If you don’t want to know
Posted on
March 16, 2021 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
…simply don’t ask the question.
And the problem will magically go away.
(Click to enlarge.)
Of course, sometimes the opposite applies.
So: the Crown Office refuses to provide material it’s asked for and “dissuades” the Fabiani committee from obtaining that material legally, but also attempts to force onto the police material the police haven’t asked for – and don’t want because it could unlawfully contaminate a criminal investigation – while the Scottish Government tries to make a public statement that the police consider improper and, when foiled by the prospect of a court interdict, leak the information to the Daily Record instead.
Normal healthy country. All is well. Don’t look behind the curtain.
If the committee will not avail themselves of legal recourse, then I expect Alex Salmond will.
So I take it the committee will be sent this info privately or is he going to just say FUK it and let us all see it,what’s he got lose
Just release it to mcaskil get it out there
Christ I hate them.
More arse covering by the Lord Advocate and COPFS under the guise of legal threats which the Scotland Act overrides.
You honestly couldnt make this pish up if you tried.
Fabiani’s Farce. Never a name has been more appropriate to design this clown’s team and this insulting whitewash.
Who put that buffoon in charge of the Committee? Was the Lord Advocate, Sturgeon, or the crown agent?
Embarrassing is an understatement.
The latest con?
For all of you who haven’t seen this yet:
link to archive.is
Scotland, Open for Monkey Business.
As long as there are Murrells at Bute House.
I am sorry, but I really don’t understand what is being said in the tweet. Can someone explain it to me in plain English?
I’d ask can it get any worse, but I know it can.
Where on earth is the James Hamilton report?
I have never seen any form of investigative team go to such lengths to avoid seeing evidence.
I do not believe that in any other walk of life members appointed to an investigation would agree to their name being attached to the findings following a such blatant manipulation of events.
Most people I know would have resigned to protect their own integrity/reputation.
The process may be outwith your individual control but your continued position on the committee is entirely by choice. This will be your legacy for many years to come. Few people will forgive you for giving credability to such a blatant whitewash.
Scotland now has a major problem with virtually all major public bodies.
Cronyism is rife and this suppresses the proper systems of accountability and quality assurance.
We need a systemic change and we need it very soon.
In my view, before independence.
link to tns2019.org
Fabiani’s committee isn’t an inquiry, it’s a spinquiry.
“I am sorry, but I really don’t understand what is being said in the tweet. Can someone explain it to me in plain English?”
I’m really not sure how much plainer it could get 🙁
In relation to a minister of the crown, that subsection of s23 is heavily qualified by other parts – see sub-sections (3) and (4). It isn’t clear to me that the Committee has such power here, but I’m no lawyer. However, ss3 and 4 don’t specifically state ss1, so maybe ss1 overrides all? Not sure about that as then ss3 and 4 don’t make sense – to what requirement do they refer? It doesn’t appear to be ss2, so it must be ss1?
(1)The Parliament may require any person—
(a)to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence, or
(b)to produce documents in his custody or under his control,
concerning any subject for which any member of the [F1Scottish Government] has general responsibility.
(2)Subject to subsection (3), the Parliament may impose such a requirement on a person outside Scotland only in connection with the discharge by him of—
(a)functions of the Scottish Administration, or
(b)functions of a Scottish public authority or cross-border public authority, or Border rivers functions (within the meaning of section 111(4)), which concern a subject for which any member of the [F1Scottish Government] has general responsibility.
(3)In relation to the exercise of functions of a Minister of the Crown, the Parliament may not impose such a requirement on—
(a)him (whether or not he continues to be a Minister of the Crown), or
(b)a person who is or has been in Crown employment, within the meaning of section 191(3) of the M1Employment Rights Act 1996,
unless the exercise concerns a subject for which any member of the [F1Scottish Government] has general responsibility.
(4)But the Parliament may not impose such a requirement in pursuance of subsection (3) in connection with the exercise of functions which are exercisable—
(a)by the Scottish Ministers as well as by a Minister of the Crown, or
(b)by a Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Scottish Ministers.
(5)Subsection (4)(b) does not prevent the Parliament imposing such a requirement in connection with the exercise of functions which do not relate to reserved matters.
(6)Where all the functions of a body relate to reserved matters, the Parliament may not impose such a requirement on any person in connection with the discharge by him of those functions.
(7)The Parliament may not impose such a requirement on—
(a)a judge of any court, or
(b)a member of any tribunal in connection with the discharge by him of his functions as such.
(8)Such a requirement may be imposed by a committee or sub-committee of the Parliament only if the committee or sub-committee is expressly authorised to do so (whether by standing orders or otherwise).
(9)A person is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce in proceedings in a court in Scotland.
