The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Out comes the filth

Posted on August 18, 2020 by

Last night’s BBC Scotland documentary on the Alex Salmond trial was so shockingly biased that even the Herald, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Gerry Hassan couldn’t quite bring themselves to defend it. Anita Singh’s two-star review in the Telegraph said:

“The verdict in the Salmond case, by the way, was not guilty. He was cleared of all charges of sexually assaulting ten women while Scotland’s First Minister. However, it was pretty clear that the programme-makers hoped he would be found guilty; the first 45 minutes of the hour-long film were devoted to the prosecution case.”

While another female reviewer not known for being terribly fond of Mr Salmond, Alison Rowat for the Herald, observed:

“Taken with Ms Wark’s observations as the trial went on, it felt like proceedings were being played out all over again. Except this time Mr Salmond was not there to defend himself. 

Ultimately, you had to ask whether the film gave Mr Salmond a fair shake. For this reason, and many more, The Trial Of Alex Salmond had to appear far and above the fray on which it was reporting. From where this viewer sat, it did not pass that test.”

But not everyone kept their grip on reality.

Most of the SNP’s obnoxious Twitler Youth division were unusually quiet for the whole evening, but a couple stuck their head above the parapet. This, astonishingly, wasn’t sarcasm and generated an absolutely crushing ratio:

And the vice-convener of the toxic “Out For Indy” group, who are currently the subject of attempts to remove them from the SNP NEC, went with a fairly standard innuendo pretending that the accusers were “survivors”:

…a line also taken by Brenna Jessie of Rape Crisis Scotland, who would very much prefer that you didn’t know who her girlfriend was, and who made a clear implication that Salmond WAS guilty because NOBODY ever makes false allegations.

(The reality is that false claims make up a very small percentage, but even that 2-4% amounts to thousands and thousands of false claims worldwide every year.)

But McFarlane and Jessie were amateurs compared to the true scum.

Rummery, the Professor of Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology at – shock! – Stirling University, who’d been interviewed at length in the documentary, just flat-out defamed Salmond as guilty in an extraordinary late-night rant, despite the seemingly pertinent fact that he’d in fact been acquitted of any sort of wrongdoing.

She hid it behind a tiny figleaf of saying he was technically “not guilty of a crime” but simultaneously and repeatedly insisted that none of the women were lying. But if what they’d said had been found to be true then Salmond would have been guilty and convicted, so there’s no possible way to interpret that other than “He did it but he got away with it”.

(Just to be sure, she’d also asserted that the women had all endured “being groped”, something that the jury found not to have happened.)

(FUN TRIVIA FACT: Rummery contested Stirling for the transactivist Women’s Equality Party at the 2017 general election. She gathered 337 votes – more than twice the 148 majority that homophobic Tory MP Stephen Kerr won the seat from the SNP’s Steven Paterson by. Had Paterson won he wouldn’t have failed vetting in 2019 and would still be the MP now, rather than Alyn Smith parachuting in to take it uncontested.)

She was backed – of course – by freelance lunatic David Leask.

But in the specific context of the Salmond case, the above is arrant and dishonest drivel (or, y’know, “standard Leask”). It’s quite correct that a not guilty verdict does not NECESSARILY mean anyone is lying. But it also does not exclude the possibility. The facts of the matter can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Let’s lighten the mood by imagining a mildly comic scenario involving two men. Man A is standing minding his own business at a bus stop when suddenly Man B, a stranger, slaps him hard in the side of the head for no apparent reason.

Man A, who is identifiably Jewish and has been the subject of anti-Semitic violence previously, quite reasonably imagines this to be another racially-motivated attack. But in fact Man B has just seen an Asian Murder Hornet about to fly into Man A’s ear and was attempting to swat it away to save him from a nasty attack (being stung in the ear canal is extremely painful, this site can attest), but the hornet dodged the blow at the last second and flew off before anyone else could see it.

Let’s imagine this situation somehow ended in court. Man A and Man B would both agree on the material events – it was not disputed that both were present and that Man B struck Man A. What they would disagree on would be the motivation for the strike.

The jury, with no empirical evidence either way before it, would have to decide whose interpretation was correct, but whoever they believed neither of the men would have been lying – both were truthfully reporting an agreed event as they experienced it.

But this is NOT what happened in the Alex Salmond case. In the most serious charge, Woman H alleged that she’d been sexually assaulted by Salmond in Bute House. Salmond’s case – supported by a witness who knew Woman H well – was that not only had he NOT assaulted her, but that she hadn’t even been in the building that night.

Those events are completely irreconcilable. Woman H cannot have been both in Bute House and not in it at the same time. There’s no possible way that the two people can have simply had different interpretations of the same event.

It absolutely MUST be the case, therefore, that one of them is lying. If Woman H was there, Salmond was lying. If she wasn’t, Woman H was lying. There is no way they can both have been telling the truth. And the jury – who unlike most media commentators heard ALL the evidence – decided which one of them it was.

So Leask, Rummery and the others are deliberately and categorically misrepresenting reality. SOMETIMES – not always, but sometimes – a not guilty verdict DEFINITELY means that someone is lying. It cannot be otherwise.

And it WAS the case here, because only one of the 14 charges involved (slightly) disputed interpretations of an agreed event. In all of the others, the defence case was that the alleged event simply didn’t happen at all, and in every case the jury agreed. So it cannot be other than that the accusers were lying.

Kirstein Rummery, if she has more intellect than a dog’s anus, will be praying today that Alex Salmond has seen enough of the inside of courtrooms for a while, or has been left in such a financially parlous state by proving his innocence that he’s not able to afford a defamation case in a Scottish court system that this site knows only too well is somewhat disinclined to punish defamation against independence campaigners even when everyone agrees that that defamation took place.

But even if those things are indeed the case, it doesn’t alter the fact that Rummery is a disgusting human being smearing an innocent man, and a disgrace to her position and her employer. (David Leask we already knew that about.)

We can only hope that she, like the rest of the liars in the Salmond case and all of the others who drove the conspiracy, faces the lawful consequences of their actions one day and that justice is finally done.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 18 08 20 12:56

      Out comes the filth | speymouth

    220 to “Out comes the filth”

    1. Ryan says:

      What is this world coming to?
      *shakes head*

    2. A C Bruce says:

      Very sadly, I think they will not face a Court and justice will not be done. I have grave doubts about our justice system.

    3. Gullane No 4 says:

      It did not stop a laughing Kalamity Kay making a negative reference to the case on her show this morning.

      I know I know….my defence is that it was on the car radio on a short journey. Normally don’t touch that show with a very long bargepole.

    4. leither says:

      General election 2017: Stirling

      tory Stephen Kerr 18,291
      snp Steven Paterson 18,143
      lab Chris Kane 10,902
      lib Wendy Chamberlain 1,683
      Womans party Kirstein Rummery 337

      Kirstein Rummery is no friend of the snp in stirling, or anywhere else,

      How does helping Stephen Kerr, remember him?, a thoroughly odious creature, to get elected help women?

    5. ahundredthidiot says:

      Crowd-funder for Sir Alex’ defamation case against Rummery?

      Might be a measure of just how much support he has.

    6. Andy Hay says:

      Macbanana Republic

      Plain and simple.

    7. Kenny says:

      That is why I think, in a way, it is a blessing YES lost in 2014.

      Can you imagine if we had celebrated, taken a sigh of relief… and left the country to them… The slow awakening would have made “Animal Farm” seem mild.

      That is why I do not agree with pulling down statues. The opposite. There should be statues to Kirsty Wark and Union Jackie come independence. To remind us of what we lived under, the awful self-loathing, toon-hall politics and cringe under Scottish Labour and “Tories” (who think this country should take, take, take from England? eh?).

      Reader, think of the politician you hate the most right now. Now, would YOU want to see them “destroyed” on false charges and sent to prison for life. Really? I don’t think so. At most, put in a cell with only George Galloway for company for 24 hours max.

      But it is alleged that THIS is what our country’s leader wanted. Even if not true, maybe there is a lesson: if the Yes movement secures indy, surely that victory should belong to them and we should be planning, in parallel, a more democratic system? More regionalism, maybe looking at other countries and not just the Westminster model? Scandinavia seems to do quite well and do not have daily Covid briefings from their “leader”.

      So it is good that we are learning things we did not know about in 2014. Now is the time to think about how we cannot let such awful, twisted people flourish in an indy Scotland.

    8. Effijy says:

      That’s it for me!

      I try to avoid knee jerk reactions but it’s now kicking my own ass to death.

      I’m calling now to cancel my membership.

      Youth is wasted on the young but the SNP youth above are
      A complete waste of space.

      It’s goodbye from me SNP.

    9. leither says:

      has rummery ever met Alex?

      when and where?

      where does she get this info?

    10. Jack Murphy says:

      Last night’s programme confirmed my views re BBC Scotland and most,but not all who sail in her.

    11. Black Joan says:

      Leslie Evans just used the word “victim” apparently referring generically to anyone raising a concern and needing someone to talk to.

      It was suggested that Wark used the same term for the alphabet women.

      It appears that in certain circles if you identify as a harassed victim, you are a harassed victim.

      That sounds familiar?

    12. red sunset says:

      Yep I saw the Herald review this morning. Had approached with trepidation because it’s not a pleasant place to visit these days.

      I was utterly surprised to read the piece, and then even much more so to read the hundred and more comments after the article. Even McGeachy (formerly of this parish) had nothing good to say about the film.

      Have these people finally reached the bottom of the barrel? Have they scraped their way to hell altogether?

    13. Itchybiscuit says:

      Thanks for this info, Stu.

      I barely know any of the ‘runners and riders’ in this tale but you’ve managed to inform me more comprehensively than our Scottish ‘media’.
      Your output over the past few days has been to your usual high standard of reporting and I want to thank you.

      Thank you.

    14. Walter Jones says:

      The Yes Movement seem to be in permanent limbo at the moment.

      We are in limbo in our quest to rid ourselves of Sturgeon.

      We are in limbo regarding our search for a new leader of the SNP/Independence Movenent

      We are in limbo regarding indyRef2.

      We are in limbo regarding EU citizenship.

      We are in limbo regarding the List Parties.

      We are in limbo regarding the Salmond fight back.

      We seem to be in permanent limbo.

      No wonder we are in this permanent state of anger and frustration.

      We are adrift and rudderless.

      Will somebody or some organisation please step forward and save us from this Sturgeon nightmare we are stuck in.

    15. Jimmy Jo says:

      The Yes Movement seem to be in permanent limbo at the moment.

      We are in limbo in our quest to rid ourselves of Sturgeon.

      We are in limbo regarding our search for a new leader of the SNP/Independence Movenent

      We are in limbo regarding indyRef2.

      We are in limbo regarding EU citizenship.

      We are in limbo regarding the List Parties.

      We are in limbo regarding the Salmond fight back.

      We seem to be in permanent limbo.

      No wonder we are in this permanent state of anger and frustration.

      We are adrift and rudderless.

      Will somebody or some organisation please step forward and save us from this Sturgeon nightmare we are stuck in.

    16. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      Would be delighted to see a successful civil action or a criminal case against these rats.

      Good old BBC never lets us down.

      Ask yourself this do I pay a TV licence?

      If you do, you should not renew.

    17. meg merrilees says:

      Jackie Bailie has just gone up in my estimation – she’s really making Ms. Evans squirm.

    18. David Wardrope says:

      Listening the inquiry (well, its on in the background). Tell you what, I would not like to go for a job interview with Jackie Baillie on the panel.

