The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Some misunderstanding

Posted on February 03, 2021 by

We’re feeling a bit confused this morning, readers. Maybe someone can help.

Below is the key part of the letter sent by the Clerks of the Scottish Parliament, acting on behalf of the Fabiani committee, to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) a week and a half ago, requesting material for their investigation into the Scottish Government’s botched handling of false allegations against Alex Salmond.

As we’d told you at the time, the request was a sham, designed to produce nothing of any value, because it carefully excluded the only person whose communications with Sue Ruddick were actually of relevance – SNP chief executive Peter Murrell.

(Murrell being an employee of the party, NOT a member of the Scottish Government, a civil servant or a special adviser.)

But yesterday it all went really weird.

Because after the Scottish Government had placed a couple of newspaper stories with tame journalists, in which an anonymous source briefed that the irrelevant messages delivered to the inquiry by COPFS had somehow “destroyed” Salmond’s claims of a conspiracy, it also had its emergency mouthpiece Rape Crisis Scotland ride into the fray – something it only does when it’s in a panic and needs a distraction.

The statement RCS released was bizarre.

But wait a minute. The Clerk hadn’t asked for messages from “people identified by the police and the Crown as victims of sexual harassment” at all.

The Clerk had in fact asked for messages from “Members of the Scottish Government, Scottish Government civil servants and Scottish Government Special Advisers”. 

So why had COPFS apparently sent the Clerk a bundle of “private and personal” messages between the alleged victims instead of what it had been asked for?

(And just in passing, why indeed was it still being suggested by RCS, albeit in sneakily weasel-worded terms, that these people were “victims” who should be “believed” when the jury in a criminal trial had decided, after hearing all the evidence, that none of them had in fact been sexually harassed? The verdict has not been appealed. And since the messages HADN’T actually been published and WEREN’T in the public domain, what were they getting in such a lather about anyway?)

So have Rape Crisis Scotland and COPFS between them just outed all the accusers as Scottish Government members, civil servants and special advisers? It’s very difficult to reach any other conclusion from the facts above. That would seem extraordinarily reckless, and something which could quite likely lead to their jigsaw identification, in conjunction with other information already published by the Scottish media.

We’re not sure who you report the Crown Office to if you think it’s committed contempt of court, because we’ve been trying to get it to tell us for the best part of a year who it answers to, without success.

Maybe Rape Crisis Scotland will have more luck finding out than we have. Although it seems to us that it’s Rape Crisis Scotland themselves – by making this big public song and dance over something the public was never going to know about – who may have actually let the cats out of the bag.

Oh, and one last thing – how did Rape Crisis Scotland even KNOW which messages had been sent from COPFS to the Clerk, and what was in them, since they haven’t been published? They have no locus in the matter whatsoever, so who’s been leaking these confidential documents to a Scottish Government quango that’s obsessed with discrediting the trial verdict, and will anyone be held accountable for it?

These are strange times.

Print Friendly

    170 to “Some misunderstanding”

    1. Ian McCubbin says:

      Me things someone or some people want to spin a Web of he said she said to divert from who really said what to whom.
      The question is on whose instructions?

    2. BuggerLePanda says:

      The web of lies between the said parties is becoming so Byzantine they might end up answering their own questions.

    3. Astonished says:

      Lies , damned lies, boris=sized lies and copfs

    4. David Gray says:

      I think you answered your own question, Rev.

    5. this is all taking on a distinctly dystopian feel!

    6. Contrary says:

      Quite.

      I’ve also been trying to figure out : CAN one be bullied and intimidated while being anonymous? Is that in any way feasible? It’s a serious question that I’m having difficulty with.

      The Crown Office probably has to report itself to itself, extrapolating from past events. Sigh, I wish things were a bit simpler.

    7. Bob Mack says:

      Is this level of skullduggery actually necessary to hide your innocence. ?

      The truth is generally sufficient.

    8. Captain Yossarian says:

      This leads me to believe that the Fabiani Inquiry has been got-at by the Scottish Crown Office.

      All that was required was ‘The WhatsApp messages between Susan Ruddick and Peter Murrell’.

      Why is that so complex?

    9. Mike says:

      Title an excuse to play this amazing song!

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E9yJFUyq-pY

    10. Daisy Walker says:

      I posted this on the other thread, but it is very relevant to the above with regards the RCS letter.

      My comments are in Capitals to differntiate.

      Daisy Walker says:
      2 February, 2021 at 7:18 pm

      Below is the statement issued by the Rape Crisis Centre.

      If is disgraceful. I’ll put the professional reasons why it is disgraceful in capitals as I work my way through it.

      Statement on the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints
      Posted on February 2 2021

      Below is a statement from the women whose personal and private messages were requested by the Scottish Parliament’s “Salmond Committee” and were handed to the Committee by the Crown Office as part of a Section 23 Order for messages belonging to Sue Ruddick.

      In light of the decision taken by the Committee not to publish the messages received from the Crown Office under the Section 23 Order, we feel it is important that our voices are heard, where so far they have been secondary to the Committee’s inquiry.

      THE COMMITTE IS NOT INVESTIGATING THE WOMEN WHO MADE ALLEGATIONS – THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED FULLY AND SUBJECT TO A TRIAL AT HIGH COURT. THE PURPOSE OF THE ENQUIRY IS TO ASCERTAIN IF THE SCOT GOV CONDUCTED THEIR PART OF THE PROCESS CORRECTLY – OR WASTED VALUABLE TAX PAYERS MONEY.

      We are deeply disappointed that the Committee saw fit to request messages between people identified by the Police and the Crown as victims of sexual harassment, some of whose identities are protected by a court order. We have no doubt that members of the Committee knew that vulnerable witnesses were involved when they made the request.

      ‘PEOPLE IDENTIFIED BY THE POLICE AND THE CROWN AS VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT’ – LET US GET ONE THING ABSOLUTELY STRAIGHT, RIGHT JUST NOW, THE POLICE HAD A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS MADE FULLY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND REPORT THEIR FINDINGS IN FULL TO THE PROCURATOR FISCAL. COPFS THEN HAD A DUTY, IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO PRESENT THE PROSECUTION TO THE COURT.

      NEITHER INSTITUTION, CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTIES, IS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE STATUS OF ‘VICTIMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT’.

      FOR RAPE CRISIS CENTRE TO MISREPRESENT THE FUNCTION OF THE POLICE AND FISCAL SERVICE IN THIS WAY, IS A CORE DERELICTION OF DUTY, AND DOES A COMPLETE MIS-SERVICE TO THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, BY PROVIDING THEM WITH UNREALISTIC AND FALSE EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT THESE ORGANISATIONS ARE LEGALLY AND MORALLY TIED TO DO, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT THERE TO DO.

      We are also deeply disturbed that the Crown has felt it appropriate to break the trust we placed in it. Having been let down by the Crown Office, we feel this unnecessary act will have done serious damage to progress made over the last few years in sexual assault cases. We urge the Crown to consider the grave consequences of their actions, and are actively considering further options.

      THE CROWN IS RELEASING THESE DOCUMENTS KICKING AND SCREAMING, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY REQUIRED TO DO SO.

      THE CROWN IS UNDER SERIOUS SCRUTINY FOR ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION, IN PART STEMMING FROM THIS INCIDENT, AND ITS MAIN PLAYERS IN THE CROWN OFFICE AND CURRENT GOVERNMENT – WHICH THE ENQUIRY HAS BEEN SET UP TO LOOK INTO.

      Not a single one of these messages relates to the remit of the Committee or the Committee’s published approach to the inquiry. In short, what the Crown provided are personal communications between friends who supported each other during a traumatic time.

      EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE COMPLAINERS IN THIS CASE WILL HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY POLICE NOT TO TALK TO OTHER WITNESS / COMPLAINERS ABOUT THEIR PERCEIVED EXPERIENCE – BECAUSE THE CASE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE MOROOV DOCTRINE. A CORE PRINCIPLE OF WHICH RELIES ON THE WITNESSES BEING INDEPENDENT AND UNCONNECTED TO ONE ANOTHER.

      FORMING A SUPPORT GROUP AMONG ‘VICTIMS’ PRIOR TO THE TRIAL – COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR EVIDENCE. AND AS THE RAPE CRISIS CENTRE – YOU SHOULD BE HIGHLY AWARE OF THIS PRINCIPLE.

      POLICE WILL HAVE REFERED THESE WOMEN TO RAPE CRISIS CENTRE AND OTHER ‘PROFESSIONAL’ SERVICES. IN ENQUIRIES OF THIS NATURE, THAT’S WHAT THEY DO! ITS IN THEIR PROCEDURES! FOR THIS VERY REASON. SO THAT THEY HAD SUPPORT, AND THAT SUPPORT WAS EXPERIENCED, PROFESSIONAL AND COULD IN NO WAY BE ACCUSED OF COMPOMISING THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE OR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, OR WHATS THAT PHRASE… ‘TAITED BY APPARENT BIAS’.

      Comments made by members of the committee, passing judgement on the motivations of women, describing women’s communications as “fair game” and raising questions as to the genuine nature of the complaints made, have caused considerable distress since the Order was placed and do a disservice to all women who have made complaints of this nature.

      UNTIL YOUR HIGHLY REVEALING STATEMENT TODAY, NO-ONE PURSUING THIS TRAVESTY HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE COMPLAINERS MESSAGES WERE PART OF WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.

      WELL DONE RCC – FOR REVEALING MORE OF THE CONSPIRACY. SO YOUR SENTENCE, ‘describing women’s communications as “fair game” IS MISLEADING, AND SHOULD READ ‘THE COMMUNICATIONS / FAIR GAME’.

      Each individual in the messages requested by the Committee experienced behaviour from Alex Salmond that was unacceptable and which either Police Scotland or the Crown Office considered potentially criminal.

      AND WHICH WENT TO FULL TRIAL AND AQUITTED ALEX SALMOND OF FULLY.

      A group chat, about which there has been much speculation, was simply a support group for women who had already shared their experiences with the Police. The selective quoting of messages by people with whom they should not have been shared has led to increasing pressure on the women involved.