(10)A procurator fiscal is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document concerning the operation of the system of criminal prosecution in any particular case if the Lord Advocate—
(a)considers that answering the question or producing the document might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, and
(b)has authorised the procurator fiscal to decline to answer the question or produce the document on that ground.
It stinks of a cover up and of corruption right to the top. Time for some serious spring cleaning and use some sterilization tactic liquid too for those really stubborn stains on our democracy. You never know what you might find down the back of the SNP common room couch,£500k? Strange things do happen at the SNP/State Nepotistic Party.
Andrea I’m confused, what tweet?
Could Alex Salmond seek a judicial review of the Committee and its Work? Could he sue some of the culprits who gave evidence to the Committee?
Apologies, for clarity, s23(1) can used on salmond lawyers, but I don’t think it can be used on a minister of the crown etc. 23(3) and (4).
I was responding to the comment below re COPFS AND the Lord Advocate.
Anonymoose says:
16 March, 2021 at 1:27 pm
More arse covering by the Lord Advocate and COPFS under the guise
No provincial govt. would get away with this level of banana republic nonsense. I’m deeply worried that this theatre is going to lead to a “revelatory and sensational” investigation (some serious outfit, panorama, etc. ) that will end in “national” outrage, and lead to the legislative evaporation of the powers of the SC. The unionist parties will gravely and reluctantly agree and acquiesce, the SNP will be so damaged that it will be completely powerless.
If indeed this is the arc. What now?
I think you might have given WGD the new logo for his site.
We see nothing SNP bad
We speak nothing SNP bad
We’ll hear nothing SNP bad
Quelle surprise!
Hamerdoon says:
16 March, 2021 at 1:45 pm
Apologies, for clarity, s23(1) can used on salmond lawyers, but I don’t think it can be used on a minister of the crown etc. 23(3) and (4).
I was responding to the comment below re COPFS AND the Lord Advocate.
Which is exactly why Alex and his lawyers offered to present that evidence to the inquiry under notice of the Scotland Act, they can request from them any evidence they state they hold, no matter the reasons for them holding it.
The COPFS line that doing so would be unlawful is complete bollocks.
Is the crown agent a lawyer?
Because if he is, you would expect him to know that he could not give the police he expected to investigate the case the government’s own one-sided conclusions, pollute their investigations and tarnishing their own impartiality. Mr Salmond had not had the opportunity to defend himself.
Every average joe knows that doing such a think would compromise the police’s impartiality and would be a way of influencing their decision because the police’s wages are paid by the government. It is logical that the police would not want to upset the government.
If this is common sense for the average citizen, you would expect far more professionalism and common sense from a crown agent, particularly if he has been educated in law. This comes across almost as pulling rank, which is rather unprofessional.
So, I wonder, is this man really educated in law and this was just his subtle but professionally questionable way to pull rank an put pressure on the police?
The Spectator will print all of it. They have already said that. Go for it, Alex. There is a great mood of public disquiet about this case and it is best remedied by putting as much information in the public domain as possible. You set the agenda, not the Committee. It is your life that has been wasted away these past few years.
Let the Santorini-style whitewashing commence…
And there’s still folk on here saying…
‘oh, but we simply must vote SNP 1, don’t you see?’
FFS!
link to holyrood.com
“It is interesting seeing the whole thing set out like this because you can see the way that Wolffe has been corrupted by politics. I don’t mean corrupted in any financial sense. I mean corrupted by the need to say whatever your boss or your client wants to hear. And that is the last thing that is helping your client.”
Another piece in the jigsaw.
The three wise monkeys……..
It may also signify a code of silence in gangs, or organized crime.
What was the alleged link between the leak to the Daily Record and the Scottish Government again?
I seem to recall that the Journalist who led the story had allegedly a connection to a woman close to Nicola Sturgeon.
@Bob W,
The Glenn Campbell one.
I just don’t understand the wording, who is who and what they are saying.
I even read the comments on twitter, but nothing was said.
No scottish body is free off this cronyism. Any further attempts at sorting this out must be done with the gloves off.
It is clear that scotland is a corrupt little oligarchy and there is no point in doing this legally.
If you can’t read that Andrea then specsavers is your 1st priority when things open up. Sorry
Shame there’s no MP in Westminster prepared to table it.
They have immunity there, don’t they?
TNS2019 – ‘The grievances raised by the complainants are clearly legitimate and yet when raised through the normal channels appear to have been met with obfuscation and denial leading me to conclude that there are systemic problems within the organisation involving a lack of regulatory oversight and quality assurance.’ May I presume that Mr Swinney was involved?…at arms length?…ask a question, wait for 4-6 weeks, and an answer comes back to a question you didn’t ask?