    19. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      Well, these “Walter Jones” and “Jimmy Jo” comments are quite the coincidence.

    20. Black Joan says:

      Quite the explosive look from Evans when the Chair summed up by expressing the Committee’s concern about some of the redactions and lack of certain documents.

      Evans is asked to go away and consider . . .

    21. Shiregirl says:

      I hope two things. First, I hope Alex is reading this page and sees the support he has and remains strong and resilient. Secondly, I hope he gathers the required evidence to sue the pants of these disgusting creatures. I do hope his solicitors are watching.

    22. Sharny Dubs says:

      Be careful, any defamation cases will likely turn into defacto retrial which will drag on for months, meanwhile NS will use any doubt to sail on regardless.

      Eyes on the prise folks, eyes on the prise.

      The dream shall never die.

    23. ARobinson says:

      Thank you for the detailed analysis in your “The Endless Trial” post. It is shocking that this programme was aired. The man is innocent and the slander is terrible.

      But I want to make a point about the prosecution witnesses. Clearly, the most serious accusation could not have happened, so either the witness is lying or very confused.
      – Proving in the trial that the chief witness was not in the building (or country) the evening of the alleged crime; that’s a true Perry Mason moment. You have to wonder how the case got that far.

      But the smaller allegations: you say that the defence argued that they had never happened, and the jury agreed, so therefore those witnesses lied. However, there is another possibility, that in regards to some of the allegations the jury accepted the evidence (and the truthfulness of at least some of these witnesses) but did not consider what had happened to be a sexual assault.

      The focus then should be on the prosecution for bringing charges for matters that are not assaults (!!) and for relying on slurs rather than evidence in order to gain a conviction.

      Thank you again. And Craig Murray, of course. This is a nasty business.

    24. Famous15 says:

      Sharny Dubs I agree!

      Eye on the prize then sort the corruption.

      Independence first,

    25. A C Bruce says:

      Telepathic twins?

    26. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Black Joan (12.56) –

      Aye, saw that, it’s a proper keeper, fit to grace any new post on here!

      🙂 🙂 🙂

    27. Vivian O'Blivion says:

      Don’t forget that there was a second witness at the supposed dinner involving woman H. A certain big nosed, male, Scottish actor who for some reason, the Judge decided should UNIQUELY remain anonymous. The actor, let’s call him “Stoat” was in Covid self quarantine but Polis Scotland managed to arrange a PRE-RECORDED, FaceTime interview to show to the jury. Now, if Polis Scotland could arrange a pre-recorded interview, why couldn’t they arrange a LIVE, FaceTime interview? Why, uniquely was “Stoat” not cross examined by the Defence?
      If the Defence was allowed to cross examine “Stoat” they would have been able to ask him whether woman H displayed any sign of recent injury, say having her arm in a sling while trying to eat dinner. Something you may have found memorable.

    28. jfngw says:

      Leask has been raging at Salmond for years, he probably thinks the Wark programme was too biased in Salmond’s favour.

      O/T

      Oh! Walter and Jimmy seem to be identical twins.

    29. Bob Mack says:

      How can an Inquiry accept the permanent Sec saying she is not answering on behalf of the Civil Service or Ministers?

      Why is she there?

    30. ahundredthidiot says:

      Walter is dying with embarrassment right now, but his riddie is no as big as Jimmys!

      Effijy – no one takes pleasure in that, pulling the plug on membership will hopefully be a temporary thing, but the message needs sent.

    31. Black Joan says:

      Ian Brotherhood @1.07pm

      Glad you saw it too.

      Well worth capturing, if possible, Rev. It was right at the end — a face that could sink a thousand ships.

    32. defo says:

      Re the quantum entangled twins.
      They’ve got a pal who got emptied the other day.
      😉

    33. Joseph says:

      Should Alex Salmond not be more aggressive with his fight back against his accusers?

      Or is there a timeline already planned that we don’t know of yet?

    34. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Black Joan –

      Indeed.

      Now we have an answer to that book title, ‘Does Anything Eat Wasps?’

    35. Fraser Reid says:

      It was said already above but I would like to add to it. THIS SITE could get in touch with alicsammin and officially start a fundraiser for him to take these tolyheeds to court.

    36. Peter says:

      I’m beginning to think that everyone connected with Stirling Uni is completely batshit crazy. Is there something in their water supply?

    37. Confused says:

      as a hatchet job, that was pathetic, piss-poor, barely worthy of comment.

      It was setup for one grand finale – guilty on all counts – and they got the exact opposite!

      The BBC should have said “no way can we show this piece of crap” – and binned it – are they afraid of Kirsty Wark, is she a fucking mafioso or something?

      “the tremulous music has convinced me salmond is guilty”

      – and theremins make me believe in ghosts

      – and “cigarettes and alcohol” makes me think I am a cheeky manc street-geezer

    38. Cringe says:

      Anyone know why Steven Paterson failed vetting for Stirling?

    39. nycgype says:

      This one states as a fact that Salmond is a sex pest;

      https://twitter.com/JackDeeth/status/1295662760429334528?s=19

    40. Ron Maclean says:

      @Famous15 1:06pm

      ‘Eye on the prize then sort the corruption.

      Independence first,’

      I disagree. How would you sort corruption after independence if you can’t sort it now?

    41. Roberto says:

      First time I have heard this Evans woman speaking.

      She comes across as being very much on the side of the status quo.

    42. Polly says:

      That Kiehlmann is a maniac. God know what use he is to the party in London to be on payroll as I understand he is. My granny would have called him a guttersnipe. Rummery always seems agenda driven and not so bright or subtle in argument from what I’ve seen considering her position. For her my gran would have said ‘subtle as a brick and less useful’.

      @ Rev. Stuart Campbell

      Walt and meeny mo have always had similarities and seem to share a hatred for Capella with previous poster/s who came before. Her very name is catnip to them and in posts they show similar, childish needling pricks meant as insults.

      @ meg merrilees

      Agree but what’s it come to when we cheer Jackie Bailie when she shows herself doing something right. I always try to be fair to anyone on the unionist side who does well but when we have to cheer her on against many in the party we support who are fully supportive of this woman and the redacting of information makes me angry. When the judicial review found there were flaws and apparent bias then it should be open to the public to see what was deliberated.

    43. Ron Maclean says:

      A corrupt independent Scotland isn’t a ‘prize’. A corrupt establishment will make sure we don’t get independence just like they did in 2014. That’s why we need a clearout. We must find leaders we can trust.

    44. Auld Rock says:

      I quite deliberately didn’t watch this programme and by the comments I was correct in my judgement. As is rightly pointed out above AS was found not guilty by a majority women jury. Also and please correct me if I’m wrong but the Inquiry/Enquiry starting today is about ‘Procedures’ and not about AS. From what I’ve heard the EBC are on very, very thin legal ice???

    45. Grey Gull says:

      @black Joan and @ian brotherhood
      Aye, it was a cracker. You could add “and curdles milk” to the book title.

    46. Stu hutch says:

      Kirsty wark and sarha smith in a 1hr program have put back a hundred years of woman trying to be treated on an equal footing to men
      .how many genuine victims will not be believed because of this stich up by 2 senior woman in the bbc and 10 women who actually stood up in a court of law and lied.and were prepared to send an innocent man to jail for what could have been the rest of his life.and for what a step up the political ladder ?.lets be honest here the alphabet sisters must have been given an incentive to bring this nonsense to court.anonymity was just the sweetener to get them there.they have committed perjury under oath.if as a tax payer my taxes pay the wages of these woman I think I should know about it and decide if that is a good use of my taxes.as for the bbc we should stop paying the licence tax.

    47. Effijy says:

      SNP HQ at least enquires why I was leaving but I think he knew most of it
      From previous callers.

      GRA puting million’s at risk for the benefit of few.

      Hate Crime Bill is just a disaster.

      The unacceptable nonsense that has been sent out to the Rev
      as he enquires why people like Craig Murray are singled out by
      Our justice system when the same actions by the media are ignored.

      Lastly the attack on Alex Salmond includes SNP members, officials and officers.
      Mr Salmond has been found not guilty.
      Why are these people like Lesley Evans still in post?

      Today’s enquiry is yet another complete stitch up/ cover up.

      Goodbye!

    48. Stuart MacKay says:

      @Rev. says:

      Woman H cannot have been both in Bute House and not in it at the same time.

      Where’s Schrödinger’s cat when you need him. I’m sure he can shed some light on this bizarre situation.

    49. Big Jock says:

      Words fail me.

      Especially the quote from the spotty youth about the poor victims still being out there, so please don’t make comments that would upset them!

      FFS – The one hurting here is Salmond. His life and career in tatters due to lying conniving scheming civil servants.

      Do these feckin eejits not recognise the highest court in the land. The case fell apart because the case was a pack of lies. The man is innocent of any criminality. It doesn’t matter whetehr you love him or hate him. You have to accept the decision of the court and jury.

      Not one of them could find anything credulous in the prosecution case.

    50. boris says:

      https://caltonjock.com/2015/12/04/it-could-be-said-that-kirsty-wark-is-a-malevolent-witch-exacting-revenge-on-alex-salmond-for-ousting-her-good-friend-mcconnell-from-office/

      “The Board recognized that Kirsty Wark was highly talented and widely respected. Her integrity was not in question but her actions had put the BBC in a difficult position. The issue for the BBC is one of perception of impartiality both among the public and politicians. Addressing BBC management’s handling of the matter they were assured that management would assess her interviewing and presenting roles on a case-by-case basis to address the issue of perceptions of impartiality. The Board asked management to ensure this process remained rigorous.”

    51. Big Jock says:

      Stuart MacKay says:
      18 August, 2020 at 1:55 pm
      @Rev. says:

      Woman H cannot have been both in Bute House and not in it at the same time.

      Must have taken place inside a bell jar with a curtain over it!

    52. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘Believe women.’ When they are lying, and have colluded en masse in their mendacity to try put an innocent man behind bars…why the Hell should I? Just because they say something happened, it automatically is the truth? Really? These fake political character assassination allegations have put the reporting of real sexual violence back decades. This is something certain female supremacist manhaters need to acknowledge and address.

    53. Black Joan says:

      @Ian Brotherhood @Grey Gull

      Wasp-eating demo here
      https://twitter.com/indyscotnews/status/1295692031298338819?s=20

    54. holymacmoses says:

      Yes Kirstein Rummery the lady who asked on Twitter:

      Kirstein Rummery
      @KirsteinRummery
      I will say this once before the #salmond conspiracy nuts troll me. 1. None of those women were lying 2. Salmond by HIS OWN EVIDENCE behaved deplorably 3. Would you HONESTLY want your daughter working for him?!? The man is not fit for public office imho

      To which I suggested that
      she might ask Mr and Mrs Sturgeon if they regretted their daughter working for and with Mr Salmond.

      I have yet to receive a response:-)

    55. jfngw says:

      @Stuart Mackay

      More like Schrodinger’s knickers, were they on or off. Or even grand old duke of york ones, up, down neither up or down.

      Although mentioning knickers and the Duke of York draws my attention to non prosecuted cases.

    56. Jim Forsyth says:

      BBC Scotland’s Glen Campbell absolutely drooling at this.

      He was reporting from outside Holyrood on their lunchtime programme.

    57. Marcia says:

      Cringe @ 1.33 pm.

      I don’t think he failed vetting. There was a vote by members in Stirling and he beat Steven Paterson which was a shame as I would have preferred Steven.