      THE WOMEN WILL HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED VERY CLEARLY BY POLICE SCOTLAND, AFTER THEY PROVIDED THEIR STATEMENTS OF COMPLAINT – NOT TO TALK TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT, AND REFERRED TO PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS WHERE THEY COULD DO SO SAFELY.

      These messages, had they been published, would show clearly that there was no conspiracy between women, but bonds of friendship and support.

      THE CASE AGAINST ALEX SALMOND RESTED HEAVILY ON THE MOROOV PRINCIPLE, A CORE PART OF WHICH IS THAT THE COMPLAINERS ARE NOT CONNECTED TO ONE ANOTHER. THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR EVIDENCE RESTS ON THEIR BEING NO CHANCE FOR THEM TO TALK IN DEPTH ABOUT IT TO OTHER COMPLAINERS AND THUS BE ACCUSED OF INFLUENCING (EVEN UNCONSCIOUSLY) OR CONTAMINATING EACH OTHERS VERSION OF EVENTS.

      There is no manual as to what happens to you when you speak to the Police and they inform you that the actions you describe could be criminal. There’s no handbook that sets out whether or how you’ll be protected, what your rights are and what happens to your identity. There’s no immediate offer of support from a third party, someone who can help guide you through the process. That simply isn’t there. So you turn to your friends and colleagues for support.

      THIS IS ABSOLUTE LIEING BULLSHIT.

      ITS THE REASON YOU – THE RAPE CRISIS CENTRE, GET A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC MONEY AND WORK CLOSELY WITH THE POLICE. YOU ARE THE 3RD PARTY AND THE POLICE WILL HAVE SIGNPOSTED THE VICTIMS TO YOU, AND TO THE DOMESTIC ABUSE OFFICERS/ BERNARDOS, AND TO VICTIM SUPPORT.

      And when the person you have been asked by Police Scotland to give evidence about is someone who was and is a hugely powerful figure, there is comfort in knowing that you are not the only one going through that experience, you find support in solidarity.

      YOU FIND SUPPORT IN SOLIDARITY – YOU ALSO WILL HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO DO IT BECAUSE IT COMPROMISES EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR EVIDENTIAL STATEMENTS. IT LOOKS LIKE COLLUSION. IT MEANS THE JURY, HAVE GOT TO BE AT LEAST OPEN TO THE ALLEGATION OF COLLUSION, OF BIAS.

      THAT THE RAPE CRISIS CENTRE WOULD ISSUE SUCH A BLATENTLY MISGUIDED POINT OF VIEW, RAISES VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE JOB YOU CURRENTLY ARE IN.

      It is impossible to counter claims of conspiracy by those who selectively choose messages, without any context. These are private and personal communications which should not need to be in the public domain to prove a theory false or for complainers to be believed.

      NO, THESE MESSAGES ARE EVIDENCE, AND GIVEN THE WIDER CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT YOUR JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GET OVER YOURSELVES.

      That we work in politics should not prevent us from speaking honestly and truthfully to the Police or to each other, in fact it should compel us to do so, to live up to the values we believe in.

      We firmly believe that the Committee’s determination to gain sight of and publish these personal messages is yet another example of the behaviour that led Rape Crisis Scotland to write on behalf of the two complainers in the government investigation into Mr Salmond that;

      “They are deeply disappointed that the Committee continues to be insensitive to the fact that they are real people on the other side of this, and they are distressed that their painful personal experiences are being exploited for political purposes through the Committee’s inquiry.”

      Publication and discussion of private messages is a complete invasion of privacy and has already led to further distress, not only to us, but also to the other women involved in complaints against Mr Salmond, and those we turned to for support.

      The bullying and intimidation of complainers through use of their private and personal communications must end now.

      ANYONE KEEPING A WATCHING BRIEF ON THE INQUIRY WILL HAVE BEEN DECIDEDLY UNDERWHELMED BY THE TOOTHLESS TIGERS THEY APPEAR TO BE. ACCUSING THEM OF BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION OF THE COMPLAINERS IS SOPHISTRY OF THE MOST PATHETIC KIND. PARTICULARLY AS THEIR COURT ORDERED ANONIMITY IS STILL IN FORCE.

      Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland said:

      “In amongst the noise and politics of this committee inquiry the experiences of the women who reported their experiences has been side-lined, manipulated and exploited by some for political and personal gain. This is completely unacceptable.

      Survivors often tell us that they fear disclosing their experiences because people may not believe them, that there will be repercussions from the person responsible or others, and if they report they fear their lives will be scrutinised and torn apart. It’s difficult to see this entire situation as anything other than a manifestation of many survivors’ worst fears on a magnified, national scale.

      The remit of this inquiry is clear and both the request for these private messages and the decision of the Crown to provide them is unjust and irrelevant to the work of the committee.

      YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO DECIDE THIS, THE EVIDENCE REQUESTED HAS BEEN DONE SO, LAWFULLY.

      Survivors are entitled to privacy

      INTERSTING USE OF THE WORD ‘SURVIVORS’ I’LL REMIND YOU THAT ALEX SALMOND WAS FULLY AQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES. BUT LEAVING THAT ASIDE, THE COURT ORDER OF ANONIMITY FOR THE COMPLAINERS IS STILL ACTIVE.

      and we are deeply concerned about the precedent this sets going forward,

      MANY OF US ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THIS SETS, INCLUDING THE BIGGER PICTURE, THAT IT BECOMES A METHOD OF MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A COLLEAGUE WITH NOLEGAL CONSEQUENCE FOR THE PERPETRATORS, AND A MEANS OF CONTINUING TO BESMIRCH THE CHARACTER OF A PERSON FOUND NOT GUILTY AND FULLY AQUITTED AT A TRIAL BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS.

      and the impact that this public conversation is having right now on anyone who has experienced any form of sexual harassment, abuse or assault.

      I HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, I AM FEMALE, I AM ALSO A TAXPAYER, AND AN INTELLIGENT PROFESSIONAL, AND A PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN LAW AND ORDER. I AM ALSO FULLY AWARE THAT WOMAN CAN BE JUST AS CORRUPT AS MEN. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

      The focus of this inquiry should be on organisational accountability and capturing any possible learning for improved responses going forward. Far greater care needs to be taken to avoid worsening the intimidation and harassment of the women involved in this case.”

      INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT ARE CLEARLY DEFINED UNDER SCOTTISH CRIMINAL LAW – I ASSUME YOU WILL BE SUBSTANTIATING THESE ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE COMPLAINERS AS THEY CONTACT THE POLICE AND MAKE FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF THESE CRIMES.

      OR ARE YOU JUST BANDING ABOUT INFLAMATORY LANGUAGE ONCE AGAIN.

      SANDLY BRINDLAY – THAT YOU HAVE RELEASED THE ABOVE STATEMENT TODAY, SHOWS THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY CAPACITY WITH RAPE CRISIS CENTRE.

      YOUR ERRONOUS ADVICE TO COMPLAINERS OF SEXUAL CRIMES IS LIKELY TO CAUSE UNNECCESSARY MISUNDERSTANDING AND DISTRESS.

      YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MOROOV DOCTRINE AND THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT SUPPORT ADVOCACY SERVICES – IF PASSED ON TO COMPLAINERS HAS THE REAL CAPACITY TO SEE SERIOUS CRIMINAL SEX OFFENCE TRIALS COMPROMISED TO THE POINT OF FAILURE.

      IT REVEALS A SHOCKING LEVEL OF IGNORANCE OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND IS DEEPLY, DEEPLY CONCERNING.

    11. Alf Baird says:

      “We’re not sure who you report the Crown Office to”

      That would be the British state, not that it would do much good.

      Because the British state is opposed to Scottish ‘separation’, as are all its agencies, including what George Osborne called the ‘arms’ of the British state in Scotland which are – crown, police, and civil service. And which are, coincidentally, the same entities that pursued Alex Salmond, Mark Hirst, Craig Murray etc.

    12. Socrates MacSporran says:

      ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’

      That quote is, as every Scot knows, from Marmion, Sir Walter Scott’s poem about Flodden.

      This whole Salmond stitch-up is shaping-up to be Sturgeon’s and her coven’s Flodden, methinks.

    13. Big Jock says:

      Agree. The media subtly suggesting the accusers were victims, thus trying to suggest Salmond was guilty. When in fact the media should be investigating the false accusers.

      I smell a big fat stinking rat!

    14. Effijy says:

      Isn’t it sad that when deep set corruption within Scottish Government and our
      Legal System are highlighted only one man is accurately reporting on it?

      Those behind it are so desperately incompetent in their cover ups they
      could never be an asset to their core duties.

      Still can never see why the names of vicious liars and expensive time wasters Is
      the priority over an innocent man seeking clarity, truth and justice.

      Last rant. After the SNP Gov giving millions to the biased Westminster media,
      I see we are forking out more millions to Scottish Sea Food companies.
      Are they not the ones who voted and supported Brexit?
      Are they not the ones who beloved Boris’ oven ready great deal?
      Did they not embrace Gove’s promise of greater controls and wealth with Brexit?
      Wasn’t it them standing with DRoss extolling the virtues of Westminster Tory policies?

      Why on earth would Scots foot any bill for these people?

      Think of the recovery the sea would have if they stopped until Independence Day.

    15. Contrary says:

      Hold on,,,

      That would appear to suggest that the leak to the daily record came from one of the complainers – I don’t think anyone has suggested that, and in fact the point has been made that it surely wouldn’t have been – reluctant as they were for any police involvement (At the time of the leak, the very small number of people that had access to the information was within the Scottish government including the 2 complainants originally investigated).

    16. Black Joan says:

      What, if anything, does this tell us about the second part of that request, the one for documents relevant to the leaking of confidential information to the Daily Record?

      Why does RCS not want to get to the bottom of that illegal act? Why not condemn that breach of trust with its likely serious consequences for “progress” in cases of sexual assault? If you are a potential complainer in future, how would you not be deterred and traumatised by the thought of your painful allegations being leaked to a tabloid and forming sensational headlines and the leaker and publisher escaping any repercussions?