Believe me, every single public body that reports to John Swinney behaves in this semi-authoritarian manner. Would this have happened pre-Holyrood, I wonder?
It should have been a Judge led inquiry from the very start maybe then we wouldn’t have had the civil servants and other witnesses allegedly “ forgetting “ their evidence . I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t have got away with that in front of a Judge .
The Committee have the powers to request the evidence from Alex Salmond’s lawyers and if they’re not going to get that evidence it just shows up the total corruption by the Snp/Scottish Government , the Parliament and the Snp party as well .
I sincerely hope that Alex Salmond decides to take the whole lot of them to court .
Surely this is what wikileaks is for?
Dump it the day before the committee is due to release their report and see if they still go ahead with it.
@ Andrea: I sympathise! My understanding [such as it is!] of Glenn Campbell’s twitter is that the two police officers told Mr Harvie [Crown Agent in COPFS, and also an MI5 person] that they disagreed with the plan that Scottish Government would release a public statement with the results of their “investigation” into sexual harassment complaints against Alex Salmond, which statement would also refer to the fact that the police were involved.
The police also declined to accept from Mr Harvie a copy of the written report of Scot Gov’s investigation.
Mr Bonobo
They’ll be no need for Wikileaks. This stuff will get plastered all over the net a week b4 election if no resolution has come forth. Too many leakers now,the dam will burst and there will be no where to hide.
What has Liz Lloyd got on the Lord Advocate. Clearly he is shitting his pants!
Maybe this is clearer for Andrea?
link to aol.co.uk
So it seems Don Sturgleone has given her Fabiani committee the task of protect the code of Omertà within the SNP .So unless your viewing a website like this there’s not much chance now of any of it reaching the electorate in a form that will be coherent enough for them to make an informed decision .Take into account that you plaster Indie ref 2 all over the ballot and bought and paid for media and bobs your uncle here we go again
The time is upon those in politics to put self interest aside and either speak up against your own party or remove yourself from a committee designed to protect the guilty
A vote for SNP is only a vote for more corruption ,lies backed up with dictatorial state control and removal of basic freedoms ,good luck to all who think the SNP can be changed after the election if you speak out then it’s off to the Gulag for you time
There is no evidence
Yes there is – ask my lawyers
We cannot, it is not allowed
Yes you can under the powers I have indicated. Our counsel agrees.
The people who would be implicated if such evidence is shown say we cannot see it. We will not ask to see it. We can never see it.
There is no evidence.
@Sarah,
thanks for that.
So what would be the issue of knowing what the internal investigation uncovered, if anything? So, if I read it right, the police did NOT want whatever that was from the Crown Office (an emanation of the SG). But what was the issue?
How can the police stop whoever from making a statement?
(So the Harvie guy is NOT the of the green variety…)
I am sorry if these are trivial question for this learned audience, but belittling questions is something that usually the Crown Office and the SG is good at…
@Sarah,
thanks for that.
So what would the issue be in knowing what the internal investigation uncovered, if anything? So, if I read it right, the police did NOT want whatever that was from the Crown Office (an emanation of the SG). But what was the issue?
How can the police stop whoever from making a statement?
(So the Harvie guy is NOT the of the green variety…)
I am sorry if these are trivial question for this learned audience, but belittling questions is something that usually the Crown Office and the SG is good at…
Oops… sorry. Duplicate comment. I thought the first time it hadn’t go through. Please delete.
MI5 the Security Services , The British Government , the Tory party and every other member of the Establishment don’t have to get involved and fight against any proposed change in the Constitutional setup of this United Kingdom , they don’t have to all they have to do is sit back.
This Version of the SNP left to their own devices are perfectly capable of fkn it up themselves.
Want to stop Indyref2 no problem just give Nicola a call ” SORTED ” eh next ! .
Maybe want to build a parallel Parliament right in the centre of Edinburgh again no problem same solution give her a wee call, oh these mugs that trusted her who cares shes got them fooled
From the comparative safety of Wales I have read with interest, if not little dismay , quite a bit of this blog
The snippets from the Moderator are convincing and very well researched
Thereafter however the threads seem to deteriorate into a series of contradictory posts, some declaratory, some accusatory and a few just plain rude
It seems to me that if this is ever going to be sorted out then the first step in addressing the problem is to admit that you have a problem. This whole bag of nails is a Scottish lash-up. The tortuous attempts to lay the blame on Westminster do not I suspect convince even their authors -at least not in their lucid moments
As an example one recent thread offered various ‘solutions’ which could be broadly divided into 4 categories;
1. They are corrupt, venal and deranged-vote them out
2. They are corrupt, venal and deranged but I’m going to vote for them anyway because I am a proud Scottish person and I hate the Tories/English (or as the case may be)
3. They are corrupt, venal and deranged-we need to ensure (Method unexplained) that they get a small or no majority and have to work with others and may do what we want
4. And the last-a collector’s item; they are corrupt, venal and deranged-lets give them just what they dont want-a thumping majority- so that when they don’t do the one thing we do want them to do we can sort them out (Method unexplained) at some indeterminate future date
This whole thing needs properly funded legal action or a police investigation. The only people who’ve done anything so far are the Spectator.