    58. Polly says:

      @ Kenny

      ‘it is a blessing YES lost in 2014.
      Can you imagine if we had celebrated, taken a sigh of relief… and left the country to them… The slow awakening would have made “Animal Farm” seem mild.’

      I disagree and feel had Yes won then SNP would have been engrossed in the serious work to disentangle us from Westminster and would have less time to give to their agendas. And even had they created new laws after independence, which might well have slipped under the radar at that time, it could not then be used by unionists to harm the cause of independence as it can at the minute. Yes, it would be equally reprehensible to become aware of something slipped in but it would not be able to create the damage it can before we get there.

    59. Capella says:

      They are turning Alex Salmond into a martyr. Idiots. I didn’t see the Kirsty Wark farce but will listen to the Dani Garavelli hatchet show on radio tonight, just to confirm my bias.

      Does anyone know anything about Dani Garavelli? I looked her up on the internet but there is very little personal bio. I prefer to know a bit of background on the people who are paid so handsomely to lie to me.

    60. Grey Gull says:

      Talking about folk giving up their SNP membership. Are there figures for how many have done so in the last year? Would be interesting to find out.

    61. Skip_NC says:

      I think I’ll self-ID as a dog’s anus from now on. Much better than being identified as a member of the human race right now and I believe I have sufficient intellect – just.

    62. kapelmeister says:

      This has become Scotland’s Dreyfus Case. Back then, French citizens who supported Dreyfus knew that those who didn’t were the nation’s arseholes.

    63. Alf says:

      Which charge was “not proven”? Was it the charge involving Woman H?

    64. ahundredthidiot says:

      OT

      interesting trend being noticed from both 2016 and 2020 for the front runners to be the running mate of the DNC preferred candidate (Biden/Kamala) in that they all had a few edits made to their wikipedia page in the month running up to the announcement, but with SIGNIFICANT edits made to the individual who would be the actual winner (and if you ever want to know who’s behind that wikipedia shit I recommend Ted Talk by former CBS reporter exposes media manipulation – which still only shows something ridiculous like 68 views!).

      Might put a wee bet on in 2024

    65. HandandShrimp says:

      I think there is little doubt that the not guilty verdict soured a few media types milk. I saw the programme was on last night but didn’t bother watching. I had little doubt it wouldd have been commissioned with the intent to put the boot in with a finale homing in on a broken Salmond being led off in cuffs to jail.

      That the programme had apparently no space for the defence case and only a cursory “oh and baistert got off with it” at the end is classic BBC. It is why I rare!y watch their News or documentaries.

    66. Robert Graham says:

      First Impression of today’s Inquiry

      WHAT A LOAD OF SHITE

      Loads of time set aside to reiterate what the Inquiry was NOT going to question ,
      Jigsaw was mentioned more than once this Jigsaw seems to be not just set in Stone but topped off with Steel and bloody Granite , This gives these complainers cast iron bloody body armour set in place for evermore,

      Lastly why is this english woman inside the Scottish Government dont we have any capable Scottish women , also this Evans was unable to repeat a simple affirmation that she would tell the truth she had to be lead childlike line by line by Trisha Marwick , and she is inside the Scottish government bloody disgraceful

    67. Bill Cowan says:

      Marcia says:
      18 August, 2020 at 2:09 pm
      Cringe @ 1.33 pm.

      I don’t think he failed vetting. There was a vote by members in Stirling and he beat Steven Paterson which was a shame as I would have preferred Steven.

      Trust me Marcia, there was no vote in Stirling CA for a choice of candidates. You may be referring to branch nominations. Dunblane of which I am a member nominated both candidates to go through to a vote by constituency members, other branches also voted for both or one to progress to the next stage. After the first two hustings (because although we had been asking for our candidate to have been in place long before Alyn Smith ever heard of Stirling) HQ delayed and delayed and finally failed Steven Paterson who had passed vetting twice before and been a good MP for two years from 2015 – 2017. Again, we had absolutely no say in Alyn Smith being imposed on us by HQ. None whatsoever.

    68. Bill Cowan says:

      Cringe says:
      18 August, 2020 at 1:33 pm
      Anyone know why Steven Paterson failed vetting for Stirling?

      Pretty much the same reason that Joanna Cherry ‘failed’ vetting by the NEC. In the way of someone that ‘they’ wanted in place.

    69. Bob Mack says:

      @Capella,

      Craig Murray is absolutely correct. Documents released show it was Nicola Sturgeon who insisted the new policy should include former FMs. Leslie Evans also stated this in a previous media interview.

    70. Effijy says:

      I can find no source with current SNP membership numbers.
      They did have a grand total of 125,500 a couple of years ago
      But I doubt they will
      Have 100,000 these days with so many bizarre policies and
      Priorities.
      The party officials now know better than the members and their
      Thoughts have been kicked into touch with transparency and
      Accountability.

    71. Polly says:

      @ Capella

      Nope not much I could find on Garavelli either apart from her own writing. I too would like to know more. Has a husband called Graeme Smith and son called Lewis both into football and son plays, other two children Jamie and Cal. Her husband also works with newspapers according to Wings previously mentioned. She seems to support women’s issues and seemed fairly neutral or even slightly positive on independence, or maybe just supportive of Nicola Sturgeon in quite a few things. That leaves a lot of gaps – bit like her reporting ‘every day from the Salmond trial’ yet eliding over a couple of the most salient.

      @ Robert Graham

      Yes I had worried about that. Since the court case meant these women could not be named, yet the judicial review involved some of the same women then that secrecy might well hamper the review, specifically Aberdein testimony. Most of the parliamentarians who make up the committee must know anyway I’d think, but it’s the official testimony which is in danger of being hampered.

      @ Bill Cowan

      ‘ Again, we had absolutely no say in Alyn Smith being imposed on us by HQ. None whatsoever.’

      That in itself is worrying for democracy in he party. I’d always hoped SNP was more people driven than the others.

    72. winifred mccartney says:

      I am glad some people with a fair mind have seen last nights hate-fest against Salmond for just what it was – a bitter biased rant solely with the aim of tarnishing Alex Salmond.

      In actual fact they have tarnished irredeemably the BBC, Kirsty Wark, Sarah Smith and Dani Garavelli and I for one will never trust another word they say and this is not new for me but certainly confirms what I have come to believe especially about the BBC.

      When you think of what is sitting in Westminster, in the Lib Dems and in Labour and people like Saville, Cyril Smith etc they were not given this treatment because it would have brought down too many other people around them.

    73. Stonky says:

      @nycgype at 1:35 pm

      Here’s another stating as a fact that AS is a sex pest.

      https://twitter.com/Hlrybuck/status/1295469273452863496

    74. Frost says:

      I get the feeling that a lot of people are trying to goad Salmond into further court cases in order to take his attention away from having a go at Holyrood in 2021.

    75. Robert Graham says:

      Still watching Evans giving evidence if it continues at this pace we will all be dead by the time the truth is extracted from this woman ,
      if those questioning her are going to get anywhere they need to ask direct specific questions and make sure a truthful a full answer is extracted ,a slippery character if ever i saw one she speaks for ages while actually saying nothing , She has a permanent abstract view of the world and of any specific questions ,

      Lastly what the duck does Pasteral care mean ,ducked if i know

    76. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Robert Graham @ 3.21pm

      Regarding your comments on Ms Evans’ evidence. Did you never watch Yes Minister?.

      Using big words and flowery language, using 30 words when 3 would have sufficed, standard Whitehall Mandarin behaviour when dragged out of the shadows into public gaze. They must give them lessons in this behaviour when a civil servant is promoted to the First Division – the top layers of the civil service.

      These people are trained to bore and divert for Britain.

    77. Harry mcaye says:

      Dani Garavelli’s husband was editor of The Herald and her son Lewis plays for Hamilton Accies in their first team.

    78. Oneliner says:

      It’s quite possible that psychological profiling of both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon exists at the highest level of spookery.

      Everything going to plan?

      What we need to introduce to the equation is an entirely new variable, like a well co-ordinated List Party. Now there’s a worry for officialdom – Who do they discredit, when and how?

    79. Scott says:

      I really hope that Alex Salmond will finally have his day and reveal his version of events. Everything he was unable to say in court needs to see the light of day. Enough is enough.

      At this point I’m actually hoping the ramifications of that shake the SNP to the core and lead to a whole raft full of resignations but I guess that’s probably wishful thinking…

    80. Robert Louis says:

      Very, very interesting article by Craig Murray. Nicola loyalists really should read it, and open their eyes to what has been done. What we all feared and RevSTU told us over a year ago, is true. This ALL comes from the very top, that is, Nicola Sturgeon. Even worse, the English cabinet office in LONDON actually advised her against her actions. As Craig Murray so rightly puts it, this was all made in the First minister’s office, not London.

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/made-in-the-first-ministers-office/

      Nicola Sturgeon, a very real turncoat. A ‘Massey-Ferguson’ in every way. Why bother stabbing somebody in the front Nicola, when you can just stab them in the back instead, eh?

      This is just the tip of the iceberg.

    81. defo says:

      With the Pangolins revenge no longer an imminent threat to our NHS, I don’t see anything stopping Eck telling his side of the story.
      You could say leave it until after the inquiry, but if what he has to reveal is material that’s consequent to said inquiry…
      Has he been asked to testify?
      You would hope so.

    82. Brodie says:

      The real joke in all of this is hearing special advisers (think Dominic Cummings) complaining they’re vulnerable and being bullied. Special advisers are the biggest bullies in the civil service. Eerily similar to the whole ‘big hairy assed men who only want to access female changing rooms are the most vulnerable and oppressed group of people in the world’ argument put about by the same group of people.

    83. iain mhor says:

      Oh deary me Walter & Jimmy

      I canny look… is it bye yet?

    84. Robert Louis says:

      Frost at 321pm,

      Mr. Salmond is a king amongst men. Look at how he has reserved comment on all of this, despite the endless BBC and media innuendo, smears and lies. He, I am sure will have his day. Revenge, as they say, is a dish best served cold.

      I look forward to his evidence. I just hope he has taken any necessary precautions (and I’m not joking), since we all remember Willie McRae.

    85. Tannadice Boy says:

      Stu
      You would appear to have a direct line to Alex Salmond. I have been thinking about him today after last night’s so called documentary. Is he bearing up? In football parlance is he down 3 nothing at half time or is he preparing a tactical change. If you could share anything it would be appreciated. Also do watch this Dani programme tonight. Another red card job?

    86. Hughsie says:

      Yes, Craig Murray is also a must read.

      We are on a journey of conversions and we are winning.

      There are less and less Sturgeon supporters, which is good for Democracy and good for Scottish Independence

    87. Robert Louis says:

      Tannadice boy at 358pm

      Indeed, and if he needs a fundraiser to get these lying witches in the BBC into a courtroom, he need only say the word.

    88. defo says:

      And whilst I’m here, if this inquiry is damning, logic would lead you to conclude that there’s a need for another inquiry into the criminal investigation & charges.
      Starting with the opinion of the civil case judge would be prudent.

    89. Fraser MacKintosh says:

      I was not at the trial so I cannot comment on the result but members of the jury, chosen from the voters roll who sat all through the trial found Salmond told the truth and the women were liers.

    90. jfngw says:

      @iain mhor

      I’m expecting the Rev to offer a prize to the first person to spot his (could be her, I’m not ruling out a trans-person, don’t want to be accused) new persona.