      Does RCS not think that the person or persons responsible for that leak, and the recipient and publisher, should be named and shamed and perhaps prosecuted, in the interests of any potential future complainers?

    17. Big Jock says:

      Socrates -Makes sense. The timing of Sturgeon’s press releases , the week before Salmond destroys her!

      She is trying desperately to manipulate the media , like she has manipulated so many SNP members. It won’t work , the truth is a hard thing to bury.

    18. Kenny says:

      Good spot.
      Is there a ‘Numpties‘ emoji?

      Is there a ‘Is Sturgeon still in a job? emoji?

    19. Bob Mack says:

      @Daixy Walker,

      Respect. Brilliant analysis.

    20. SilverDarling says:

      The committee ask for one set of messsages which might add weight to Alex Salmond’s argument- these are not received by the committee.

      They receive instead another set of mssages once more portraying the accusers as distressed victims AND possibly identifying them to the committee, breaching the ever diminishing anonimity AND against the wishes of the accusers. Now why would they do that?

      Of course RCS are upset – their transparently political vendetta is unravelling so yet more distraction is needed. The accusers must rue the day they were persuaded to participate in this farce.

    21. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Well thats quite a big piece of the Jigsaw filled in, thankyou RCS. We all thought these were civil servants or spads etc during Alex’s time as FM. The above RCS statement confirms they were part of government, government employees or spads during the time period Aug 18 to Jan 19.

      Thats quite a big help actually…

      Is it Sandy Brindly we should thank or did someone else write it for RCS…?

    22. Bob Mack says:

      One man is trying to get to the truth.

      The powers of the establishment are trying to prevent that happening uxing every device in their considerable armoury.

      Who therefore is the real victim?

    23. Bridget says:

      It would be funny, if it wasn’t sick, that Rape Crisis Scotland, and the investigating committee itself, just corroborated the fact that all the complainers were from a tightly knit government circle of SPADS, civil servants and politicians around Nicola Sturgeon.

      Also that they had plenty of opportunity to collude with each other through that whatsapp group.

      I am so sick of hearing them referred to as ‘victims’. The charges were debunked in court but most of them were ludicrous anyway. If kissing a woman on both cheeks, touching her clothed knee in a car, tweeking her hair, or kissing her foot playfully count as jailable sexual assault, most men would be in jail.

      Sexual assault is a real and serious problem for women and these charges make a mockery of it. They muddy the waters for real victims.

      The alphabet women are only victims of their own plotting. Time they were outed as the liars they are.

    24. kapelmeister says:

      The Sturgeon crew are hopelessly trying to stem the tide. Just reminds me of the inadequate RA rocket battery in Zulu Dawn, firing off their few missiles as the massed impi close in. Prepare to meet your Isandhalwana Sturgeon!

    25. orri says:

      There need not be a conspiracy involving the majority of the witnesses in the case as much as pressure put on them the re-examine past encounters with Alex Salmond in the light of what they were persuaded was a genuine accusation of rape. There may even have been a guilt trip laid on them by claims that if only one of them had spoken up then said rape may never have come to pass.

      The problem with the messages is that they do introduce suspicion on collusion, regardless of whether it’s unfounded or not, in the evidence given in a trial like rape. Once witnesses start talking then it becomes difficult to show that their evidence is their own or coloured by others testimony.

      I’ve seen at least one reference to messages talking about applying pressure to witnesses in order to get them to take the stand. Perhaps there were more. Those are what would prove any conspiracy or even any illegal pressure put on the witnesses to take the stand in what surely some of them might know might damage their reputations if their identities became known for elevating instances of minor contact to outright accusations of sexual assault if making those were their idea in the first place.

      The only excuse left to those trying to escape scrutiny, who may indeed be part of a far smaller conspiracy, is they’d become convinced Salmond was a wrong un and were similarly moved by those messages of mutual support. Or far more probably were inclined to believe someone who is in all probability a liar because they wanted to do so and manipulated those women. A bit like the cop who frames a criminal.

    26. Stephen P says:

      Excellent analysis. In football parlance it’s a spectacular own goal!

    27. DCoi says:

      I read this story in The Guardian this morning complete with the statement from Rape Crisis Scotland, and the first thing that occurred to me was: “have RCS just outed all the complainants as employees of the Scottish Government?”

      Oh deary me.

    28. Captain Yossarian says:

      I think I’ve worked it out now. Whoever leaked the story to the Daily Record?

      This is worse than Watergate. There were no human consequences arising from Watergate. Some bugging of the Democratic Party HQ and a slush fund, that was about it. This story is entirely different.

      I’ve always thought that an external police-led investigation would sort this out in a couple of days. It would allow Jackie and Linda to spend more time at home.

      ‘They were just ordinary people and it just got out of hand’….we have that much in common with Watergate, don’t we.

      Is this not covered by the Secretary of State’s remit?

    29. Stu hutch says:

      Is it conceivable once this enquiry has ended with what we all expect ie a whitewash . That alex can bring a private legal case against ALL those that have put him in this position possibly a crowd funder and Aiden o’Neil to prise open this pandora box.I find it hard to believe that the obvious corruption of the political, legal, and police service can be so easily achieved by a small group of political appointees.Time will out most of them eventually however a criminal conviction would ensure lies and deceit will not triumph

    30. Bob Mack says:

      Are RCS going to be reported for jigsaw identification ?. They should be dont you think.? Especially the author of the letter. I now know the ID of at least two.

    31. How does RCS know what is in the documents that the Crown of ice send?

      Is everything passed to RCS for their perusal?

    32. Morag says:

      Friends, supporting each other? I thought they weren’t supposed to know each other or to have been in contact with each other, ever. Not even when they all co-signed a letter….

    33. Bob Mack says:

      @James Caithness,

      Very valid point. Why indeed would they know?

    34. Bob says:

      We had the Ruth Davidson party and now have the Nicola Sturgeon party.

      Two peas in a pod by the looks of things.

    35. Cath says:

      When all this comes out (and it has to because at least one of those women cannot remain anonymous) the damage to women will be immense. Not just the damage to those who might genuinely want or need to report sexual harassment, but to women in management and politics generally.

    36. Sheepshagger says:

      Ditto that @ DCoi.

    37. Skip_NC says:

      As time has gone on, my suspicions as to one of the accusers has solidified. Now I believe that RCS has put all the pieces together for me and I know who the perjurer (Woman H?) is.

      My grateful thanks to the Scottish MSM and those at RCS involved with this grubby publicity exercise for pretty much telling me who the main accuser is.

    38. SilverDarling says:

      Wate, were the messages sent to the Committtee the ones they asked for?

      If so the RCS has identified most of the accusers and they should be angry at them and the Committee for that po-faced ‘safe space’ nonsense statement to the press.

      Deary deary me. Craig Murrays team must be watching very carefully.

    39. Mighty S says:

      And so, thanks to WoS and Ian Lawson, we now know that our senior law agencies are corrupt or have corrupt individuals in them.

      We can complain to the state…but what will they care?

      Is there anything we can do to hoof them out of post before we turn into North Korea?

      Those mentions of severe rioting and civil protest are becoming more likely every day, no?

    40. SilverDarling says:

      Wait* FFS

    41. The Dissident says:

      @Contrary at 11:39.

      Indeed.

    42. Eileen Carson says:

      Sooooo who put pressure on RCS to issue such an inappropriate, biased and [obviously] political statement? Did it go something like “….. or we’ll cut your funding”?

    43. Betsy says:

      I have been convinced since the Garavelli article that they’re trying to goad someone into naming one or more of the complainants by casually tossing out these massive clues whilst ostensibly defending victims. This would then handily shift the narrative back on to evil misogynist Salmond endangering the helpless women etc etc.

    44. MaggieC says:

      O/T ,

      Just a reminder that FIRST MINISTERS QUESTIONS are TODAY at 12.30 pm , I don’t suppose any other Msp will ask the question to Mrs Murrell why didn’t her husband turn up to the inquiry yesterday ?? .
      .
      I see that the Snp twitter feed is promoting Pmqs with Boris and not Fmqs with Mrs Murrell ?

    45. 1971Thistle says:

      Am I missing something/? Does collaboration between witnesses not render their evidence null and void?

      If this was known about, surely it should even have gone to trail.

      That said, I may indeed be missing something

    46. Beaker says:

      @Mighty S says:
      3 February, 2021 at 12:09 pm
      “Is there anything we can do to hoof them out of post before we turn into North Korea?”

      North Korea is probably a safer country to live in these days…

    47. Effijy says:

      Not only does this deter genuine cases of sexual harassment
      but it positively encourages women who want to destroy the reputation
      and career of an innocent man that they can attempt it without cost to
      themselves, without fear of imprisonment or financial penalty and they
      can have their name protected while the innocent accused drowns in stigma.

      There is no shred of acceptable process or justice anywhere in this!

      I demand the truth and penalties for the guilty!

    48. Daisy Walker says:

      The thing from the Rape Crisis letter that comes screaming out, is this,

      —-

      ‘A group chat, about which there has been much speculation,

      was simply a support group for women who had already shared their experiences with the Police.

      These messages, had they been published, would show clearly that there was no conspiracy between women, but bonds of friendship and support.’

      ——

      Or to see it through a criminal/legal filter – instantly raises the spectre of ‘collusion, evidential contamination, conspiracy, bias’.

      That the leader of RCS is so deeply ignorant of this aspect, raises serious questions about their competency to be in that job.

      Leaving aside the AS/Scot Gov enquiry.

      Imagine a different case, involving different complainers and a different suspect.

      If the complainers in that (and for obvious reasons I exclude family members who are victims), but if these individual complainers all start a wee support group (on Social Media!!! FFS, cause you know, That’s appropriate – not!) prior to the trial, and it comes out at the trial – it damages the credibility of each and every one of their accounts.

      Each and every one, no matter, in fact especially, the most serious ones.

      There is a reason the Police will tell the complainers, ‘do not discuss this’, and a core part of it is to protect the integrity of the case, and protect the witnesses from doing so unwisely at at time of great stress for them.