Anyway, good luck
I’ll get me coat
Stoker says:
16 March, 2021 at 1:30 pm
The latest con?
For all of you who haven’t seen this yet:
link to archive.is
Stu covered this story earlier today.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
@Ayrshire Rob
The SNP lackeys are obviously trying to suppress things indefinitely.
However, I think the Unionists want to suppress things just a little longer. They don’t seem to be pressing the case, happy to hide behind Wightman’s siding with the lackeys. I mean when have you ever known Cole-Hamilton, Fraser and Baillie to keep their mouths shut about anything remotely damaging to the SNP?
My hunch is that they know what the evidence is, they know who has it and would prefer it became public on their terms.
If it all comes out prior to the report being published and considered by parliament then it is very easy for Sturgeon to bat away any questions about it during the campaign.
If it starts coming out during the campaign, well good luck with your Covid press conferences First Minister.
@Robbo,
thanks, it does help.
I can see Allan and McMillan losing their seats.
How high are they on the lists ?
We’re running out of time to save our Banana Republic Parliament.
Go to the papers. Leak it in Parliament. Anything.
Bring the Government down!
We’re at a crazy point in Scotland where there are almost certainly politically switched on cleaners and cafe staff working in the Scottish government who know things its senior management don’t about things their organisation has redacted and is keeping hidden. I’m not sure that can be sustainable.
@Andrea,
The police must investigate complaints independently. They cannot take a lead from 3rd party investigations. Otherwise, they would end up in court facing the same accusations of ‘unfairness’ and ‘tainted by bias’ in terms of their investigation.
They cannot stop anybody from making public statements but the concern is that once the complaints have been made public, any statement has the potential to impair or influence their investigation. They probably had concerns about the privacy of the complainants too.
It just demonstrates that the Scottish Government had absolutely no regard for the welfare of the complainants or ensuring due process was observed. They had a different goal in mind.
There will be repercussions…..hiding evidence wont make it disappear. Its just prolonging the agony.
Thanks, @The Dissident, that clarifies it. However I can’t understand why if the police are investigating X and I have relevant information why I am not allowed to pass it on.
John Martini says:
16 March, 2021 at 2:13 pm
No scottish body is free off this cronyism. Any further attempts at sorting this out must be done with the gloves off.
It is clear that scotland is a corrupt little oligarchy and there is no point in doing this legally.
What illegal action are you proposing, specifically?
i would not hold your breath for a favourable hamilton report.please refer to alex salmond written submittions where he expresses his concerns as to the narrowness of hamiltons remit,given to him by the dep. first minister.alex salmond confirms that using that remit,even he (alex salmond)doubts very much that the ministerial code has been broken.
I hope Alex gives the committee a couple of days to consider their position.
If no further movement to accept the evidence, make sure the Spectator publishes on the same day as the committee report.
They are gonny look like complete diddies.
Sturgeon’s snails-pace reopening plan is going to do for her.
“The tortuous attempts to lay the blame on Westminster do not I suspect convince even their authors -at least not in their lucid moments”
And there we go. Once again a desperate attempt to cut and hide the umbilical cord that is uniting to the British state this spectacular mess and proverbial attempt to suppress evidence from the public in an attempt to keep a corrupt political impostor in control of the SNP and stop independence.
Sorry, but it won’t do. We can see the British state’s fingers in all this. We are talking about unelected UK civil servants and a crown agent here. We are talking about a collection of opposition parties, incidentally all pro union and all with HQ down in England, that are deliberately leaving this evidence to remain suppressed from the public, who have allowed this inquiry to be made a farce by Fabiani and the corrupt COPFS, who allowed perjury in a court of law and rushed to protect the perjurers because the accused was Mr Salmond who is fair game when it comes to smears because that will reduce the risk of independence.
We have, in line with that tweet in the article above, a crown agent, that if I am not mistaken is educated in law, attempting to pull rank and foist on the police a dodgy, unlawful and biased dossier by the government, knowing that this could have compromised the police’s impartial stance and worse, sending a message that it is the government who pays the police’s wages, aka their boss, who wrote that report. Let’s not forget that the 2 women at the heart of this did not want this being reported to the police. And let’s not forget that by this time, Mr Salmond was not given an opportunity to defend himself nor it was established beyond doubt that those women were not lying.