    91. Tannadice Boy says:

      Robert Louis says

      Absolutely I have always had a lot of respect for Alex Salmond. History will judge him well. Meantime if he needs money to support any plan of action. Count me in.

    92. jfngw says:

      The most amusing thing yesterday was the COPFS tweeting out a warning but forgetting to add ‘except for out friends in the media’.

      Anyway, quiz time.

      1. Sounds like an oil city.
      2. Type of fish.
      3. World Cup Year (not 1966).
      4. Famous internet search engine

    93. holymacmoses says:

      I hadn’t heard the name Maurice Smith – the obligatory male with the witches at the eatery but here’s a sample of his writing which is interesting from quite a few points of view

      https://www.facebook.com/STOPSturgeonandSNP/posts/maurice-smith-snp-set-for-bloodletting-after-salmond-acquitted-of-sexual-assault/1094158977635711/

    94. leither says:

      @Robert Louis

      at least Alex Salmond got a trial

      Nicola Sturgeon……. apparently not

    95. Frost says:

      Robert Louis @ 3:57

      Dignified silence at this point in time is certainly serving him well and his stock is rising again imo. Wark’s hatchet job last night has failed big time and you can’t imagine her wee chum Dani will be able to up the ante this evening. All this proves that the unionists absolutely fear him and are desperately trying to take him out of the game. To me this underlines his importance in helping to secure the next referendum and going on to win it.

    96. SilverDarling says:

      @Capella 2.24 pm

      She is revered amongst some in the Scottish MSM for refusing to name a witness when she was a young reporter. Macho men love that sort of stuff. This thread is illuminating:
      https://twitter.com/GraemeWSmith/status/1142869080619311104

      As mentioned already she has connections all over the media and ScotPol. Her husband was the editor of the Herold and is now a comms person for Renfrew council.

      I first was aware of her for a terrible article on the SG baby boxes:
      http://archive.vn/o00H5

      Until then it seems her output was fairly neutral but now she seems to have gone full Yoon/ establishment lackey.She was then awarded a wee prize from all the MSM toadies and has acquired a reputation far beyond her ability. I find her irritating beyond belief as she has a terrible speaking voice and seems permanently on the verge of tears. She is the misogynists’ feminist ie no threat at all to their comfy world but loves to portray herself as a saviour of women by doing really quite lightweight analyses of crossover stuff between Scottish Politics and women’s issues.

    97. SilverDarling says:

      *Herald!

    98. holymacmoses says:

      Reading Linda Evans concern about harassment in the work place I wonder if Joanna Cherry should consider charges of harassment against the certain members of Government?

    99. robertknight says:

      Ah yes, the old ‘throw enough mud in the hope some of it sticks’ routine.

      Salmond aside, as a vehicle for Scottish Independence, the SNP under the current “leadership” isn’t fit for purpose. The party has been hijacked by a bunch of minority, narrow-focus fringe groups, all hell-bent on pushing their own agendas at the expense of everything and everyone else – under the guise of “equality”. LOL!

      New Indy party please – this one’s broken.

    100. James W McCurry says:

      I suggest that the BBC are getting worried about the polls showing support for independence. Before the next referendum we need to expose the BBC for what it is. Last night’s documentary was a disgrace. Rather than attempting to create a fake civil war within the SNP we need to help to get rid of the BBC. I worry that many on the site are Unionist trolls.

    101. winifred mccartney says:

      I’m in for funds if Alex Salmond has a plan of action against this disgraceful programme.

      I think I am the odd one out because I cannot believe that Nicola knowingly conspired against AS. I hope she simply never imagined that he could be implicated in any way. Two women made complaints and then people interviewed everyone and their granny to find more. I do think it was an anti-snp/anti-indy cabal in the Civil (or not so civil) Service.

      I am hanging on by a thread here because I do not want to believe Nicola could be capable of this back stabbing of AS. I know he is not perfect but he is the man for the job of Indy proved by the determined efforts of BBC/Govt to bring him down innocent or guilty.

      I have believed until now that when complaints were brought to her she had no option but to allow an investigation, can you imagine if she had not allowed it.

    102. kapelmeister says:

      Dani Garavelli had a piece in The Scotsman on 8th September 2019 about her professional footballer son Lewis Smith and the story of his rise through the ranks at Hamilton Accies to a regular first team place.

      It’s not a bad article, and tells of the struggle and sacrifices a young person and their family have to endure in the quest for a career in top class sport.

      However, right in the middle of the piece is the following bizarre and uncompromising paragraph.

      “On a league table of things I wouldn’t have wanted Lewis to be, footballer would have sat just above soldier and just below serial killer. Years of covering football-related trouble led me to associate it with self-entitlement and toxic masculinity. And what self-proclaimed feminist wants that for one of her own?”

    103. HandandShrimp says:

      James

      For sure, there are undoubtedly unionists on here specifically stoking up ferment and taking along some long time independence supporters in their wake. Nevertheless, the polls indicate everything is going in the other direction. History may yet shown Nicola played a deft hand. The majority of voters don’t pay that much attention to political pundits of any stripe these days, especially newspapers and increasingly the TV.

      Jimmy and Walter above look like the 77th getting their scripts in a tangle 🙂 Oh dear, how sad, never mind, shoulders out lovely boys.

    104. Tannadice Boy says:

      James W McCurry says

      Many on this site are Unionist trolls?, I think it is the SG policies that are the source of concern going forward. Nothing to do with the Unionist, MI5, Aliens and little green men. I will not vote SNP on the constituency vote because of their policies period! However if AS comes back and dumps all this pish. I am in!

    105. Capella says:

      @ Bob Mack – I’m not disputing that the Civil Service in Westminster advised against including former ministers in their Harassment Policy. What I said was that I didn’t hear Leslie Evans say that in the committee hearing this morning. Did I miss it?

    106. Ottomanboi says:

      If the current political dispensation were looking for an alternative Scottish flag it couldn’t do better than this.
      https://manurevah.com/blah/images/normal/Confederate_Gay_Nazi_Flag.png
      For that is the direction this tendency is heading.

    107. jfngw says:

      @James W Curry

      I think the BBC has been exposed many times, the problem is they have government backed financing and a broadcast presence. We have probably half a dozen bloggers and one iffy newspaper, and our bloggers don’t even seem to like each other.

    108. Effijy says:

      The Baby boxes were a wonderful idea in a country filled with
      Poverty and deprivation due to centuries of Westminster’s England
      First policies.

      Finland had a 70 years success rate with these boxes as it reduced infant
      Mortality and aided those who could not afford anything else.

      Garavelli like all other Tory Unionists try to destroy the facts with lies and will never
      accept a Scottish Government coming up with a good idea or aid for the poorest.

      With NHS Scotland running the most successful heath service, why have Westminster and
      the UK media failing to recognise it and congratulate them?

      Why are they not asking what it is we do different as it would save lives and reduce suffering?

      It’s all part of keep Scotland suppressed while we steal their resources.

      The only articles that pay are Unionist and anti anything Scottish.

    109. Republicofscotland says:

      You won’t see the COPFS send police officers round to doorstep the vile worm Rummery any time soon.

      The British state propaganda machine the BBC is airing the Wark character assassination progamme of Alex Salmond again on BBC Two tonight at 11.30pm.

      I’ve an inkling that the bias Wark programme was aired last night to try and persuade public opinion on the inquiry that began today that Alex Salmond is somehow to blame for all this unpleasantness.

      I missed how that vile creature and close chum of Sturgeon’s got on today Leslie Evans, one news rag cited today that Evans whose cost the Scottish taxpayer half a million pounds, but Sturgeon extended her employment (in any other field Westminster aside, you’d be sacked) that Evans often cites legal privileges to not hand over vital documents.

      I wonder if this nasty odious woman did this today.

    110. Capella says:

      @ Polly and others – thx for shedding some light on the mysterious Ms Garavelli. It’s unusual for so little to be known about a journalist although I noticed that their Wikipedia entries are usually quite sparse. DG doesn’t even have a Wiki entry! A cypher.

    111. callmedave says:

      Well that Jackie Baillie question about WM having reservations about retrospective legislation and then who signed it off for the Scottish Gov.

      Leslie Evans answer to it is a hospital pass to the FM. 🙁

      Scottish Gov don’t have to sign off she tells the committee that’s normal and it’s the FM that decides…. 🙁

      Hmm! Wonder what the FM will say to that?

      PS:
      I believe AS will give evidence for the person who asked up the thread.

      PPS:

      The new UK Gov Corona site started counting again yesterday.
      Sorry to see N.I. record a new death today after a long run.

      Two pages and look down to the bottom on each page.
      Menu left hand side top. UK Summary: Deaths: Click graph columns for daily numbers.

      https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths

    112. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Which charge was “not proven”? Was it the charge involving Woman H?”

      No, Woman F.

    113. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “there is another possibility, that in regards to some of the allegations the jury accepted the evidence (and the truthfulness of at least some of these witnesses) but did not consider what had happened to be a sexual assault.”

      As you note, if what happened did not constitute a sexual assault then it should never have been brought to court. It’s not the jury’s job to change the definitions of crimes.

    114. Michael Laing says:

      @winifred mccartney at 4.41pm: Why then, has Nicola never expressed any support for Alex Salmond, even since his acquittal? Why has she never expressed relief that he was found not guilty and made moves to bring him back into the fold? Why do Alex and Nicola continue to be on non-speaking terms? The conclusion I draw from all this is that Nicola Sturgeon either planned and initiated the conspiracy to destroy Alex Salmond, or that she is deeply involved in it.

    115. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “I think I am the odd one out because I cannot believe that Nicola knowingly conspired against AS. I hope she simply never imagined that he could be implicated in any way.

      I am hanging on by a thread here because I do not want to believe Nicola could be capable of this back stabbing of AS. I know he is not perfect but he is the man for the job of Indy proved by the determined efforts of BBC/Govt to bring him down innocent or guilty.

      I have believed until now that when complaints were brought to her she had no option but to allow an investigation, can you imagine if she had not allowed it.”

      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/08/made-in-the-first-ministers-office/

      “The adoption of a new complaints procedure that permitted retrospective complaints against former ministers was in fact cooked up between Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon. LONDON ADVISED AGAINST IT. The Cabinet Office strongly advised that it would be “unwise” to allow retrospective action against ex-ministers. Nicola and Evans decided to plough ahead and implement the policy against London’s advice. They must have had a strong motive for that. Evans denied today that the policy was designed against Alex Salmond. I certainly do not believe her, and there is much more to come.”

    116. Michael Laing says:

      I would add that as First Minister and leader of the SNP, the buck inevitably stops at Nicola Sturgeon.

    117. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Why then, has Nicola never expressed any support for Alex Salmond, even since his acquittal? Why has she never expressed relief that he was found not guilty and made moves to bring him back into the fold?”

      …why did she pointedly tweet a rape-crisis fundraiser the day he launched his own fundraiser to fight the crooked inquiry?

    118. defo says:

      Effeminate wokey bloke opines from R4 during the promo “they’re trying to smear you Dani”
      To which I automatically thought, no need. She’s done a fine job of covering herself in shit, all by her wittle self.

    119. TD says:

      “There is no way they can both have been telling the truth. And the jury decided which one it was.”