      It is also the reason, that as a matter of Proceedure!!!! – they automatically signpost the complainers to Professional Expert Advocacy Services such as the RCS – so that they do have assistance, and so that it does not threaten the trial.

      The second thing that is just wicked – is to lead complainers up the garden path with false expectations that the Police are their to ‘believe’ the victims.

      They are very, very specifically not there for that purpose.

      They are there to treat the complaint as valid, and investigate it to the fullest and most professional manner possible, and in doing so treat the complainer with the utmost respect.

      A well meaning Police Officer, being oh so sympathetic and believing the victim, isn’t worth shit, if while they are doing that, they are not securing the locus, gathering the evidence, tracing and noting the witness statements, the DNA, the CCTV and ultimately leaving no stone unturned with regards sufficiency of evidence to identify and convict the perpetrator.

      That Rape Crisis letter is a Bomb in more ways than one.

    49. Lorna Campbell says:

      “… These messages… for complainers to be believed… ”

      Quite apart from not forwarding the messages between the CEO and the COO, the fact that the trial managed to tease out the admission that at least two of the women had continued to work with Mr Salmond and had accepted apologies, then, at a later date, were persuaded – because they did not raise the issue themselves at the later date, but only when it became known that the new procedure was in the offing – to revitalize their complaints, says a great deal about how this was handled.

      That one of the women stated that she would not attend a meeting where the other woman would be because she did not wish to be pressured, suggests that it is vital that any, and all, records phone records, etc. relevant to the case be handed over to the inquiry. If a witness is pressured, or if another witness pressures, or if a witness is asked to do something that taints any subsequent evidence she offers, that in itself suggests, if not a conspiracy, then certainly some level of collusion, and women pressuring other women to bring forward complaints that had already been dealt with. The whole thing stinks.

    50. katherine hamilton says:

      Is it possible they formed their “support group” after the trial? (I know). That would negate any charges of collusion pre-trial re the Moorov doctrine and not sharing experiences.

    51. Contrary says:

      Daisy Walker at 11.35am,

      Exactly as you say – and excellent analysis of the supposed statement.

      And Orri,

      Yes, there are quite a few bits of evidence that indicates pressure was applied to the accusers – even ‘encouraged’ isn’t the same as ‘given support’, and doesn’t imply a ‘victim-led’ process, especially when nearly everything done appears to have been against their wishes, including going to the police. But, what does this say about them still ganging up and issuing statements of victim hood – they aren’t complaining about the groups and people that seem to have applied pressure, they are complaining about those investigating them. That leads me to say, there was no real pressure, and the ‘encouragement’ was more about,,, well, perhaps, getting favours or assurances in return. Well, let’s hope they’ve been duly rewarded for such a dreadful statement – it doesn’t put any of them in a good light.

    52. Margie Davidson says:

      Google the information, it is there for all to see:

      20 Sept 2020 Scottish Government gave Rape Crisis Scotland £4.25 million EXTRA funding – confirmed to March 2012.

      Pay back time?

    53. Jack Murphy says:

      Daisy Walker said at 11:35 am:

      I posted this on the other thread, but it is very relevant to the above with regards the RCS letter.

      My comments are in Capitals to differntiate.

      Daisy Walker says:
      2 February, 2021 at 7:18 pm

      ” Below is the statement issued by the Rape Crisis Centre.

      If is disgraceful. I’ll put the professional reasons why it is disgraceful in capitals as I work my way through it…”

      Many thanks for the hard work you’ve put into that Post Daisy.
      I’m a lot wiser than I was a few days ago.
      Take care and stay safe.

    54. Roddy Macdonald says:

      Yep, I pointed this out on the comments to The Tranish Inquisition yesterday. About the only ‘plus’ for the Alphabet/Vietnam Women in getting their PR Agency RCS to out themselves as largely one and the same thing (and thus greatly assist in jigsaw identification even by folk like me who are new to all this) appears be that it let (presumably Fabiani) issue the ‘some committee members being moved to tears’ bollocks. Well, I’m sorry ladies. ‘Feelz’ statements don’t really cut the mustard when we’re taking about attempts to jail, in the end, 3 innocent men.

      These must be committee members who haven’t read the bodice-ripping tosh from the principal accuser and the utterly lame tripe that was the supposed Moorov backup for the main fiction. And all this confirming Alex Salmond’s main allegation that there was collusion between the accusers before the criminal trial, none of whom we know wanted criminal proceedings but were dropped in it by the respective SG and SNP witch hunts against Alex. Even a police investigation which must have rivalled the Yorkshire Ripper case in terms of resources deployed and numbers of people interviewed turned up anyone outside this Alphabet/Vietnam coterie.

    55. DaveL says:

      FMQs starting now, for what it’s worth.

    56. Cath says:

      Not only does this deter genuine cases of sexual harassment but it positively encourages women who want to destroy the reputation and career of an innocent man that they can attempt it without cost to themselves, without fear of imprisonment or financial penalty and they can have their name protected while the innocent accused drowns in stigma.

      Which in turn means men will, very understandably, lose all trust in women as people to work closely with and vote for. Hell, it’s lost trust in women in power for me and I’m a woman.

    57. Mr Bruce Hosie says:

      What really gets me about all of this is an innocent man could have went to jail for the rest of his life. A jury found that the evidence presented was not trust worthy, where is the justice for the man in this, where is his protection against what a jury said were false claims. What I feel as a man this does is mean that if you are accused of any sort of sexual harassment you are guilty until proven innocent and the people who accuse you are innocent for all time, that surely cannot be right.

    58. Frank Gillougley says:

      Is one possible, yet obvious explanation for this, a simple case of, ‘Send three and fourpence, we’re going to a dance.’

      Well, somebody, somewhere, just might have fucked up.

    59. X_Sticks says:

      Nicola at FMQs looking like she didn’t sleep a wink last night. were Peter’s nightmares keeping her awake…

    60. Davie Oga says:

      Bob says:
      3 February, 2021 at 12:06 pm
      “We had the Ruth Davidson party and now have the Nicola Sturgeon party.

      Two peas in a pod by the looks of things”

      No. Davidson is media creation, with limited personal appeal and an abhorrent political viewpoint.

      The FM is a common criminal, married to a perjurer, who associates with other criminals.

      If you were Ruth Davidson’s neighbour and you had an emergency, you could trust her to watch your child for a couple of hours.

      Sturgeon?

    61. DaveL says:

      Ah well, I’m out. Covid covid vax vax blah fuckin blah.

    62. Angry Weegie says:

      Alf Baird says:
      3 February, 2021 at 11:35 am
      “We’re not sure who you report the Crown Office to”
      That would be the British state, not that it would do much good.
      Because the British state is opposed to Scottish ‘separation’, as are all its agencies, including what George Osborne called the ‘arms’ of the British state in Scotland which are – crown, police, and civil service. And which are, coincidentally, the same entities that pursued Alex Salmond, Mark Hirst, Craig Murray etc.

      Which is exactly the reason why following the British state’s rules in trying to achieve independence is completely counterproductive and will never be successful.

    63. Prasad says:

      Contrary says:
      3 February, 2021 at 11:39 am
      ‘That would appear to suggest that the leak to the daily record came from one of the complainers – I don’t think anyone has suggested that’

      Maybe i have got it all wrong but i though Craig said as much and i have thought that it was highly probable for some time before that.

    64. Roddy Macdonald says:

      Sorry, poor proof reading on my part. Final sentence should read Even a police investigation which must have rivalled the Yorkshire Ripper case in terms of resources deployed and numbers of people interviewed failed to turn up anyone outside this Alphabet/Vietnam coterie.

    65. Allium says:

      @ Betsy 12.15.

      I totally agree with you, I feel the same, and its such a wicked thing to do.

      How will people have the confidence to speak up in the future if they think the press could do the same to them?

      Fortunately no-one seems to be stupid enough to take the bait.

    66. Contrary says:

      Prasad,

      I’m differentiating between the original two complainers, and the group of accusers (of which they were a part) so, at the time of leak, just minutes before the judicial review, well before Alex Salmond was charged, and long before the police had found all the accusers, there were only two complainers that *knew of the accusations (their own) which they had investigation reports on.

      *allegedly

    67. Davie Oga says:

      Angry Weegie

      “Which is exactly the reason why following the British state’s rules in trying to achieve independence is completely counterproductive and will never be successful.”

      10 star post

    68. Kenny says:

      It’s no surprise Westminster’s been getting up and leaving the chamber every time an SNP stands to speak – they’ve been clued-up every step of the way;

      “Sturgeon’s one of us – she’ll dismantle the whole gig then we’ll discard of her”.

      The SNP, Sturgeon, and Scotland, are being shagged, very roughly, in Westminster.

    69. iain MacGillivray says:

      The elephant in the room? Anonymity for accusers found to be lying. Why should that deter any honest victim from coming forward. This alone points to a set-up, and the continued smearing of AS by NS and others only builds more evidence. When will these false accusers be held to account?

    70. David Caledonia says:

      Miss Nicola Masada Sturgeon

      Just resign you numpty and gives us peace

    71. Prasad says:

      Contrary says:
      3 February, 2021 at 12:47 pm
      Gotcha. Thanks.
      I am so thick i only have one alphabeti.

    72. Daisy Walker says:

      katherine hamilton says:
      3 February, 2021 at 12:26 pm

      Is it possible they formed their “support group” after the trial? (I know). That would negate any charges of collusion pre-trial re the Moorov doctrine and not sharing experiences.

      I don’t think so Katherine, partly because they would have said so, and rather we get this,

      ‘‘A group chat, about which there has been much speculation,

      was simply a support group for women who had already shared their experiences with the Police.

      These messages, had they been published, would show clearly that there was no conspiracy between women, but bonds of friendship and support.’

      And specifically because after the Judical Review AS stated, that there were messages he had hope to bring out as evidence. Which was before the criminal trial.

      And I suppose latterly, because no-one would really be interested in going to great lengths to recover hind sight messages, as clearly they would have no legal standing.