At the heart of this we also have UK civil servants whose boss is in Whitehall.
So this is not just “a Scottish lash up”. The British state’s dirty fingers are all over this.
@Andrea,
If you have first hand information, of course you can tell them.
But you can’t go around doing your own investigation, gathering 3rd party information, then give them a report based on that.
You may also be aware that prior to the Govt investigation the police also told them that they were not qualified to undertake an investigation that may involve criminality and that if there was any suggestion that there was criminality involved they should signpost the complainers to advocacy services rather than ‘support’ them in-house.
This inquiry alone should have been enough to persuade you not to vote SNP.
But when you add in the theft of money from public funds and pushing through policies that Stalin would have been proud of, then all that combined just goes to prove that the SNP are nothing more than a shower of gangsters.
i don”t believe the snp to be gangsters(putin)but what this has shown to one and all,is that the institutions of government are not fit for purpose.
Very patient and respectful to Andrea, The Dissident; commendable.
A little-bit here, a little bit there, timing the release of information to perfection. Yes, the unionist Sturgeon-busters are very much choosing their moment. A great ambivalence will sweep through me when she’s pictured with her head in her hands – ‘Good, that swine’s rumbled!’ but, ‘Bang goes trust in Indy for a long, long time’..
@Ross Kilbride
Salmond’s (strong) case to the enquiry is that elements of the SNP conspired to send him to jail.
You think that if that’s ‘all’ that happened people should still vote SNP??
Simply unbelievable I can’t understand what logic they are applying.
Is this madness or complete incompetence.
Totally agree with Ross Kilbride @ 3.23 pm. Anyone who has been following even a fraction of this disgraceful debacle who intends to vote SNP whilst the Murrell gang remain in charge needs to think again. Who in their right mind would vote for another 5 years of this administration? They have to be voted out of office. Our international standing has plummeted and Boris already has every justification he needs to disband Holyrood on the basic of endemic corruption in all the organs of government.
Most of the public are blissfully unaware of what has been going on. We need the whole truth of what has been done by our “Government” out in the open now. The effect would be dynamite. The SNP would be toast and the Murrells, plus quite a few others, would be looking down the barrel of a prison sentence. We can only hope the dam breaks soon.
Seems someone in the COPFS has been dishing out Memo 618’s.
@Mia – Scottish law is completely separate from English law and always has been. There is no UK hand in this; how could there possibly be? This is home-grown corruption which has been allowed to manifest at Holyrood because the UK Gov has not taken an interest in it.
Get rid of Sturgeon ASAP and things will start to fall back into place again. Undisguised corruption like this kills democacy and kills the spirit of a nation and it should be corrected by the Scots, not by the English.
“Scottish law is completely separate from English law and always has been”
And what has that to do with it?
Are you telling me now that lawyers and crown agents down in England has as a matter of routine to foist onto the police biased and unlawful government reports to “persuade” them to investigate?
“There is no UK hand in this”
Sure. And the earth is flat.
@Andrea I’m not sure if this helps with what you want to know, but- if I’m understanding it correctly – it helped me. If I’m totally misunderstanding, feel free to delete Rev.
From my understanding, the usual way a criminal investigation works (or should) is that the police patiently, diligently gather evidence and create a report. That report, along with all the evidence, then goes to the Crown Office / Procurator Fiscal, who then decide whether the case and evidence is strong enough to prosecute in court of law. If they think it’s strong enough, it then goes to prosecution.
In this case, the Scottish Government (Leslie Evans) went directly to the Crown Office (David Harvie, who she line managed) with what very little “evidence” they had. Bear in mind what they had was found at judicial review to be “unfair, unlawful and apparently biased” and the police had already advised them their staff were not competent to deal with criminal complaints and the complainers should be passed on to specialist services. Bear in mind also the complainants didn’t want to go to the police so this was without their consent.
There then appears to have been pressure put on the police (by whom? I’m not totally sure here – the SG, the Crown Office?) to begin an investigation in which a team of 22 police officers contacted (again here, normal procedure is that victims contact the police, the police don’t go fishing for victims) hundreds of women trying to dig further dirt.
What it looks like is the SG and Crown Office (and senior SNP officials) wanted to prosecute and demanded the police found evidence to do that, including senior SNP officials also digging and offering to find evidence for them if they needed it (the witch hunt described by Anne Harvey). This is absolutely the opposite way round of how an investigation should work in a fair justice system. Despite all this, they seem to have found nothing much and ended up with a small clique of women going to court with things like “hair pinging” and the mostly female jury threw out all 13 charges.