      I agree with the sentiments of this article and the general outrage expressed about the programme. However, I do not agree with the above statement. It is true that somebody was lying. It is not true to say that the jury decided that the crown witnesses were lying. All that the jury decided was that they were not satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Salmond was lying and that the crown witnesses were telling the truth. To express the point in arithmetic terms, if hypothetically the jury were 2/3rds or 66% satisfied that Salmond was guilty, then the correct verdict was acquittal because 1/3 doubt is reasonable doubt. In other words, in this scenario, the jury would think that it was more likely than not that Salmond was lying and the witnesses telling the truth, but this would not pass the reasonable doubt test and acquittal would be appropriate.

      We simply cannot extrapolate the binary decision that the jury made and reach any conclusion about who they think was lying. The system is designed to force a binary decision from a convoluted mess of truths, half-truths and downright lies. At the end of this process, where there is doubt, the rules are that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused. We can only speculate about what the jury really thought. It is possible that they thought that all of the crown witnesses were lying and Salmond told the truth, but it is equally possible that they thought he was guilty but were not sure. We will never know.

    120. Bob Mack says:

      Alex told us when he left the court a free man that there was much more to this story which would be revealed.

      No doubt Craig and the Rev and a few chosen others know this undisclosed information. They unanimously feel these facts point in a certain direction. I trust their judgement.

      You can defend Nicola all you like, but to think she had no part in any of this is beyond credibility.

    121. Rick H Johnston says:

      No matter how random the jury selection process is said to be, Kirsty Wark failed to point out the significance of 9 female jurors from 15 throwing out all of the charges.
      Fair do’s to the National for printing the charges in detail.
      Shocking bias from Wark’s programme, particularly in showing the front page sleazy headlines we’ve come to expect from the the BritNat papers.
      The scant coverage of the defence witnesses was bias by omission.
      Having a Scot fronting the programme was meant to add believability.
      Not for me.
      A pick the scab reminder the day before the Holyrood enquiry.
      Sorry but I don’t buy the civil War theory.
      There are darker forces at play here.

    122. Bob Mack says:

      @TD,

      Utter tripe!!

    123. defo says:

      Is there a wimmins section at the Bar L?
      I think Saughton has appropriate facilities.

    124. Jim says:

      Sturgeon should step down with immediate effect.

    125. Elmac says:

      Too much talk and no action from all of us. As I said on the previous thread it is time for all who are outraged by this latest example of BBC corruption and lies to dump the ludicrous TV “licence” now and stop funding (even if technically indirect) these BBC a*holes. While we are at it, do the same with your SNP subscriptions. No more cash till Sturgeon, Murrell and their wokeist crew are kicked out and the party returns to its independence roots.

    126. Beaker says:

      @TD says:
      18 August, 2020 at 5:39 pm

      “It is not true to say that the jury decided that the crown witnesses were lying. ”

      That’s bollocks.

      Each member of the jury decides in their own mind the merits of each charge and the evidence presented.

      Unless you actually ask a jury member how they came to their decision (which I believe is illegal anyone know?) then you are just speculating.

      The only people who know for certain if they lied are those who did. That’s not to say anyone did lie, but only they know for sure.

      On extrapolation, that should only be done with verified data, not fucking guesswork.

    127. Effijy says:

      TD

      Civilised society agrees that the accused are innocent until
      proven guilty.

      Not being proved guilty again maintains your status as innocent!

      The accuser’s statements were shot down in flames.
      Their collusion was idiotic and people claiming to be present but
      No one actually seeing them is quite pathetic.

      They should have no right anonymity when publicly seeking to destroy a man’s
      career, marriage and reputation.

    128. robertknight says:

      Ah yes, the old ‘throw enough mud in the hope some of it sticks’ routine.

      Salmond aside, as a vehicle for Scottish Independence, the SNP under the current “leadership” isn’t fit for purpose. The party has been hijacked by a bunch of minority, narrow-focus fringe groups, all hell-bent on pushing their own agendas at the expense of everything and everyone else, under the so-called banner of “equality”.

      New Indy party please – this one’s broken!

    129. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “We simply cannot extrapolate the binary decision that the jury made and reach any conclusion about who they think was lying”

      I mean, we literally can. That’s what a verdict is. There are thresholds set for verdicts and the jury is a collective.

    130. jfngw says:

      @TD

      You obviously have no idea of how the jury system in a Scottish criminal trial works, normally there is 15 people and the verdict is the majority (8), nothing to do with 66% , this would be 53% for a guilty verdict. It was slightly different in this case as a couple of jurors were removed, even then it was only 61% required.

    131. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “No doubt Craig and the Rev and a few chosen others know this undisclosed information. They unanimously feel these facts point in a certain direction.”

      We do, and we do. I wish I could share it all, but that’s not my choice to make.

    132. Tannadice Boy says:

      Robert knight says

      The old Indy party and Yes alliance would do me fine but we have gone down a wrong dreel. An new Indy party? I will vote for them but I believe the core support for Indy is against Woke policies. Scotland is a ‘socially conservative’ nation. And always has been. NS with her support for these Woke policies is not the person to lead the Indy movement. No chance of any self awareness on that issue. Where does that leave us? Come back AS. I would like to rejoin the SNP but there is little prospect of that. We are all struggling with this mess.

    133. jfngw says:

      @Beaker

      It is illegal to discuss anything that happened in the jury room, the vote, anyone’s comments, absolutely everything. You are given this warning by the judge before you leave the court.

    134. Achnababan says:

      The only explanation for the Wark programme being aired last night is to try and draw out AS and hoping he makes a mis-step.

      AS is a old fox and too wily for this coven of witches…. he is nursing his wrath quietly waiting for the time to pounce… its gonna be beautiful

    135. Effijy says:

      News- Public Health England is to be replaced mid epidemic?
      Handcock announcing a New National Institute for Health Protection.

      He says they will spot any future needs to avoid similar situations developing?

      That’s sounds like what the Tories ignored when the Cygnus Exercise revealed the NHS could never
      Support an epidemic when it came along.

      When he says National, is that the English Nation or is that the UK nation inclusive of colonies?
      The BBC do not chose to question him. As usual.

    136. Willie says:

      The tide of sewage is lapping at the feet of Mrs Murrell and her rotten coterie.

      The truth is coming out.

      Leslie Evans Evans may have initially declined to provide documentation on the grounds that Coronavirus was making delivery difficult. She then may have then declined on the grounds that redaction was taking time. She may have next declared that the documents were legally privileged. And now John Swinney like King Canute may now be saying that the constitution and the civil service code precludes the parliamentary enquiry committee from being given documentation into the murky dirty affair.

      But it is all to no avail. The truth is coming out and last night’s BBC smear piece will do nothing to stop the truth coming out.

      Yes, Mrs Murrell and the clique will soon be drowning in their own excrement. Change is coming and the dogs in the street know it.

    137. Elizabeth says:

      Re Mz Wark’s film – the guy at the table with the three women. I spotted this on twitter earlier:
      https://twitter.com/kuantancurls/status/1295654718757376000?s=21

    138. Intractable Potsherd says:

      If Mr Salmond starts a fund-raiser – I’m in. Just say the word.

    139. Republicofscotland says:

      Right Stu, with the enemies cannons at the walls of Holyrood (Westminster) via the power grab that will severely weaken Holyrood, and we see the newly opened Hub absorb them away from Holyrood, would it not be in Sturgeon’s general interest to actually go for an independence referendum.

      What she and her clique have done has been an almighty kick in the stomach to indy movement, it tough enough fighting off one parliament without having stave off a rear attack from within, but Sturgeon must know her credibility is about to be damaged. Many already know she’s not the leader we thought she was, her calling an independence referendum post May 2021, would surely save her bacon, and all the other MSPs as well by placating those who know what she’s really done, I see no other way out of this for her, and the independence movement with Westminster breathing down our parliaments neck.

      Even if she has the brass neck to ride this out, Westminsters power grab awaits our parliament, it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out like that, that she got a comfy UN post waiting in the wings.

    140. Kenny says:

      “NS with her support for these Woke policies is not the person to lead the Indy movement”

      Exactly! Yet she is “leading [ahem] the Indy movement”. Wonder why?

      If you speak Farsi, it is quite interesting to look at BBC Persian. They go in for a sort of “sexy totalitarianism” that laps up radical islamism. In contrast, it is supposed that around 80% of Iranians would vote in a secret referendum, given the chance, for a wholly secular state.

      Also, how interesting to see all the innuendo coming from a corporation which covered up Mr Jimmy Saville. Perhaps they should remove the Amazon rain forest from their own eye before pointing out the splinter in the other’s [which is not there anyway, as everyone knows]

    141. jfngw says:

      @Beaker

      Just to add, nobody except the jurors know what the vote was. The judge only asks for the verdict and if it was unanimous or a majority. All the paperwork and any of your notes are all destroyed, you are not allowed to take anything with you.

    142. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      I’ve won the majority of court cases sent up to the Procurators Fiscal along with many civil cases, which have been many. But even when you win, you lose. The stress the worry, the preparation.

      So I would BEG those recommending a crowdfunder to aimed at no-marks such as, Leask and these small minded witless Wokeist vunderkinds to give it a miss.

      In other words PLEASE…

      CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES

      AND CHOOSE THEM VERY CAREFULLY

      Stuart, would you be able to give us a ballpark of the cost of Kezia Thickdale? The full costs. Add your time at whatever the IT professionals would pay you on an hourly rate. I am not prying, just ONE global figure in FINANCIAL COST and the other “opportunity cost”: YOUR TIME (plus your health, you did mention the medication you had to briefly suffer).

      Then do what you and several on WoS here are very good at: THINK LATERALLY.

      Instead of us all getting distracted as per the Secret Squirrel MI5 Playbook, let us REDIRECT the legal lottery crowdfunder resources to the MAXIMUM GUARANTEED GOOD we can do at this very point in time.

      At an educated guess, I reckon Alex Salmond got hit for £250,000 to £400,000 in legals and opportunity cost (what he would of earnt over those two years had he not been neutered and captivated by a “must attend to” court case).

      THEN ADD..

      Stuart Campbell’s ~ Kurzoffa Dogbreath illogical court case, where Stuart will go down in legal history as securing a new legal doctrine…

      Schroedinger’s Verdict.

      The amazing ruling where he WAS defamed because the Sheriff said so, but he WASN’T defamed because the defendant was monumentally thick. Add to that Stu., and the crowdfunder get shafted so bad the whole WoS website is neutered for 2 years, just like Alex Salmond.

      I guess Stuart will have contributed at least £250,000 to the Scottish Legal Profession Charitable Jolly Fund For Advocates Who Are Not Yet Millionaires.

      So we have two of the finest minds in the TRUE YES movement distracted to the point their health is affected and 85% of their energy wasted. At a time the TRUE YES movement can ill afford for two of our main talents to go AWOL in an episode of Judge John Deed meets Judge Rynder ~ The Salmond and Campbell Crossover Edition.

      So what is my point?

      The £650,000 that just went into the Scottish legal establishment (with at least 70% of that going to Unionist lawyers) could be far better deployed. For example…

      Instead of having ANOTHER crowdfunder for MORE LEGAL fees in the judicial lottery which Stuart and Alex both demonstrated you LOSE EVEN WHEN YOU WIN, might we consider thinking outside the box please? For example, get back on track with a crowdfunder to publish:

      A WEE TARTAN BOOK OF GUARANTEED INDY.

      With the money saved from more legal fees and judgements that mean you lose even when you win, we have enough money to send that WEE TARTAN BOOK OF GUARANTEED INDY to EVERY house in Scotland.

      Just one chapter correcting the lies that Kirsty Wankk and co., perpetrated via her private limited company.