    73. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Bruce Hosie, re your comment,

      “What I feel as a man this does is mean that if you are accused of any sort of sexual harassment you are guilty until proven innocent and the people who accuse you are innocent for all time, that surely cannot be right.”

      The way Alex has been treated by is more like “you are guilty *even if* (until) proven innocent

    74. Artur sweet says:

      I would imagine that if you want to find out how to take on the Crown Office, you should lift the phone to Ibrox.

    75. Colin West says:

      @katherine hamilton (12:26 pm)
      Is it possible they formed their “support group” after the trial? (I know). That would negate any charges of collusion pre-trial re the Moorov doctrine and not sharing experiences.

      No, because the messages requested were between August 2018 and January 2019 which pre-dates the trial.

    76. Daisy Walker says:

      Quick look over on twitter – still no message of any kind from Philipa Whitford, or Tommy Shepherd regarding the sacking of Joanna Cherry.

      SHAME.

      But you know STRONGER FOR SCOTLAND ‘n all that, by taking the shadown Justice portfolio away from an outstanding QC and giving it to a failed drama student.

      Way to make Scotland a ‘fairer’ country for all. You might want to put a slogan on a pen, I’m with Team Numpties.

      So who have we got standing up for Joanna

      Angus B MacNeil
      Kenny McAskill
      I know there’s one or 2 others, sorry, I’ve forgotten their names, can we list them.

      It will make it easier for to identify the list of SHAME elected members that can’t find their common sense and decency backbone.

      In that way we can

    77. El Mariachi says:

      Hi Stu,

      May I suggest that when the relevant WhatApp messages finally find their way into the public domain, Lindsey Millar from COPFS is reported to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission for lying on the relevant FOI request?

      There can be little doubt that she has brought the profession into disrepute with her conduct and has undermined public confidence in her office. This is even more egregious given that COPFS is tax payer funded and oversees the dispensation of justice in the public interest.

    78. katherine hamilton says:

      Daisy Walker and Colin West.
      Thanks. Keeping up with these timelines is doing my head in.

    79. Contrary says:

      Prasad,

      Not thick in the slightest, the whole thing is so murky, entangled and convoluted no one can make sense of it – it needs a judge and a very serious inquiry to untangle it all, not a political body (the committee).

      I’ve been looking at the detail of the committee’s evidence, and trying to look at it objectively: asking “was this a reasonable thing to do/believe/decide at the time” that is, before anything was known about the criminal trial. So I’ve had to put things into separate strands and categories in my own head – artificially – just to make sense of any of it and to be the ‘reasonable observer’- it probably just looks weird to most people. It helps me with avoiding any accidental jigsaw identification, that they keep trying to bait us with, as well!

    80. Alf Baird says:

      Mighty S @ 12:09

      “And so, thanks to WoS and Ian Lawson, we now know that our senior law agencies are corrupt or have corrupt individuals in them.”

      And also looks to have found the head of the snake, as if we should be surprised, given it is the very same head that sought to block the independence of all former GB colonies. See: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/03/you-want-justice-do-you/

    81. orri says:

      Another thing to ponder. We have statements allegedly from a self styled spokesperson of the women concerned. What are the chances that’s H? Or that she is no such thing but is using their anonymity against them as they’ve no one to complain to or even know that they aren’t the only one not being consulted before these statements.

    82. Bob Mack says:

      Alyn Smith urging supporters on twitter to read RCS statement in the interests of fairness and justice.

      He forgot to add

      Also may I add to keep persecuting Alex and to expose how critically out of their depth RCS actually are

    83. MaggieC says:

      Re Harassment and Complaints Committee ,

      This has been published on the Written Evidence page today ,

      Written submission on Judicial Review received from Alex Salmond on 27 January 2021 ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/Alex_Salmond_Submission_(Judicial_Review).pdf

    84. Graham King says:

      ..W..O..W..!..!..!..

    85. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 1.38 pm

      The link is broken again so here is the written evidence page which will let you open the link re above post of Alex Salmond’s written submission ,

      https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/115516.aspx

    86. Craig Murray says:

      The link has been disabled? If you still have it open please URGENTLY screenshot the thing. Do not close.

    87. Craig Murray says:

      OK cancel that panic over thanks MaggieC.

    88. lumilumi says:

      Totally corrupt. Not the kind of a new nation anybody should want.

      Ordinary Scottish people probably want a decent, transparent, accountable, democratic country where the people are soveregn – as per the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and most democratic countries the world over – the Westminster creed that Parliament is sovereign is an anachronistic anomaly.

      The cause of Scottish independence gained some tracton, and with the collapse of Labour in Scotland, careerist and entryists focussed on the SNP to promote themselves and their agendas.

      It doesn’t need to be some “MI5 conspiracy”. Selfish people without a conviction or vision or understanding of the bigger picture will flock to the best vehicle to promote themselves and their views.

      This is the problem any and every pro-change party faces, especially in a FPTP political culture.

      The Tories are ruthless but they all “wheest for Tory”, the SNP cannot count on all independence supporters to “wheest” – and even vote – for them.

    89. Prasad says:

      Contrary
      Thanks for being polite.
      I am just a beginner.

      After the Gordon Dangerfield and Robin McAlpine posts i thought, sod this if they can deduce so much let me have a go, instead of sitting back and waiting for solid proof.
      My sister asked what was going on so i sat down and off the top of my head started to write down what i know from start to finish.
      It came to 41 points (without going into any details) which basically showed that everything goes back to NS’s office and the lies she told to cover herself.
      I was actually surprised that i had a complete picture.
      The only thing i wasn’t 100% sure about was confirmed by Craig Murray and even that wasn’t important to the picture only to who will be prosecute i.e. i knew it was someone close to NS and has strong suspicion who but the actual person wasn’t essential to the picture as a whole.
      Actually once you know that person (in my case it is the singular) it does turn out to be pretty important. It is one thing to refer to people by letters of the alphabet, it is harder for me to really see that person as a reality. When you have a name and start to see that person’s connections it brings a whole lot more realism, it is like fine tuning of focus. It becomes more shocking. It was quite a clever ploy (possibly unintended) in that the letters not just gave anonymity, they also add distance and fog.
      The only other thing i wasn’t sure about was the motive. Motives are pretty nebulous things anyway so they weren’t important to me but this last 3 days it is absolutely clear what the motives were as she has done the same to someone who she also felt was a threat.

    90. BLMac says:

      Perhaps Salmond should sue the officers of RCS for libel for their continued claim that he is a predator after he has been cleared by a court.

      That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.

      And surely RCS is in contempt of court for implying that the trial was bent.

    91. Cath says:

      That evidence is interesting, especially in that it only covers the judicial review (as I guess this committee is set up to only do). Once the same facts are applied to the criminal trial which resulted from all this, that will be far more explosive, won’t it?

    92. Elmac says:

      I see Craig Murray has a new post on his Blog re Now Scotland. Much relieved to see that it is not a political party and will not stand candidates at elections. I was afraid they would split the ISP vote.

      Official launch is Friday and I for one will join.

    93. Jm says:

      Not the old “anonymous source” trick again.What utter guff.

      As i understand it one of the accusers wasnt even present on the evening in question.

      Now thats a Hate Crime and a half.

    94. Bob Mack says:

      Well, Alex has come out swinging. Accuses FM of yet another breach of code.

    95. Robert Louis says:

      THIS is a particularly interesting insight into David Harvie, Crown agent at the crown office. What an interesting background he has!!!

      Well worth reading.

    96. Hugh Wallace says:

      @Daisy Walker

      “The second thing that is just wicked – is to lead complainers up the garden path with false expectations that the Police are their to ‘believe’ the victims.

      They are very, very specifically not there for that purpose.”

      I can concur 100%.

      I was a a police officer for a while. Just a lowly constable who had peripheral involvement with maybe a dozen serious sexual assault or rape allegations. We treated each person making such an allegation with great courtesy & care but never fully believed them until there was sufficient evidence to do so. And even then, sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime is not the same thing as believing someone to be guilty & often as not, we might believe someone to be guilty but not have sufficient evidence to charge them. Believing had very little to do with any of it; sufficiency of evidence was everything.

      Police talk about ‘bursting’ a suspect in an interview: getting them to confess to the crime. In a minority of cases we’d get the feeling that the story we were being told didn’t add up so we’d have to ‘burst’ the witness instead. That was part of the job in any investigation, not just sexual crimes.

      In my direct (though admittedly very limited) experience, there were more false allegations of sexual crimes than genuine ones. This outrages me as it is very hard (for a variety of reasons) for genuine victims to come forward & tell their stories & every false allegation makes it that bit more likely that the system won’t believe the genuine victims.

      As a police officer I didn’t accept anyone at face value. Some I knew to be lying to me because they were criminals & their lips were moving. Others I didn’t believe because every witness misses something or imagines something else. Nobody, I mean nobody, has an entirely accurate memory of complex events, especially if they are emotionally charged. My job as a police officer wasn’t to believe (or disbelieve) anyone in particular, it was to try & establish the truth of the matter & determine if a crime had occurred & respond accordingly.

    97. Keith says:

      ‘Oh, and one last thing – how did Rape Crisis Scotland even KNOW which messages had been sent from COPFS to the Clerk, and what was in them, since they haven’t been published’

      I asked them this very same question yesterday on the back of that press release!

    98. Margaret E says:

      @Daisy Walker
      Do you mean that Ms McClaughlan didn’t even graduate, in a Drama degree? Where to find her accurate CV?

    99. Colin Alexander says:

      copy and paste the web page below into your browswer if it does not appear as a blue link:

      http://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/Alex_Salmond_Submission_(Judicial_Review).pdf

    100. Daisy Walker says:

      I cannot open the document Alex Salmond judicial review doc – it says its not archived…

      This though is an extract from the latest Leslie Evans letter to the committee this month,

      ‘Detail of allegations provided to Mr SalmondMr Cole-Hamilton asked if verbatim accounts from the complainers were provided to MrSalmond. I can confirmthat the statements were not provided but that causes for concern, which provide details of each of the complaints, wereshared. This approach allowssufficient specificity to be provided such thatthe events canbe clearly understood, while alsoprotectingso far as possible the confidentiality of the complainers, as is appropriate.It was clear that Mr Salmond knew the identity of the individuals. ‘

      Anyone with any type of work place/union rep complaints procedure will know, you must show the person complained about the letter or statement of complaint – not the workplace interpretation of it – that has always been the first area where stitch ups have been formed.