I am English. I voted ‘Leave’ in 2016. It would be illogical for me not to support the right of individuals to seek independence from a Union they have lost faith in.
But I cannot, for the life of me, understand what you are about. You profess the desire for separation without any qualifying plans. You seek, on the one hand, to vilify the constitutional body responsible for your delegated powers over issues which those delegated powers render to you. You do not ask questions of policy performance in government, but seek to examine your government in matters that pertain only to an issue which is outside of its remit.
And now all this. A government that cannot manage to improve the lot of the people, that conducts itself without honour or honesty, and is so blatant and unashamed that even its own supporters cringe.
I am completely bemused.
Yossarian…
“There is no UK hand in this; how could there possibly be.”
Wake up at the back!
@Tommo
As you will have seen you’ve stirred the hornets nest with your correct summation of the situation, you’d have thought that as you have no dog in this fight your analysis would cut through but as much as it’s harsh thing to say some people are beyond saving.
I expect it won’t be long before we are told that little green men set up poor Nicola Sturgeon.
If you want proof of what the next five years will be like regards the SNP and Scottish Independence, then look no further than what they have done regards Scottish Independence over the LAST five years.
There is no hiding from the fact that this outfit do not want Scottish Independence.
It would end the very lucrative Gravy Train.
The Scottish Government needs to be shut down,and direct rule from Westminster imposed,just as in Northern Ireland. A judge led review of the whole tawdry business needs to be carried out ASAP. ALL the evidence Mr Salmond can provide must be given to this review ,and put into the public domain. I am confident that this will see the end of Sturgeon, and her corrupt regime. New rules for the Governance of Scotland need to be drawn up which will prevent such abuses in future.
Hopefully if this is done Scotland can get back to a legitimate road to independence,if this becomes the expressed will of the majority.
O/T
Nathan Sparling, who was a personal assistant to the party’s former Westminster leader Angus Robertson, is accused of taking a photograph of a man’s penis in his Edinburgh flat on September 30, 2019.
link to archive.is
The joke is the information will be included in all the conservative election material.
Of course it would choke them in this case to say “innocent man framed” it will all be directed at an incompetent and corrupt Scottish government.
I struggle to get my head round the stupidity of believing that in a country where all e mails and phone messages are are recorded by the security services, with a direct focus on people seen as a direct threat to the country, they think they will not be used.
A further stupidity was not getting this aired and addressed 18 months ago and letting the unionists roll it forward to the election. For this Sturgeon must go as soon as the election is over.
Fuck off wee Willie. That is not what’s needed at all. Quite the opposite.
How much longer do we need to wait for the James Hamilton report ?
Thanks Cath.
This is an aspect that should really be clarified for the hoi-polloi like myself who don’t really understand it.
The first letter in this post is clear enough, although some insight in Lots Wolffe way of reasoning would help too.
Bananas republics are collating all this for their training manuals.
The Scottish Government have provided us with a valuable lesson in how to conduct a cover up. The corruption starts at the top. A fish rots from the head down.
Massive differences in how SNP sexual complaints treated.
Some suspended… before proof… then evidence to the contrary ignored. Others PROMOTED and given more.opportunity to assault young people. What is going on? Where is the shame?
Not to forget, from his interview to the Committee – David Harvie the Crown Agent “didn’t read” the Scottish Government’s Internal Conduct Conclusion Report, that he was handing over to the police!
Nor could David Harvie “remember who” handed him the Scottish Government’s Internal Conduct Conclusion Report hesitantly stating :”He would be speculating, but willing to provide find out”.
On top of that, when asked who his boss was “during that time” as the Crown Agent, was it James Wolfe or Leslie Evans – he mentioned Leslie Evans name!
On top of that, David Harvie was not able to answer who he informed in Government of the Police recommendation not to make a public press release naming Alex Salmond.
It seems that messenger boy David Harvie might have a bad case of early onset Dementia.
Slightly O/T but “level 0” by the end of June. Level 0 is still very substantial restrictions on people’s lives.
If England has returned to normal by that point, that position is going to be utterly untenable.
What is going on? Where is the shame?
From what I’ve seen in my lifetime of watching politics, the worst of the abusers are always protected because they have compatriots in the justice system, while those who try to bring it to light are taken out.
The Lord Advocate is very much part and parcel of the criminal conspiracy against Alex Salmond.
Put another way, the Lord Advocate of Scotland is a corrupt criminal who should be in jail.
Is there anyway Alex Salmond’s lawyers can legally reveal everything directly to the public?
Cath.
Has the use of foul language become endemic in your comments?
The evidence is now there that this inquiry committee are complicit in the crime.