      One chapter remedying the STITCH UP OF ALEX SALMOND, so titled as a rejoinder to last night’s calumny on BBC Warkland.

      Clarification on how Nicola Sturgeon has sold out IndyRef2 for her career. Yes she is an excellent devolution office manager and Covid TV presenter, but she has SQUANDERED 5 mandates so far and she needs to retire: either gracefully, or with her Rocks Stilletos up her erse making sure the door doesn’t smack the cheeks of her bum on the road back to Draghorn.

      A chapter on how and why it is time to hold a PUBLIC INQUIRY into the BBC and MSM in Scotland.

      Hopefully CLOSE DOWN BBC SCOTLAND AND ABOLISH THE LICENCE FEE INTO THE BARGAIN. East Enders and all that London and Emmerdale crap will be free as it will migrate to channels with adverts every 20 minutes like the rest of the world. Just no more London State Propaganda dressed up as Jockistan TV from the Home Counties Patronising Service.

      THEN utilise the rest of the WEE TARTAN INDY BOOK publication to explain how the Scottish Independence List Party will be the best and nearest thing Scotland has to a GUARANTEE that IndyRef2 WILL HAPPEN.

      I am pretty sure that the majority of voters and woefully a full 70% of ordinary YES voters have No idea what Sturgeon, Wishart, Alyn Smyth, Murrell! Anus Robertson et are up to.

      THE ONLY CROWDFUNDER FOR COURT WE SHOULD BE RAISING IS FOR THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

      Think laterally, get the SILP project off of the ground. Get EVERY house in Scotland equipped with a WEE TARTAN BOOK for starters.

      Let us drive the agenda and stop being tossed from pillar to post by the McWokeist fifth columnists.

      The majority of Scotland now want Independence. Nicola ain’t gonnae give it to us. So we need to let EVERYONE in Scotland know what has been going on and SEIZE THE INITIATIVE.

      NAE MORE CROWDFUNDERS FOR EXPENSIVE LAWYERS’ HOLIDAY FUNDS.

      We have precious little time to get things sorted in time for Holyrood in May 2021.

    143. Effijy says:

      BBC announce that Scotland’s most senior civil servant apologised
      For the wrong process being applied in the allegations made against Alex Salmond.

      Evans called the procedure Unfair according to the BBC?

      I think it’s obvious that it was illegal and her denial that the process was specifically
      Designed to attack Alex Salmond adds yet another lie to her past history.

      Will she Boris or Gove land the Liar of the year ward?

    144. TD says:

      Bob Mack at at 5:40 pm

      Thank you for your cerebral contribution.

      Beaker at 5:49 pm

      That’s bollocks.

      See my response to Beaker above.

      Each member of the jury decides in their own mind the merits of each charge and the evidence presented.

      Agreed. They then arrive at a collective decision.

      Unless you actually ask a jury member how they came to their decision (which I believe is illegal anyone know?) then you are just speculating.

      You are correct – it is illegal to enquire of jurors how they came to their decision. I agree that to express an opinion about how they arrived at a decision or about exactly what they decided is speculative. The only thing we know is that they collectively returned a verdict of not guilty on 12 counts and not proven on one. If, for example, we concluded that they decided the crown witnesses were lying, that would be speculative – see my original post.

      The only people who know for certain if they lied are those who did. That’s not to say anyone did lie, but only they know for sure.

      Agreed.

      On extrapolation, that should only be done with verified data, not fucking guesswork.

      See the sentence in my post beginning “We simply cannot extrapolate…”

      Effijy at 5:51 pm

      Civilised society agrees that the accused are innocent until
      proven guilty.

      Almost right. Accused persons are often guilty and if they are they are guilty from the moment they commit the crime. But for the purposes of a criminal prosecution, there is a presumption of innocence until they either plead guilty or are found guilty.

      Not being proved guilty again maintains your status as innocent!

      Agreed

      The accuser’s statements were shot down in flames.
      Their collusion was idiotic and people claiming to be present but
      No one actually seeing them is quite pathetic.

      I did not attend the trial so I can’t comment. But the jury obviously were not convinced to the required level – i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.

      They should have no right anonymity when publicly seeking to destroy a man’s career, marriage and reputation.

      If their purpose was to pervert the course of justice that would be a serious offence and I would agree that in those circumstances they should have no right to anonymity in any prosecution. But I disagree that complainers should not be entitled to anonymity in certain cases. I am not referring to the AS case, but in general terms I believe it would not be in the interests of justice if complainers in sexual harassment or assault cases were denied anonymity. There is a more contentious point about whether accused persons in such cases should be entitled to anonymity – my own view is that they probably should.

    145. Shug says:

      I do not think salmond should take action against wark
      Like stu he will get little justice and I feel sure it would be a trap
      Better to bring out a book and include a section about the BBC spin

    146. Shug says:

      I do not think salmond should take action against wark
      Like stu he will get little justice and I feel sure it would be a trap
      Better to bring out a book and include a section about the BBC spin

      Eluzabeth
      There is a big case for following up this guy. Why not report him to the police

    147. Alf says:

      I don’t know why you are so categorical in your belief that Woman H “lied”. There was clearly an irreconcilable barrier to establishing the facts. Therefore the jury could not, in good conscience, find him guilty. That is different to woman H being a proven liar. Either way, he is innocent but you should be precise with your writing, Stuart. Don’t run from nuance. We’re grown up enough to deal with it. Your assertion that Woman H lied reeks of the same obvious bias that Kirsty Wark shows in the opposite direction.

    148. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Stuart, would you be able to give us a ballpark of the cost of Kezia Thickdale? The full costs.”

      We don’t know yet, we’re currently awaiting her lawyers’ bill, but as a rough ballpark somewhere in the general region of £250,000.

    149. Tannadice Boy says:

      Shug says

      Alex Salmond is his own man and had always been. His stum attitude is winning the argument by saying nothing. He will call it right he always has done. That’s why he was the FM and I wasn’t. And why he was a far better FM than NS who is indulging in a daily platform every day. Bound to end in tears for her.

    150. Tannadice Boy says:

      STU

      Really 250k. I am in the wrong job.

    151. TD says:

      Stu Campbell at 18:10

      I think you miss my point. It is quite possible for a juror and collectively a jury to believe that an accused person is lying and that the crown witnesses are telling the truth but still acquit because although they believe the person is guilty, they are not satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, working back from the verdict, we cannot say that they believed the crown witnesses were lying or that the accused was telling the truth. We just don’t know.

    152. TD says:

      jfngw at 18:10

      Read the post. I am not talking about numbers of jurors on one side or the other. I am talking about jurors being 100% sure or 50% sure or, as in the hypothetical example I chose, 66% sure.

      And I do know how the jury system works.

    153. You have to admit that, once again, just how stappit fu the Scottish media and government is of bitter women who hate men. It’s like we live in a revenge society politically now, where any woman or sexual or ethnic minority who has ever felt slighted has decided they’re going to legally and politically and verbally attack (white) men…and then call them racists or misogynists or homophobes or whatever for complaining or pointing out salient points, or indeed the hypocrisy of the shite they spew. Once again, this extremist dogshit has been imported from America. Utter madness.

      No idea what the fuck this country is now, but it’s certainly not the place I grew up in by any means. I have no problem with a female FM, as long as she’s capable, and doesn’t hate men; doesn’t threaten me. And of course societal change is inevitable, but the constant stream of hatred and limpwrist cheatbeating and heterophobia and misandry coming from some quarters is quite incredible. One of these days these angry, vengeful people might find out they’re only being allowed to do all this queen-of-the-castle, empty-vessels-noisy shit because of the noblesse oblige of the Scottish white working class this far, and the resulting chaos would not be pleasant. So let them just keep on pushing it and see how much further they can go, cos it’s all going simply swimmingly so far.

    154. Jim says:

      We will hear more revelations tonight on the Danni Gravinelli show, or whatever her name is.

      has she got a special licence to say what she wants?

      Or is it because she is in with the establishment?.

    155. jfngw says:

      @TD

      To express the point in arithmetic terms, if hypothetically the jury were 2/3rds or 66% satisfied that Salmond was guilty, then the correct verdict was acquittal because 1/3 doubt is reasonable doubt.

      You said jury not juror. Jurors tend to be pretty convinced to return not guilty or they return not proven. And they do it on an individual basis, there is no collective, just a majority.

    156. Watty says:

      Just say the word Rev and we will get the fundraiser going at a fair pelt.

      You deserve all the support coming your way

      You, Alex and Craig.

      Three Heroes!!!

    157. Cath says:

      “That’s why he was the FM and I wasn’t. And why he was a far better FM than NS who is indulging in a daily platform every day. Bound to end in tears for her.”

      I’m starting to worry that’s true as well. Despite everything, I still quite like Nicola so far and think she’s been doing a decent job with covid – certainly she’s working bloody hard. I see her and Alex as having different strengths and weaknesses, and worry that Nicola’s are not suited to what’s going to come post Brexit. I suspect in 2021 we’ll need politicians like Alex and Joanna Cherry, and am seriously alarmed a clique in the SNP are ensuring those effective politicians won’t be there.

      But the longer the daily briefings go on, the more Nicola is actually starting to really annoy me, even on things like covid. She’s beginning to sound preachy. That concerns me because if she does think she’s appealing to some part of the electorate, there’s a danger others may be beginning to feel the same. Add to that all the Salmond stuff which is starting to stink to high heaven and there are absolutely potential problems on the horizon.

    158. Merkin Scot says:

      …..the polls indicate everything is going in the other direction. History may yet shown Nicola played a deft hand.
      .
      Deft hand?
      Deft hand? As in fingered her predecessor. Or, did you mean dingied the voters?
      No doubt the odious Dani will tell us tonight.

    159. John O'Dowd says:

      “When he says National, is that the English Nation or is that the UK nation inclusive of colonies?”

      It has become clearer. The 3 colonial subsidiary Chief Medical Officers will report to the new SuperColonial (English) CMO.

      Another land grab under the counter.

    160. Breeks says:

      Million dollar Question for Rev Stu / Craig Murray.

      I appreciate there are things you cannot say, and confidences you must respect, but in your considered opinion, based on the information you have, are these revelations likely to be fatal to Nicola Sturgeon’s Leadership and leave her position untenable, or will a brass neck and sympathetic media see her holding on until the 2021 Elections?

      I ask out of curiosity, and don’t intend holding you to it. It’s just Christmas (or more specifically the end of the Transition Period) seems alarmingly close now, whereas waiting for 2021 Elections to sort out this bloody mess seems alarmingly much too late.

    161. Merkin Scot says:

      “….although they believe the person is guilty, they are not satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt.”
      .
      Nonsense, nonsense, thrice nonsense.

    162. callmedave says:

      Information:

      Daily FM Covid-19 briefings are being reduced to two or three in the week.

      She announced this this morning.

    163. Beaker says:

      @jfngw says:
      18 August, 2020 at 6:18 pm
      @Beaker

      “It is illegal to discuss anything that happened in the jury room, the vote, anyone’s comments, absolutely everything. You are given this warning by the judge before you leave the court.”

      Thought as much. I’ve been selected for jury service twice but not picked in the ballot.

    164. leither says:

      £250,000 ??

      eye watering

      are you going to appeal?

      if so, how much in total?

    165. Tannadice Boy says:

      Whorattledyourcage says

      And the tragedy of the situation is that men like me have given their lives to the women that are important to us. My wife, my daughter and my granddaughter. I give them everything. Also also support the boys in my life because actually they need as much support. Nothing like real life experience in these matters. Keep the faith things will change.