      As to keeping the identity of the complainers from AS, in an allegation of sexual harassment in the workplace!!!!

      I see very few ways in which that would be physically possibel to perpetrate, particularly as legally ‘harassment’ is defined by a ‘course of conduct, with more than one incident’.

      And I see absolutely no way in which the accused can respond in any legally meaningful way to the allegations when this anonymity is in place.

      Utterly unfair, and blatantly STUPID. And Nicla SIGNED OFF ON THIS PROCEDURE.

    101. Hatuey says:

      Whilst ultimately I’m sure the truth of the plot will unravel, and I understand that everything they do hinges on a largely compliant and cooperative MSM, as well as corruption elsewhere, there is a certain artistic quality in what they’ve done here…

      In a nutshell; 1) the inquiry requests messages that corroborate Salmond’s claim of a plot and 2) the Government supplies messages that substantiate the substance of the allegations made against him.

      Everything that’s happening right now, with Cherry, indyref2, GRA, etc., it’s all being used to distract from the Salmond story. There’s a very simple reason for that: the truth of the Salmond story is indefensible and nuclear.

      They’re going to throw everything at this in the next few days in an attempt to undermine Salmond and distract people from what he’s going to say at the Inquiry. It’s got to be our job to thwart them and stay focused.

    102. Captain Yossarian says:

      I understand that we employ around 45,000 civil-servants in Scotland and only a few of them are delinquent.

      There are events unfolding just now regarding Education and schools which, although not as shocking as this, present a nevertheless sad picture of the state of probilty in today’s civic Scotland.

      Again, civil-servants will take much of the criticism, but the well has been poisoned by John Swinney just as, in this case, the well has been poisoned by Nicola Sturgeon.

      I think that resignations are inevitable now. This month is my bet.

    103. Daisy Walker says:

      Colin, still not getting it. says not in archive.

    104. The friendly Sassenach says:

      @Daisy Walker
      I get that error too

    105. Colin Alexander says:

      parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/Alex_Salmond_Submission_(Judicial_Review).pdf

      add: ” www. ” to the above web address, don’t include the ” “

    106. Bob Mack says:

      Use the link provided upthread by MaggieC. It will give you a list of written submissions. Scroll down to Alex Salmond on 27th Jan.

    107. Daisy Walker says:

      Margaret E says:
      3 February, 2021 at 2:12 pm

      @Daisy Walker
      Do you mean that Ms McClaughlan didn’t even graduate, in a Drama degree? Where to find her accurate CV?

      Her CV is listed on Wikipedia, and looks as if its been taken from her MP page. It specifies her ‘attending’ Glasgow Drama College (not its full name, but cannot be bothered trying to remember its Royal Collage of Jam Making talents).

      It does not say she graduated with qualifications in x,y and z. And if they get them, they list them.

    108. Craig Murray says:

      Robert Louis,

      Was there meant to be a link with your comment?

    109. Willie says:

      MESSAGE TO ALL WINGERS.

      Comments or Wings are now approaching the 1,000, 000 mark. To celebrate I suspect Rev Stu is going to award the one millionth comment award. Well he should do and if he does a Civic award not to be missed.

      So could it be YOU dear reader.that receives an OWE? ( Order of the Wings Empire )

    110. MaggieC says:

      Me @ 1.38 pm and 1.42 pm ,

      I see that the Herald is now reporting about Alex Salmond’s evidence as above ,

      “ Alex Salmond has accused Nicola Sturgeon’s Government of “systematic” dishonesty in its handling of sexual misconduct claims against him. The former First Minister claimed the Government made statements to Scotland’s highest court which were “untrue”, and which were part of a consistent and deliberate pattern. “

      https://archive.vn/6gG2i

    111. lumilumi says:

      Also, sorry to go O/T, but the current popularity of Nicola Sturgeon and independence polling.

      It is said it’s because of her handling the pandemic better than Boris Johnson. (A low bar.)

      She’s done better PR on the back of Covid-19 than Boris Johnson. She hasn’t actually done well at all in actually containing or stopping the pandemic, compared internationally. Being slightly better than Boris Johnson isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

      My country of 5.3 million people has about 45,800 cases, 684 deaths. For comparison, Scotland’s Covid-19 figures: 181,291 contagions, 6,181 deaths.

      Fair enough, we’re a large country, sparsely populated outside the capital region (the “plague central”). Our government didn’t legislate lockdowns, just recommendations, which most actors (business, pubilc, private individuals) followed. We’re weird that way, taking government recommendations and following it as if it was law. Treating a recommendation almost as a law.

      The approach has worked, our Covid statistics are among the lowest in Europe.

      We’re law-abiding because we believe the government is law-abiding.

      It of course becomes a problem if the general public don’t see the government as law-abiding or legitimate. SNP, take note.

    112. Bill Thomson says:

      Who told the accusers who the other accusers were and why?

    113. James Che. says:

      So rape crises Scotland has admitted that the accusers against Alex Salmond knew each other and they were a support group to each other.
      Rape crises Scotland also in that statement acknowledges [they] knew this too and yet at no point informed anyone in the trial. The police, the jury, the committee inquiry, the solicitors and legal teams, they did not have to mention names, just that the women knew each other. We’re RCS withholding evidence,
      Rape crises Scotland is also showing bias and bullying tactics towards the women by deliberately supplying the wrong information that was requested and enabling all further outlets to make speculation as to the women’s identities,,[ threatenly scaring the women into a continuous pattern of behaviour] by indicating their names might accidentally be leaked or released, Strange manipulative behaviour from them, and not professional at all,
      It sounds like RCS is close to blackmailing these women.
      Women who by the way were not judged (by a jury) and court to have been victims at all of Alex Salmond as he was cleared of all charges against him legally,
      but these women may now actually be victims of rape crises Scotland,
      however these women should now be charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice, of attempting to falsely imprison another. Providing false evidence. And RCS for the collusion and knowing encouragement of these women to proceed to falsely imprison another, and for withholding evidence that was detrimental to a trial,
      All evidence points to These women not being keen to go to the police in the first instance, why is RCS maintaining pressure on them ,The accusations was found to be false, why is RCS continuing a vendetta all of its own, why is RCS going against the court in maintaining these women are protected victims, and as the court and jury unanimously found in favour of Alex Salmond, why has the court not lifted the protection order, as this is protecting criminal behaviour,
      So RCS are at this present time are instigating and promoting an ideology that the court and the jury’s outcome can be seen to be overruled by [their] own personal opinion further causing illegal speculation by MSM outlets and promoting harassment towards the true victims of the court case, Mr Alex Salmond, his wife and family.
      If I was Alex Salmond, I would be making inquiries as to the reason why the protection order still stands,
      I would be suggesting to my solicitor that my name had not been cleared as it should have been according to the result of the court trial, as he Alex Salmond and his family are still being subject to innuendos and false accusations by RCS as long as the protection order is maintained for the women, thus implying that they were victims, thus implying by default that he) mr Salmond had been a perpetrator of a crime, going against the the juries and judges verdict in the court.
      The stance that RCS is propagating is fraudulent and deliberately misleading, and it needs to be cleared up,
      I would donate funds to Alex for this purpose, then it would be possible to sue these low life future.

    114. Willie says:

      Fantastic article by Iain Lawson on hopes blog.

      https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/03/you-want-justice-do-you/

      Article explains that against the background of corruption within and between in the Crown Office, the office of the Permanent Secretary, the Police and the Government and their aides there sits an individual to the side of the Lord Advocate in the title of Crown Agent and Chief Executive.

      And of that individual he is one David Harvie who worked for the UK Security Services and then as a senior executive in the Foreign and Colonial Office, the two operative descriptors him are ‘ agent ‘ and ‘ colonial ‘

      Clearly the exposure of Mr David Harvey gives insight into the nature of the shadowy people who are inserted into our communities to watch and to influence and maybe helps to explain the background to how the Crown Office directed the Police to investigate a Alex Salmond with as many resources as it required.

      A small glimpse now emerging of how the deep state seeks to undermine and destroy independence movements.

      No doubt there will be more to come.

    115. Teetering says:

      I have a feeling that the committee will steer clear of several key issues when Salmond gives his evidence. Any attempt by him to change the focus of the discussion will get him shut down by the convener. I don’t therefore expect he’ll be able to talk about the Ruddick/Murrell exchanges because the committee will simply say they have not seen them/they don’t exist.

      Now why would the non-SNP committee members not want Salmond to spill the beans?

    116. Bob Mack says:

      Alex strangely enough uses a phrase at the end of his summary

      Actions have consequences.

      I know someone else who used that just yesterday.

      Coincidence?

    117. Daisy Walker says:

      Got it now.

      Very well written.

      Systemic corruption.

      How incredibly tragic that NS got us to here, and that there are still people around her, shoring her up ‘for the greater good’.

      SHAME.

    118. Republicofscotland says:

      I don’t understand why RCS are even involved in this, a jury of Alex Salmond’s peers mostly made up of women found him innocent. It appears to me that RCS involvement is more to do with deflection and looking for sympathy for the complainers in this matter, however, as you rightly say no correspondence about them is required by the inquiry.

      Is the inquiry getting too close to home, and ergo all lines of defence (compliant organisations) are being wheeled out to to deflect and divert.

      AS for the COPFS, who watches the Watchmen.

    119. cirsium says:

      @Craig Murray, 2.25

      Re Agent Harvie, I think this is the link

      https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/03/you-want-justice-do-you/

    120. Black Joan says:

      Time to arrange a regular #ActionsHaveConsequences Twitter storm?

    121. Craig Murray says:

      Yes – Harvie was full time MI5 before he was in the FCO. Was MI5’s man in the Lockerbie trial.

