ANYONE who has any information which can help this enquiry to be allowed to give evidence on oath before this committee.
Och Puzzled. You haven’t been keeping up with events, iye?
Brian Doonthetoon 2.44pm
Wasn’t Liz Lloyd also on Alex Salmond’s staff?
I’m in New Zealand so the injunction re naming people doesn’t apply to me. Ms H? The wee bugger.
Kiwilassie,
It might not apply in NZ, but if you post it here you could get the site into trouble.
For your info.
Puzzled…
Your ‘handle’ is well selected.
I know, because I emailed Rev Stu months ago, that it is OK to link to what is already in the public domain, eg archived web pages. Hence my comments today.
It’s up to readers to put two and two together.
@ Bob Mack Do you have an exact date for Alex’s speech November 2017 in Dundee criticising NS’s inaction on independence? I ask because IIRC the whole sexual harrassment saga kicked off with a complaint to Ian McCann of the SNP on November 5th, the one he said “we’ll bank this until we need it”.
Re the “American law firm”. I haven’t read Craig’s blog yet (having enough trouble keeping up with Wings) but if he’s referring to an international law firm such as Baker & McKenzie these firms have offices in countries all over the world staffed by local lawyers at partner level and below. (Eg B&M have offices in London and Belfast) It doesn’t mean that they take their orders from the CIA.
Re “why do we need someone from Boston to advise on the NHS”. I assume this is referring to the Boston Consulting Group which is a well-known international management consulting firm which has practices in most major countries. Having worked for another consulting company I can tell you that organisations like the NHS are usually incapable of reforming themselves. If they were capable they’d already have done so. When asked why they do things in certain ways the answer is “because we’ve always done it this way”.
I once worked with a guy who’d previously worked in London for the Auditor-General’s Department. A large part of their work was conducting efficiency audits in NHS hospitals and he told me about some of the glaring inefficiencies they uncovered. By bringing in external consultants you get someone who’s not subject to the internal groupthink and can bring perspectives from other similar operations internationally and even from other industries.
Re Duncan Hamilton. The Kennedy Scholarship was founded by the British Government in memory of JFK to provide scholarships for British graduates to take postgraduate study at either Harvard or MIT. The US Government’s only role is to issue entry visas to the successful candidates. Being the recipient of a scholarship and studying at Harvard doesn’t make DH a CIA spy.
I have to say that the level of paranoia exhibited BTL on Wings is excessive. Every man and his dog is accused of being an MI5 agent or a CIA spy or a secret Yoon taking orders from Downing Street. There’s a much simpler answer – this all originated from Sturgeon’s insecurity and her fellow plotters are her acolytes in the SNP and SG. It’s a homegrown conspiracy, no outside help required.
Wee Chid says:
11 February, 2021 at 8:49 pm
Daisy Walker says:
11 February, 2021 at 8:25 pm
The name is now out there and I can just see what the defence will be.
…. his Daddy Bear made him do it…..?