Using state power to frame an innocent man for political reasons is a crime. Now they’re using state power to hide the truth and cover their tracks.
This is totalitarianism.
You can’t put independence above this and consider yourself moral.
Stoker says,
“The latest con?
For all of you who haven’t seen this yet:
link to archive.is”
“The SNP has applied to the Electoral Commission to register “Vote SNP for IndyRef2” and “Both Votes SNP for IndyRef2” as ways of describing itself on voting slips.”
The Electoral Commission should approve that on the condition that the likes of Sturgeon and Murrell will have to spend a generation in jail if they fail to hold the IndyRef2.
Has the use of foul language become endemic in your comments?
No. If you read my comments you’ll see swear words are very infrequently used. Only when thoroughly deserved.
Fabiani must be the only convener of a parliamentary committee whose role has been to expend her energy in order to keep it as powerless as possible.
During the referendum campaign when asked why we should go for independence I would give all the reasons focusing on areas they had concerns however I always ended on the same point. I refused to believe that out of all the nations in the world we are the only ones that are incapable of governing ourselves and that we would not be tarnished with the corruption that so many are.
How so fucking wrong I was.
Sylvia says:
16 March, 2021 at 4:20 pm
O/T
Nathan Sparling, who was a personal assistant to the party’s former Westminster leader Angus Robertson, is accused of taking a photograph of a man’s penis in his Edinburgh flat on September 30, 2019.
link to archive.is
Reply
Totally off topic! Blame Sylvia she started it!
Weird story! Could it be there is something vital missing from this story?
“The charge alleges that he “recorded an image of the genitals, buttocks, or underwear of the man – who can’t be named for legal reasons — with the intention of enabling himself or another person to look at the image”.
As far as I know it’s not illegal to “record an image of the genitals, buttocks, or underwear of a man”. Why would you ‘record an image’ if you didn’t intent to look at it?
The person is described as a man so why can’t he be named?
Could it be that the missing word is ‘erect? I have a vague recollection being taught that photographing/drawing an erect penis is illegal but I think it’s OK to write the word.
Maybe the writer of the article is erectophobic!
@Ruby,
It would be illegal to take a picture like that without the consent of the person in the picture and I presume the man is not being named because he’s a complainant in criminal case of a sexual nature.
Tommo @ 2:48 pm
“This whole bag of nails is a Scottish lash-up. The tortuous attempts to lay the blame on Westminster do not I suspect convince even their authors -at least not in their lucid moments”
Perhaps we should remember that what George Osborne referred to as ‘the arms’ of the British state in Scotland (copfs, police and civil service) still hold sway, and are not answerable to anyone in Scotland.
One of the weirdest & most suspicious aspects of the case was that civil servants were investigating attempted rape!
I also find it strange that the complainants did not want to go to the police.
Complaints against former Government Ministers should be independently investigated, reports finds
The Dunlop review was set up in the wake of the unlawful Government probe into Alex Salmond
link to archive.is
Mia says,
“So this is not just “a Scottish lash up”. The British state’s dirty fingers are all over this.”
No, Mia, Sturgeon’s dirty fingers are all over this.
It is on the record that the British state’s civil service had advised against the illegal procedure.
Leslie Evans acted on the instructions of Sturgeon.
Sturgeon is directly responsible – she was prepared to any illegal measures possible to protect her hold on power.
If the British state was responsible, why didn’t she resign and blame it on the British state?
Ruby says:
16 March, 2021 at 5:05 pm
Sylvia says:
16 March, 2021 at 4:20 pm
O/T
Person can not be named
maybe it was wee willie of this parish
Sparling is I believe currently assistant to Angus Robertson’s wife. Deary me.
Drag Queen who left Robertson for a show in London.
There’s something dodgy about this cosy love in at the top of the SNP
colin lees says,
“i don”t believe the snp to be gangsters(putin)but what this has shown to one and all,is that the institutions of government are not fit for purpose.”
The SNP gangsters have made the institutions of government not fit for the purpose.
The SNP gansters have corrupted and criminalised the heads of the institutions – the Lord Advocate, the parliamentary committee, the Police.
As Alex Salmond said in his testimony, the institutions have not failed, leadership has failed.
David H @4:35
“It seems that messenger boy David Harvie might have a bad case of early onset Dementia”
I suspect he’s far more than a mere “messenger boy”.
@ Sylvia
A bit more on Dunlop review.
link to twitter.com
@ Bob Mack
link to twitter.com
If I was a voter, not generally interested in politics and just looking for a competent government to just do sensible things and leave good people generally alone to live their lives, then I could not see any reason whatsoever to keep the current Sturgeon regime in power.