    122. zebedee says:

      The link needs to includes ‘.pdf’. Something on this site recognises text and turns ot into a hyperlink but that something does not do it right. So as someone noted earlier, copy and paste to address bar instead.

      https://www.parliament.scot/HarassmentComplaintsCommittee/General%20documents/Alex_Salmond_Submission_(Judicial_Review).pdf

      The material itself is damning, OMG is it damning for the cabal.

    123. Sylvia says:

      Willie @2:48 David Harvie is the civil service head of COPFS staff & the 3rd biggest job in the Crown Office after the Lord Advocate & Solicitor General.I read he worked for Security Services-ws this GCHQ or MI5?

    124. Socrates MacSporran says:

      Teetering @ 2.49pm.

      You asked: “Now why would the non-SNP committee members not want Salmond to spill the beans?”

      Quite simple, London has decided: Now is not the time, when it comes to pulling the rug from under the feet of Sturgeon and the SNP.

      I get the impression Sturgeon & her coven have instructed Linda Fabiani to stall for time and make sure the committee(s) cannot report before the end of the parliamentary session.

      Thus, when parliament closes and we are into the Holyrood Election campaign, the Unionists, through their media partners, will suddenly drop all the damaging shite around the Salmond stitch-up which they are holding back on.

      Their hope is, that when the Scottish people suddenly find out just how poisonous Sturgeon and the SNP leadership are, they will desert that party.

      I can see us ending up with a hopelessly “hung” Holyrood parliament, unable to function. This will enable London to close Holyrood and go back to direct rule.

      They will also cite all the shennagins of Leslie Evans, James Woolfe and their departments. The story will be: “Look, the Scots cannot be trusted to run things themselves – we gave them a shot, they blew it, so, we are taking back control.”

      Boris would absolutely love that – Independence put back 30 years.

    125. Breeks says:

      lumilumi says:
      3 February, 2021 at 2:36 pm

      …. Being slightly better than Boris Johnson isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

      To me there is a serious imbalance here, – a false and badly weighted equivalence which seems contrived and artificial. (Not by you lumilumi I hasten to add, I mean in general, amidst wider comments). Sturgeon might be a veritable Florence Nightingale responsible for saving the world from COVID-19 calamity, (spoiler alert – she isn’t), but that does nothing to redeem the gross and downright evil malevolence behind this criminal conspiracy to smear and destroy Alex Salmond.

      Her ‘sacrifice’ for COVID isn’t even a redeeming act of contrition from a repenting sinner. Sturgeon has summarily pushed the very capable and actual Health Minister Jeane Freeman out of the way, to steal the limelight and publicity for herself.

      And worse, to arbitrarily put Scottish Independence into the deep freeze while she busies herself doing Jeane Freeman’s job is a gross and arrogant dereliction of responsibility, mired in withering ineptitude and chronic lack of ambition.

      Worse too, Sturgeon’s craven capitulation to Scotland’s unconstitutional Brexit subjugation is surely the most unforgivable abdication of responsibility and a direct and unequivocal violation of Scotland’s Declaration of Arbroath for which Sturgeon and her coterie of miserable inadequates should be impeached and thrown from office.

      It will take more than a gold star for COVID to rewrite Sturgeon’s lasting infamy and tainted legacy, which is only just at it’s beginning…

    126. Daisy Walker says:

      It gets even more potentially convoluted.

      If the first allegations against Alex Salmond, which the Crown Office directed the Police to investigate, did not amount to Criminality, (even if they may have amounted to behaviour that is covered under civil employment law), if the Police have then been instructed, to carry on digging, one giant fishing exercise, then the common law crime of Making False Allegations and Wasting Police Time may well have been committed – with the crown office/r as suspect.

      Just to explain further, hypothetically and not in relation to AS –

      A work colleague continually asks another work colleague out and is refused. At the same time, this colleague continally ‘accidentally/on purpose’ allows their hands to keep coming into contact with the complainer’s hands, for example when handing over documents. It makes the complainer feel very uncomfortable.

      Sexual Harassment in the Work Place – civil legislation? – more than likely.

      Criminal? to be proved in a court of law ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. With the potential for a criminal conviction and sentence to be applied? Not a chance in hell.

      Now lets say, a well meaning employer, was not sure, and in the first instance takes the complaint and the complainer to the Police.

      Police should say on the basis of the above, no crime, employment law, over to you. They have no power to go on a great big fishing exercise to see if there is anything more to it with other staff members. None.

      Now take a different example, again made up, and not in any way to do with AS.

      Staff night out, too much to drink, mutual attraction/or misreading of signals, a moment alone, and an attempted kiss becomes an unwanted and forced sexual grope, and physical and verbal commands to stop are ignored for far too long, so that the victim has to struggle to break away.

      No other witnesses. If this scenario is described to Police, it is a crime (and an attempt to commmit a crime, is a crime in itself). They are duty bound to investigate, in doing so, they would be bound to make enquiry with other staff members present at the night out.

      If in doing so, another staff member discloses, that at another night out, he/she had to physically fend off unwanted advances from the same person – you now have corroboration under the Moorov.

      The point I’m making is that the further enquiry by Police with other staff members in the second scenario is entirely legal and appropriate. In the first scenario it is not.

      The reporting of the initial complaints to the Crown Office, I strongly suspect, was to ensure that Police were not able to call it out as ‘no crime’ in the first instance, and to direct and misuse Police Officers to instigate a wide spread fishing exercise against Mr Salmond.

      A major essence of the crime of Wasting Police time, is that in addition to suspicion falling on innocent members of the public, the public is deprived of the services of the Police being misdirected on spurious allegations.

      If the above holds true, I see absolutely no reason why whoever within the Crown Office knowingly directed this enquiry would be immune from being investigated for this crime, in a personal capacity.

    127. Daisy Walker says:

      Florence Nightingale had a really bad reputation amongst the soldiers who would beg not to be put into her care, as it was almost a guaranteed death sentence.

      There was a Black Caribian nurse serving in the same war, who utilised more effective methods that were not then known. The soldiers begged to go to her if they were injured, cause she could actually save them.

      Sorry I can’t remember her name. Saw a documentary on it once.

    128. Feliks says:

      Daisy Walker
      Her name was Mary Seacole.

    129. Boaby says:

      Daisy walker. Mary jane seacole,born in kingston jamaica to a Scottish soldier father and a creole ‘doctress’ mother.

    130. Daisy Walker says:

      Thanks Feliks.

      OT

      Sarah Phillimore’s fundraiser to take legal action against Mszzz Blackman for defamation is 81% there in less than 24 hours.

      Its as if, its as if, people have had enough of this bonkers shit.

    131. lumilumi says:

      Republicofscotland says:
      3 February, 2021 at 2:58 pm

      RCS can smear and sully anybody, like they smeared and tried to sully Alex Salmond. They’re a shill, funded by the Scottish Government – hardly impartial.

      They’ve been given this power that is detrimental to women, gay and lesbian people, transexuals and all genuinly questioning gender-confused people.

      Because, make no mistake, it’s all about men. The “trans umbrella” now includes cross-dressers and autogynephiles. It’s all about men getting what they want. Inconvenient women standing up for their sex-based rights are demonised as “terfs” and bigots.

      Just another, more modern incarnation of misogyny, a witch-hunt. We see you.

      This time around, you can even get woke+++ points for being a regressive mens rights activist.

      What’s not to like, if you’re a rampant misogynist. You will have been vindicated because the terfs (=witches) are being purged, declared non-persons, death threats is only what they deserve for… uhm… being women who do not agree.

      But most of all, the men, whether men or transwomen, will prevail, and show those bitch pesky female women what’s what.

    132. Margaret E says:

      Daisy Walker
      Thanks for the info about Ms McLaughlan. Apologies for possible valuable time wasting – I am a long way away with unstable internet connection. Adnirer of your persistenceand resilience

    133. Strathy says:

      With regard to Sandy Brindley, Chief Executive of Rape Crisis Scotland.

      Ms Brindley’s job falls into the definition of a public officer in the Misconduct in Public Office section of the Crown Prosecution Service’s website:-

      ‘A public office holder is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested, more clearly so if he [or she] is paid out of a fund provided by the public.’

      The consequences of an action by a public officer are used to decide if an offence of misconduct has been committed: –

      ‘…. whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust in the officer.’

      Ms Brindley has used her position to undermine repeatedly, the Court’s verdicts in Alex Salmond’s case. In addition, she has sought to interfere with the work of the Committee on the Scottish Government’s Handling of Harassment Complaints.

      At the very least, she should face an investigation similar to that experienced by Mark Hirst, in order to ascertain whether she has committed an offence or offences.

    134. The Isolator says:

      @ Bob Mack

      Actions have consequences.Noticed that as well,some sort of solidarity?

    135. Karmanaut says:

      Yeah. I noticed that one too, with a big WTF!!! They did a Garavelli.

    136. Republicofscotland says:

      Socrates McSporran @ 2’49pm.

      Interesting comment, I have to agree that the closer we get to May’s elections, the more dirt will be revealed on Sturgeon and Murrell, if they survive in office until then.

      However, I still think the SNP will have the most seats after the the election count is concluded, and hopefully the ISP will have hoovered up a fair number of List seats as well.

      Combining the two, (and the Greens of course) together hopefully will give independence minded parties an overall majority at Holyrood, even if our chances of actually holding a referendum looks bleak at the moment.

      I’m still holding on that, somehow May’s elections if they go ahead will be a plebiscite.

    137. Alf Baird says:

      Republicofscotland

      Pro-indy Seats in a devolved assembly are perhaps not so decisive, as we have seen these past 6+ yrs. Either the list or the constituency vote could be taken as a plebiscite on independence.

      My proposal to Colette at ISP today:

      “One option you may wish to consider may be to specifically consider the List vote outcome as the democratic reflection of national support for independence, and in which ISP would be:

      – stating in your manifesto that you intend to use the List vote as a plebiscite on independence, and that;

      – if a majority vote is obtained for independence, then you would use this as a mandate for independence and to seek recognition of this (@ UN and UK level and others)

      I appreciate you may not secure the majority of seats or even a ‘super majority’, however you would have secured the bulk of the national vote in favour of independence, and nobody would be able to dispute this – and that is what would be recognised internationally, not the seats.”