    166. John H. says:

      Unbelievably, the BBC are going to repeat the Wark smearfest tonight at 11.30. BBC 2. Scottish unionists must live in a cosy bubble.They obviously think they’re winning.

    167. ‘Tannadice Boy says:
      18 August, 2020 at 7:45 pm
      Whorattledyourcage says…
      Keep the faith things will change.’

      I get that. Women can’t keep whaling on men forever, though, and expect no pushback. However, I have genuinely noticed that it’s really the ludicrous mainstream middle class media, like The Guardian and such, who push this constant misandrist shite. Working class people don’t really read that sub-American-extremism-influenced shite, and generally have a much clearer and better head on their shoulders on the street.

      Many newspapers now, including The National, the SNP cheerleading comic, are full of manhating, bitter, child-free columnists hating us because they are not centered and have bought into the whole ‘career is all’ lie. The bitter bilious bile they spew is incredible, and disgusting, and pathetic. Let them get on with their yoga lessons and driving eco-friendly vehicles and pretending they care aboot black people, whom they are scared stiff of, yet fetishise sexually. Normal people don’t give a damn.

    168. jfngw says:

      I can’t see AS suing these people, what’s in it for him, except a massive bill, it’s unlikely many of these people have the cash to pay the expenses if they lose, who then pays Salmond’s lawyer (quite honestly I don’t know the answer to this).

      He has already won the case, it just lets the press rake over it again and the chance for the BBC to repeat the programme.

      And after the Dugdale case there is no guarantee you would win anyway, no matter what the evidence, and the press would go to town if he didn’t win. I’m pretty sure he has a more effective response prepared.

    169. defo says:

      Defamation Dani time.
      Yes dear, you’ll have questions to answer too.
      Infamy, infamy they’ve all….

    170. holymacmoses says:

      I think all those rooting for Mr Salmond should hold fire for a wee while. Patience may be the biggest virtue in the game. Sturgeon SEEMS to have shown it, for Scotland, in waiting for a referendum however it would seem that she hasn’t shown the same patience when it comes to her personal ambitions

      https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/5941900/alex-salmond-accuser-sexual-assault-holyrood-inquiry-trial/

      Let’s see where the women go with it all. They are stuck with being’unnamable’ for the rest of their lives:

      Lady H won’t be able to cope with that:-)

      I think Mss Sturgeon and Evans might be headed for trouble

    171. TD says:

      jfngw

      “And they do it on an individual basis, there is no collective, just a majority”

      Actually, there is a collective decision. Usually and preferably the decision is unanimous, but courts will reluctantly accept a majority decision if it proves impossible to get a unanimous decision. But it is always collective.

    172. defo says:

      Heeeeeere’s Libby.

      K Farquharson.

      Alex Bell…

    173. Tannadice Boy says:

      Whorattledyourcage says

      We are on the same page. The misandry is rife I agree. A couple of weeks ago on this forum I agreed with a poster that said men get the ‘shitty end of the stick’ I can’t remember the posters name. But is it any different from my Dad or Grandad? I don’t think so eventually balance will be restored. Meanwhile I enjoy the women in my life they are truly real women. The sort that were on the jury. I couldn’t live without them. They think this Alex Salmond case is pish. Put your left hand on their knee and prepare yourself for an appropriate response.

    174. ‘Tannadice Boy says:
      18 August, 2020 at 8:12 pm
      Whorattledyourcage says

      We are on the same page’

      Aye, and not one written by bitter middle class harridans. Enjoy your family. You’re lucky to have them, as well you know.

    175. defo says:

      Rewriting history Mr Massie!
      Naughty boy, but such lovely vowels.

      Leasky slithers in…claims he’s a journalist!

    176. mike cassidy says:

      OTish

      J. K. Rowling would not be prosecuted under the new hate crime bill, Humza Yousaf says

      Well, that’s ok then

      Unless ….

      http://archive.is/WkeW3

    177. Dan says:

      @ callmedave at 7:34 pm

      Ooh, does that mean there will be more time freed up to actually address other stuff?
      I could certainly use some assistance to find my EU Citizenship which seems to have somehow become misplaced…

    178. crazycat says:

      @ TD at 8.06

      Usually and preferably the decision is unanimous, but courts will reluctantly accept a majority decision if it proves impossible to get a unanimous decision

      In England (and elsewhere) that’s true.

      Here’s what Aberdeen University School of Law had to say in 2017:

      The Scottish criminal jury is composed of 15 members compared to the 12 found in other common law jurisdictions. It requires a simple majority verdict which means conviction or acquittal by 8 or more as opposed to a unanimous verdict or qualified majority (usually 10 or more in other jurisdictions).

      Nothing at all about “reluctance”.

    179. Robert Louis says:

      Man, I cannot believe the nonsense getting punted by some folks on here, trying to make out that not guilty, doesn’t really mean not guilty.

      Jeezo folks, talk about dancing on the head of a pin.

    180. defo says:

      I’ve never heard leasky speak before.
      Is he a quare?
      Fits the MI5 bill.
      Integrity Initiatives Scotland go to!
      Integrity. It’s the humour!

    181. roddy anderson says:

      Who’s the rape crisis womans girlfriend then?

    182. ‘mike cassidy says:
      18 August, 2020 at 8:19 pm
      OTish

      J. K. Rowling would not be prosecuted under the new hate crime bill, Humza Yousaf says.’

      I get the feeling Rowling, whom I do not like, but who has been treated abominably by lunatics online recently, would have to hold a crowdfunder to come up with the best legal defence team on the planet. And, after the recent debacle of the Salmond case, wee leading intellect Humza and his pals would surely be a bit more reticent to attack a world-beloved billionaire legally. Her winning would be the final nail in the coffin of their incoherent Hate Crime Bill pish. And maybe their government.

    183. CameronB Brodie says:

      I can’t comment safely on this case, as I lack sufficient evidence, so I can only form an opinion. And that is the party has come under the influence of radical interpretations of theory and practice. There are two basic sex classes, and it is not physically possible to change one’s sex. So support for genderwoowoo’s introduction into Scots law, is detached from reality and harmful to open democracy.

      Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives
      1
      Sex, Gender, and Epistemology

      It has been argued by Buss (1975) and others that psychology as a discipline tends to alternate between two basic paradigms explaining the relationship between humans and their environment. These two basic conceptual paradigms are: (1) reality constructs the person, and (2) the person
      constructs reality.

      Paradigm (1) postulates a model of a reality that is stable, irreversible, and deterministic. It further postulates that this reality is discoverable through the proper application of scientific methodology and that individual differences are a result of the impingement of that reality on the developing organism. This deep structure underlies such diverse schools of thought as behaviorism, psychoanalysis, and sociobiology.

      These theoretical frameworks do not question that reality exists. They differ merely on the aspects of reality they stress as having the most impact on individual behavior. Recently, psychology appears to have undergone a “cognitive revolution” (Gardner, 1985; Neisser, 1967). The former paradigm has been replaced by a keen interest in the active role of the individual in constructing his or her own reality.

      This model postulates that reality is largely a matter of historical and cultural definition (Gergen, 1985). It emphasizes the power of ongoing social negotiation in the creation of individual behavior and is more willing to take a less deterministic view of causality in general.

      Those who espouse a strong social constructionist viewpoint appear to be more likely to attribute individual differences to chance (nonpredictable or noncontrollable events) and, in the most extreme views, despair of the possibility of any generalizable laws of human behavior at all.

      Although the social constructionist viewpoint is much more congenial for feminists in psychology (Unger, 1984-1985), I shall argue that sex and gender pose problems for both paradigms. I shall review briefly some of the major strengths and weaknesses of each in terms of sex and gender research, discuss what I see as some important conceptual and methodological trends in the area, and, lastly, discuss some of my own research and theorizing that bears on attempts to integrate apparently dichotomous views….

      https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4612-3588-0_2.pdf

    184. Alec Lomax says:

      What part of not guilty do some of the posters here not understand?

    185. callmedave says:

      @Dan

      Indeed Dan ‘other stuff’ is looming on the horizon and approaching fast I expect the inquiry (the one with the i there) to reveal all.

      Then we get to concentrate on independence.

    186. defo says:

      I was struggling to fully get the messages the hatchet job was trying to punt to yer average punter, then realized it was R4, and not meant for local consumption specifically.

    187. ‘callmedave says:

      Then we get to concentrate on independence.’

      Some never stopped concentrating on independence. Just a pity the government can’t say the same.

    188. CameronB Brodie says:

      I can’t comment safely on this case, other than to report that AS was found NOT GUILTY. I meant the wider politics.

    189. TD says:

      Crazycat

      You are correct – a simple majority is all that is required. The important point is that the decision is collective – even if some members of the jury dissent.

    190. Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints – 18 August 2020

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjG9rcg-Pdk

    191. Heaver says:

      Garivelli: She sounded like a mincing wee stirrer, Leask even more mincing. The program was all over the place. If she’s a quality wordsmith Trump’s a fucking Wordsworth.

      Tiny creatures squeeking from an enormous dark stage to a cavernous empty auditorium.

      They’ve shot their bolt, time to move on.

    192. Garavelli. I have to admit I like her biscuits, with the the currants. Lovely with a cup of tea, when yer planning a ministerial fit-up.

    193. crazycat says:

      @ TD

      The point I was trying to make is that you asserted that the court would “accept” a non-unanimous verdict only with “reluctance”.

      That’s not true in Scotland.

    194. Craig Murray says:

      Breeks re your million dollar question, I don’t know.

      I thought Nicola was going to leave of her own accord rather than face it, but then this anti-Alex media explosion of the last few days made me realise she intends to tough it out, presumably buoyed by her very high popularity ratings.

      It is abundantly clear there are many SNP supporters who will argue black is white to declare her innocent. So I expect she will be able to survive this, yes.

    195. Alf says:

      Not guilty = not guilty. Undeniable fact. But not guilty does not = “she must have lied” unless there is proof* that she lied. It’s a fairly simple concept to anyone rationally-minded. Michael Jackson is also not guilty. Undeniable fact.

      *If I’ve missed it, share it. Two sets of opposing eyewitnesses is not proof.

    196. CameronB Brodie says:

      As this case is predicated on accusations of sexual assault, I think it’s not only safe but vital, to talk about the wider politics, from a theoretical perspective anyway. So here’s a view you won’t see much support of, from Scotland’s contemporary judicial system.

      Psicologia & Sociedade, vol.25 no.spe Belo Horizonte 2013
      Gender and feminisms: theoretical-epistemological considerations and methodological impacts

      https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-71822013000500003

    197. Rm says:

      Let the politicians fight it out amongst themselves, hardly any of them have did a stroke of real work, it’s up to the real people now to go for independence.

    198. holymacmoses says:

      Who rattled you cage 9.00pm.

      Here’s the recipe https://www.deliaonline.com/recipes/international/european/british/garibaldi-biscuits

      So on with your mask, out with the wallet and the shopping bag and off to the shops you go in the morning and you can make lots and lots of them a la Delia. Very tasty they are too:-)

    199. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Craig Murray –

      NS may well survive this but certain indy bloggers and their supporters are fast approaching the point where they’ll have concede that they are wrong about her.

      The very same argument that they use to defend her position with regard to Johnson (i.e. he cannot conceivably resist another democratically-produced mandate) applies to them too – the only remaining issue, for many, is the actual tipping-point. You, Stu, and some others, have long-since passed that point because of insider knowledge. The rest of us are playing catch-up but some, sadly, cannot bring themselves to even try because they are afraid of the truth.