-and that’s before I find out what they’ve really bee up to in the past few years.
If this was a 3rd world country (which it might appear to outsiders) the world would condemn its tinpot dictator & and her blatant corruption of the parliament, the executive, the civil service, the legal institutions, the police and the media.
Then they might look at the economy, education, civil rights and everything else they’ve made a horlicks of,before coming to the conclusion that this rabble would have no clue how to prepare a nation for independence.
Betsy says:
16 March, 2021 at 5:11 pm
@Ruby,
It would be illegal to take a picture like that without the consent of the person in the picture and I presume the man is not being named because he’s a complainant in criminal case of a sexual nature.
Ruby
It would be interesting to have more details.
I’ll take your word for it that “It would be illegal to take a picture like that without the consent of the person” although it could be that it isn’t illegal to take a picture like that but it is illegal to publish it without the models consent.
That being the case the tricky bit for the complainer is to prove
“the intention of enabling himself or another person to look at the image”.
And now I hear the SNP is planning to vote in Westmidden on purely English matters. This is not the Party I have voted for all of my life.
Thanks Dan
In full- Review of the Scottish Government procedure for handling harassment complaints involving current or former ministers
Review by Laura Dunlop QC makes a number of recommendations to strengthen the process for handling such complaints.
link to archive.is
Rather than employing a QC to make recommendations for handling complaints would it not be better if the Scottish Civil service HR staff went back to HR training school either that or got booted out and properly trained staff were employed.
@Ruby,
No idea what’s happened in this case but voyeurism usually amounts to effectively spying on someone for sexual purposes. So things like peeping under a toilet door to watch someone using the bathroom, or spying on someone undressing without their consent or taking an intimate picture of someone when they’re asleep and cannot consent. All of these are thankfully illegal otherwise we’d all have the local perv up a ladder gawping in our bedroom windows.
It’s covered in the Sexual Offences Act if you fancy a spot of light reading.
If the picture was taken with consent but shared without consent that would be a different charge. Presumably the complainant in this case is saying that Sparling has taken an intimate picture of him without his prior consent and knowledge.
As Sparling is pleading not guilty he may well be of the view that he had the persons consent to take the picture. We will no doubt hear all about it at the trial.
Anonymoose says:
16 March, 2021 at 1:58 pm
Hamerdoon says:
16 March, 2021 at 1:45 pm
Which is exactly why Alex and his lawyers offered to present that evidence to the inquiry under notice of the Scotland Act, they can request from them any evidence they state they hold, no matter the reasons for them holding it.
The COPFS line that doing so would be unlawful is complete bollocks.
—————————————-
Yip, absolutely. Apologies if I wasn’t clear.
I had a huge reply but I’m not going to bother
Off to watch lasts nights masterchef
If folk don’t know she’s a lying little troll god ( other deities are allowed sorry for spelling ) help us
Betsy says:
16 March, 2021 at 6:17 pm
@Ruby,
No idea what’s happened in this case but voyeurism usually amounts to effectively spying on someone for sexual purposes. So things like peeping under a toilet door to watch someone using the bathroom, or spying on someone undressing without their consent or taking an intimate picture of someone when they’re asleep and cannot consent. All of these are thankfully illegal otherwise we’d all have the local perv up a ladder gawping in our bedroom windows.
It’s covered in the Sexual Offences Act if you fancy a spot of light reading.
Reply
Thanks Betsy but I think I’ll just stick to ‘Chick Lit’ for my light reading..
Self Id, digital cameras & dogging has made life a lot easier for ‘peeping toms’
David Davis speaking in HoC now. Civil servant removed an e-mail from a bundle of documents approved by counsel to hand over to court of session in Salmond case, a summary dismissal offence – devastating. Davis tearing into Scottish government.
@Glen Clova 16 March, 2021 at 7:39 pm
“David Davis speaking in HoC now. Civil servant removed an e-mail from a bundle of documents approved by counsel to hand over to court of session in Salmond case, a summary dismissal offence – devastating. Davis tearing into Scottish government.”
Its at times like this I wish I had a TV (but i gave it up by choice) , I know who my money would be on for being responible for that action. If its being discussed at WM surely the secret information Dam is going to burst very soon ? (An FM Resignation soon after ?) Which Bookie is offering the best odds ?
All this for a Zombie walk, a hair tweek, and an attempted rape that could not have happened! Woman H was not there!! Has anyone told her that you actually have to be in the same room when there is an attempted rape? She lied!!
Cath says:
16 March, 2021 at 5:01 pm
Has the use of foul language become endemic in your comments?
No. If you read my comments you’ll see swear words are very infrequently used. Only when thoroughly deserved”
So you think this vipers nest can just be asked to go away??