    138. Republicofscotland says:

      lumilumi @3.44pm.

      I understand on this occasion that RCS has been wheeled out to somehow point out wrongly that the complainants (Alphabet women) were suffering some form of further injustice due the inquiry’s line of pursuing information, that in reality doesn’t encompass them.

      Of course the (Alphabet women) haven’t suffered from any injustice period, infact one or two of them, and I’m being generous should actually be in the dock themselves.

      Of course if the RCS has just revealed that the women are Scottish government employees, and it looks that way, then we know why RCS has jumped into the fray, it being a government funded body, next up to be thrown the kitchen sink.

    139. Daisy Walker says:

      @ Margaret E – your welcome.

    140. Republicofscotland says:

      Alf Baird @4.19pm.

      I can’t argue with that Alf, I’m open to any options that obtains independence, though, I prefer dissolving the union to independence, independence sound all to, as if Scotland has never existed as a country prior to the union.

    141. PhilM says:

      @Strathy
      Sadly, in terms of what we might all want to achieve, the Crown Prosecution Service has nothing to do with Scotland (unless there’s a cross-jurisdictional element).
      Also, there is no Misconduct in Public Office offence in Scotland.
      Funny that!

    142. holymacmoses says:

      Daisy and others

      If you go to my twitter Home@holymacmoses I have linked and tweeted the Alex Salmond Judicial report and you should be able to reach it through the link

    143. Nicola's Merkin says:

      Is Nicola not very close to someone working at RCS?

    144. Alf Baird says:

      Republicofscotland

      Like you I’m also for dissolving the union as a signatory party to the treaty. However the daeless SNP winning three successive majorities of Scottish seats at Westminster elections has thus far failed to deliver that. So if seats don’t win it, what matters is getting 50% + 1 vote in favour of independence in a national vote.

    145. Captain Yossarian says:

      @PhilM – Misconduct in public office is, I believe, called malfeasance or misfeasance.

      That said, criminal law is criminal law and some straightforward breaches of criminal law appear to have taken place here.

      Phone Ibrox, they’ll put us all in touch with folk that can take the Crown Office to the bagwash. It’s not that difficult.

    146. Daisy Walker says:

      OT, I was listening to the report about Craig Murrays trial which he has a link to today.

      Its very good. One piece of info came out in relation to the WM changes to the powers that the Secret Service will legally have that I was unaware of, it will legalise them (Secret Service employees) to commit murder and sexual offences (including rape) which is shocking enough, but the legality is also being extended to their ‘agents’ which as I understand it can mean just about anyone they extend that definition too, and is regularly used to describe ‘paid informants’.

      The tory party have just granted themselves, and those who support them, indemnity from prosecution for any and all sexual offences, so long as they can be said to have provided the Secret Service with info.

      Wow.

    147. Daisy Walker says:

      Thanks Holymacmoses – I got it. Very well written and totally damning.

      Will it convince the unicorn in rainbow knickers brigade – probably not.

      I rather think that if Nicla herself, went round to their doorsteps, broke down in tears and confessed full and frank involvement from the start to the end, they would invite her in, give her a cup of tea and quietly ‘bury’ the evidence so as to ‘not hurt the movement’.

    148. Dulwich says:

      I’m based in London and intend coming home to retire in Scotland as soon as the current COVID situation allows.

      Although I was fully aware the SNP were riven with internecine differences this current fiasco is quite frankly staggering. I’m not getting into the he said she said arguments because the extent of the untruths involved are beyond comprehension from a political party tasked to look after their constituents. If a scenario such as this occurred south of Carlisle you’d have a fair idea of how this would be represented.

      Scotland looks like a banana republic run by headcases.

      The schools are a mess, the days of a good standard of education for everyone is long gone. The Police & the Health Service are a mess. Drug deaths are soaring. Wokeness is everywhere.

      I love my country but for goodness sake get rid of these incompetent and entirety self serving eejits.

    149. KOF says:

      “We’re not sure who you report the Crown Office to”

      How about the person he ultimately answers to, the monarch. You could try writing a letter to the Queen and see what happens. Bringing Scots law and the Crown into disrepute and stuff like that? Might be worth a punt?

    150. LaingB French says:

      government thinking:
      ok! if we mix some of this shit with this shit with one large spoon stir some shit then use one large bread knife to spread some shit, one large shovel to shovel this shit out into the public cause more sticky shit so that it sticks around and let them call in their own shit cleaners to clean it all up meanwhile we can think up more shit to add to the already mixed shit out there! that’s how you deal with shit! now what’s our wage rise going to be for 2021?????????????????????????????????????????!

    151. lumilumi says:

      @ Republicofscotland @ 4:19pm

      I concur.

      It’s a sad state of affairs when an administration has to hide their deeds.

      Cries of “stay with us, we’ll get indepence, this time, honest” ring a bit hollow.

      And ordinary people, ordinary Scottish independence people, potential SNP voters are getting mightly pissed off.

      Meanwhile, she-who-must-not-be-criticised leads the party down a dead-end, tries to boost her public profile with Covid-19.

      In my country, the PM did a couple of media appearences last March when the pandemic was beginning and some extraordinary measures were being taken. After that, our PM got on with the job of running our country, and let experts and relevant government ministers do their stuff and do the broadcast breifings once a week or fortnight. The PM didn’t need to do it, battling the pandemic is a job for health authorities, legal autorities.

      In stark contrast to Nicola Sturgeon, who has made Covid-19 her thing. (So every Covid-19 failure is potentially HER failure – haha, smart thinking, Nicla!)

      Covid-19 has been saving her arse for a while. She hasn’t even handled it well, only slightly better than Boris Johnson. What a low bar.

    152. You know, setting everything aside, using Rape Crisis Scotland as both a shield and an attack mouthpiece is utterly disgusting, an insult to real rape victims. And then they have the audacity to say that trials like this will stop women coming forward who have been sexually assaulted. These people are an absolute disgrace.

    153. Robert says:

      Might it be that if messages are passed to the Committee, whatever body passes them over also informs the “owners” of the messages – the senders and the recipients?

      Under GDPR, they might have a duty to do say, anyway.

      So maybe that’s how the content of the messages has come to light? Without any wrongdoing? These “owners” have passed the fact of the transmission of the messages to others, as they would seem to be entitled to do.

    154. Hugh Jarse says:

      It wouldn’t harm the cause for the provenance of certain key players in the conspiracy to be given as much publicity as possible, sexing up if you will.

      Agent Harvie

      It sets the narrative in a way that the public can latch onto.
      It gives those poor cultists, mainly our fellow travellers, a straw to grab at.

      London calling…’Cover blown, sorry they forgot to ‘do’ you a history. On own ñow, you know the drill…all the D’s. Deny, deflect,distract, destroy. Fuck W up’

    155. Angus Nicolson says:

      So glad I left the SNP. Corruption, evasion and bullshit. No more will I pour my cash into a lawyer’s pockets.

    156. There's a Stormski Coming says:

      Bravo Daisy Walker!

    157. Sharon says:

      Who does the Crown Office in Scotland answer to? I bet it’s the people of Scotland ..

    158. lumilumi says:

      WhoRattledYourCage says:
      3 February, 2021 at 5:51 pm

      Yeah, it’s an upper middle-class, high echelon pretendy self-victimisation, probably for personal or political gain.

      Makes a total mockery of ordinary – lower class – women suffering real sexual harrassment and abuse.

      This pretendy case against Alex Salmond gives fuel to anybody denying any women’s complaints.

      Well done, Nicola Sturgeon /sarcarsm.

    159. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Remember who the manager is of the Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre.

      https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/10/24/mridul-wadhwa-snp-scottish-election-forth-valley-rape-crisis-manager/

    160. I Eat Cannibals says:

      According to Fiona Robertson, people posting here have been ‘radicalised.’ I am laughing as I type that. The urge to sing “These are a few of my favourite things” as she lists the madness we evil people are apparently guilty of is almost overwhelming. I wonder if this woman really does believe this stuff. She must be paranoid if she truly does. Radicalised? What does she think would happen next, then? Some pogrom against disabled people from us? Somebody in the comments section here said that Scotland seems like a banana republic run by headcases. Sadly, I think this is pretty damned true, with strange, vindictive people like this jockeying for position at Her Mistress’s Table.

      https://twitter.com/FionaSnp/status/1357048116172750850

    161. Kevin Evans says:

      This whole turd could have been sorted if the rules stated once the trial was over if the accused was found no guilty or acquitted then all protection of secret identity was lost. I have a right as a citizen and a potential employer to know I could be possibly interviewing or socialising with someone who could on a whim begin a false assault claim against me. The only conviction in this whole mess sound be the alphabet women and there contempt and lying in court.

    162. Aunty Flo says:

      Covid, covid, blah, blah, vax, r-number, casedemic etc blah blah, covid … for these shady and corrupt-to-their-core politicians, the gift that keeps on giving!

    163. Daisy Walker says:

      FR’s tweet re this site says, ‘Fiona Robertson
      ?
      @FionaSnp
      ·
      15h
      Having spent the last couple of days looking at the comments on the blog, they seem to be deeply invested in the same bigotry. Unbelievable racism, ableism, transphobia and more. It’s radicalisation. It’s so sad’

      Its interesting she is using the word RADICALISATION as it flags up on the Terrorism radar.

    164. Graham says:

      @RepublicofScotland

      Holy shit I never thought of that! Furthermore the notion of an ‘independent scotland’ implies that Scotland is ‘dependent’ as opposed to a partner. Makes it seem weak.

    165. Pixywine says:

      Do the person who runs RCS have any intelligence at all?. Defamation of character springs to mind.

    166. Pixywine says:

      Does the person. Silly me.

    167. Pixywine says:

      Daisy. The Carribean nurse ran the Officers Mess and made a nice living from it.The Officers Mess had nicer food and conditions. No wonder the other ranks wanted to be there.



    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