      We all have to deal with betrayal at some time or another and it is deeply unpleasant, can even be traumatic, but avoiding it is, ultimately, intellectually indefensible, immoral and, in hard terms (for practical campaigning purposes) a dereliction of duty.

      The guilty know who they are – their wilful ignorance will not easily be forgiven.

    200. Big Jock says:

      How did we get into this mess?

      Answer- Nicola Sturgeon.

      How do we get out of it?

      Answer – Get her out of the SNP.

    201. BrianW says:

      They’re so delighted they can’t hold their water and dive straight on social media to tell the world about their delight. Fools.

      Politics has to include a fair amount of patience. Patience of mind and knowing when to open your gob and let your belly rumble.

    202. CameronB Brodie says:

      Here’s a belly rumble that roughly half of us won’t have heard, let alone experienced, directly. Chapter 30 on “Sexual difference theory”, would prove most edumacation to some, IMHO.

      The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy
      https://www.hypatiareviews.org/content/routledge-companion-feminist-philosophy

      The Routledge Companion to Feminist Philosophy
      Chapter 30
      Sexual difference theory

      Summary

      Sexual difference theory can best be explained with reference to French post-structuralism, more specifically its critique of the humanist vision of subjectivity. The “post” in poststructuralism does not denote only a chronological break from the structuralists’ generation of the 1940s and 1950s, but also an epistemological and theoretical revision of the emancipatory programme of structuralism itself, especially of Marxist feminist political theory.

      The focus of poststructuralism is the complex and manifold structure of power and the diverse, fragmented, but highly effective ways in which power, knowledge, and the constitution of subjectivity combine. Poststructuralism questions the usefulness of the notion of “ideology,” especially in the sense developed by Louis Althusser, as the imaginary relation of the Subject to his/her real conditions of existence.

      In a feminist version, ideology refers to the patriarchal system of representation of gender and, more specifically, to the myths and images that construct femininity. Subjectivity is conceptualized therefore as a process (assujettissement) which encompasses simultaneously the material (“reality”) and the symbolic (“language”) instances which structure it.

      Psychoanalytic notions of identity, language, and sexuality – especially in the work of Jacques Lacan – play a central role in the redefinition of the subject as a process, rather than in the more traditional sense of a rational agent. The notion of difference emerges as a central concept in the poststructuralists’ critique of both classical humanism and of the humanist legacy of Marxist-inspired structuralist social theory. It includes both differences within each subject (between conscious and unconscious processes), as well as differences between the Subject and his/her Others.

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405164498.ch30

    203. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. what makes us individuals. Here’s a sociological perspective. Scotland’s legal identity will not be defended by those who support the introduction of genderwoowoo into Scot law.

      Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition
      3. The Self
      The Cognitive Self: The Self-Concept

      https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/the-cognitive-self-the-self-concept/

    204. gus1940 says:

      O/T
      Having been a loyal customer of Lidl for years and appreciative of their support for Scottish suppliers it is with great sadness that I have to report a serious outbreak of UnionJackery on their products.

    205. Graham says:

      The murder hornet analogy doesn’t fly.
      With only one witness and no corroboration the case would never get to court.

    206. William Habib Steele says:

      The BBC turned the presumption of innocence on its head. They have instituted the presumption of guilt, even after the accused has been acquitted by judge and jury. Surly the “documentary” = propaganda was in contempt of court on 2 counts: 1. Asserting that the verdict was wrong and, 2. identifying some of the Alphabet Women. They made the identities of some of the Women very clear and didn’t need to name them.

      Will the Procurator Fiscal’s Office and the Crown Prosecutor’s Office bring charges against the BBC and the presenters and interviewees who defied the judge’s edict of anonymity?

      I hope Alex Salmond sues the BBC and all those who have defamed him.

    207. Big Jock says:

      What will it take for some people to open their eyes out there.

      Sturgeon appears to have set up her old boss and friend. She never attends Indy marches. She never talks about independence. She asked for something knowing it would be refused. She has filled the party with immature ner do wells. She chucks colleagues under buses.

      She has had 6 years and at least two mandates. Yet we are to believe she will get us to independence if we just trust her.

      Nicola is obsessed with herself. She is trying to be Florence Nightingale of politics. But she is destroying the party.

      This can’t go on.

    208. CameronB Brodie says:

      There is one overarching requirement of democracy that is rashly ignored in our time of inter-subjectively linked ‘cultural wars’, and that’s the imperative significance of “bounded rationality”. Those seeking to shape the jurisprudence of Scots law, would do well to remember this, IMHO.

      The same most definitely goes for our constitutional future.

      Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 528–554
      Moral Satisficing: Rethinking Moral Behavior as BoundedRationality

      Abstract
      What is the nature of moral behavior? According to the study of bounded rationality, it results not from character traits or rational deliberation alone, but from the interplay between mind and environment. In this view, moral behavior is based on pragmatic social heuristics rather than moral rules or maximization principles.

      These social heuristics are not good or bad per se, but solely in relation to the environments in which they are used. This has methodological implications for the study of morality: Behavior needs to be studied in social groups as well as in isolation, in natural environments as well as in labs. It also has implications for moral policy: Only by accepting the fact that behavior is a function of both mind and environmental structures can realistic prescriptive means of achieving moral goals be developed.

      Keywords:
      Moral behavior; Social heuristics; Bounded rationality

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01094.x

    209. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Stuart,

      Thank you for the ballpark number. That was very decent and open of you. I bet when you started this website you wouldn’t have expected to pay the Gross Domestic Product equivalent of a small country in legal fees. The quarter mill., was actually on the low side of amounts I have seen at the “tax” legal fee audit stage. Though if that is what arrives through your letterbox it must be bloody infuriating having won the case and then getting to pay Dugdale’s fees.

      Stuart, you definitely have invented a new term to go into the lexicon of Scots Law. This is important and worth emphasising…

      Shroedinger’s Verdict.

      Where you win, but you lose.

      In all seriousness (well apart from it being Sheldon Cooper and Big Bang theory who have MEMED the experiment of Shroedinger’s Cat into modern zietgiest), I think we should ALL start talking about Shroedinger’s Verdict on social media until it becomes a “thing”. Once we get our ScottishGovernment back then OUR Scottish Legal system will be well overdue for an overhaul and Shroedinger’s Verdict will be included in that at committee stage when then enshrined into proper laws that we all seek: fair, balanced, decent and just.

      Any ways, I for one have been saving up for the fundraiser when you are ready Stuart.

      Though the substantive point still stands…

      Maybe we should change tack. Dump the court challenges as that is a high stakes legal lottery.

      Instead, we crowdfund and go straight for THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

      You rustled up the famous WEE BLUE BOOK in double-quick time and I reckon you added between 4% and 5% to the YES total in 2014. You helped directly with a Herculean task to get us up to the infamous 45%.

      Your talents, and perhaps a wee bit of help from Alex Salmond and Joanna Cherry could sure make a HUGE difference by an order of magnitude greater than any court verdict in shifting public opinion with a new (TARTAN or other colour to follow the wee blue and wee black book)..

      THE TARTAN BOOK ON HOW TO GUARANTEE INDYREF2

      Surely it is approaching time to let the whole of Scotland know the truth?

      Above all else, we have the power to find raise enough to publish, print and post a copy of a new Wee Book of Guaranteed Indy Truth and ensure every household in Scotland has a copy.

      We’ve had some very interesting legal fights. Joanna Cherry winning over Boris was a highlight and I actually jumped out of my seat and punched the air on learning Alex Salmond had been cleared of that stitch-up by the alphabet witches and the FUBAR of the criminally overpaid sidekick to Sturgeon – the Evans Dissembler.

      It is time to get our own act together? A new book and a crowdfunder to ensure all of Scotland gets the message of the failure that awaits our nation if we are pillaged forevermore by Boris Johnson and his Dominic Cummings psycho unit working in tandem with the Sturgeon’s McWokeist fifth column.

      ————————————————–

      Original quote…

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      18 August, 2020 at 6:51 pm
      “Stuart, would you be able to give us a ballpark of the cost of Kezia Thickdale? The full costs.”
      .
      We don’t know yet, we’re currently awaiting her lawyers’ bill, but as a rough ballpark somewhere in the general region of £250,000.

    210. Athanasius says:

      Salmond is definitely guilty — of being male.

    211. ‘holymacmoses says:
      18 August, 2020 at 9:20 pm
      Who rattled you cage 9.00pm.

      Here’s the recipe’

      Thanks! Got my next ministerial stitch-up tea-snacks sorted!

    212. Monsieur le RoiGrenoulleverteetprofonde says:

      NS must be untenable as an independence leader, but having become a household name and become embedded in so many people’s minds as a leader and having acquired that political inertia that comes with widespread acceptance, she will be tough to remove.
      Regrettable though it may be, we are very influenced by the events across the Atlantic so the metoo movement is an inevitable development in hearmetoo bandwagon chorus of ribbit voices such as that of Kirstein Rummery.(One should usually be suspicious of someone with a whimsically spelled first name. It reveals a feeble desperation to be different and belies the quality of any comments). Such people are at the vanguard of any caprice that comes along, having been poised most of their life for their jump aboard for their defining metooooo(tailing off into a high pitched shriek)moment.
      Kirstein, with her adamantine zeal, states that women don’t lie about sexual matters but one is always reminded, when confronted by such certitude, that frequently, those most unsure of their straightness are the most vehement and vocal in their condemnation of homosexuality. It is a funny old world, and deception is the stock in trade of those who use words primarily to gain leverage.
      Woman H has something to explain because she made the most complete and serious accusation and also the most ludiicrous, quantum theorised, one and it will become impossible for to avoid exposure (somehow).Quantum jawaits. My guess is that she will buckle under the mass of dark matter ‘heaped’ on her shoulders.Not the sturgid word ‘heaped’ chosen to resonate neatly with the ‘heap of nonsense’ conspiracy. Come Nicola, the world awaits
      .
      “For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, who art as black as hell, as dark as night”.

    213. Annie 621 says:

      Thank you Stuart for All you write here.
      Everything.
      Many Dylan songs come to mind..The one that stands out most has to be
      Idiot Wind.. Alex’song for Nicola.
      All fucked up.
      Bloody sad.

    214. Wee Chid says:

      Tannadice Boy and WhoRattledYourCage Working class woman here who agrees with you 100%. No time for casting couch complainers who make their careers that way then cry years later. Every sympathy for genuine victims but not for kiss and tell types. Equality was meant to be about putting women on a legal, equal footing with men, not trying to make men conform to the behaviour and emotions of women.
      We’re different and differences should be celebrated. Can’t help but feel there are moves afoot to make us all one androgynous species. Glad I’m old enough not to have to worry about it too far ahead in the future.

    215. Dogbiscuit says:

      The ‘criminologist’ s Flat Earth thought process is hilarious.

    216. Dogbiscuit says:

      The unnecessary’ lockdowns’ will be Sturgeons downfall. That and her attempts to police every aspect of our lives private as well as public.

    217. Dogbiscuit says:

      I’m a dissenting heretic.

    218. Jack Murphy says:

      It’s Saturday so here’s my Lines of the Week—-lifted from William Habib Steele who opened his comment at 11:10 pm on Tuesday:

      “The BBC turned the presumption of innocence on its head. They have instituted the presumption of guilt, even after the accused has been acquitted by judge and jury…”



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




    ↑ Top