The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The First Minister’s Story

Posted on February 10, 2021 by

So this was a bit odd.

Once again we’ve clipped the entire question and “answer” so you can see nothing’s been taken out of context, but the important bit is from 2m 30s to 2m 53s.

Davidson’s question was quite complex but boiled down to why Nicola Sturgeon hadn’t properly recorded details and minutes of meetings on Scottish Government business, in direct breach of the Ministerial Code.

That’s a valid question in itself, to which there was no meaningful response, but it was what Sturgeon said right at the end that raised our eyebrows.

Because (and note her repeated use of the personal pronoun) she said this:

“I was determined that I would do nothing to intervene in or compromise the confidentiality and the independence and the integrity of a process that was kicked off […] because women came forward with complaints and I thought it was important that they got properly investigated.”

As we seem to be saying with increasing frequency these days: wait, what?

We know that the two women at the heart of the investigation had made their original complaints in early November 2017. Those complaints became formal on the 16th and 24th of January 2018. Between the first allegation and the second formal complaint, there were a total of 40 separate actions in respect of the complaints logged in the Scottish Government’s account of events.

The official investigation then got under way. After several witnesses were interviewed in an 11-day period at the end of January, an “initial investigation report” was prepared by investigating officer (IO) Judith Mackinnon on February 22.

And yet Nicola Sturgeon still maintains that the first she knew of any of this was six weeks later, when Alex Salmond told her at her Glasgow home. (As she’d forgotten being told about it four days earlier by Geoff Aberdein at the Scottish Parliament.)

She told Parliament today that she’d felt it was “important” that the women’s claims were investigated, very clearly implying that the investigation was her decision, yet we know from the Scottish Government’s own evidence that they’d already been being investigated for five months before the First Minister says she knew anything about it – so much so that an initial Investigation Report had already been produced before the First Minister had decided there ought to be an investigation at all.

(Without, we might add, Alex Salmond even having been informed about the claims, let alone given any chance to defend himself.)

So, y’know, that’s interesting, isn’t it?

Print Friendly

    113 to “The First Minister’s Story”

    1. Black Joan says:

      As already explored by Gordon Dangerfield, who says

      “I think it’s inconceivable that Nicola Sturgeon did not know of the complaints against Alex Salmond as soon as they were made in November 2017.”

      If that was not the case, he goes on to explain, then Leslie E was in breach of the Civil Service code:

      “If the Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans thought on receiving these allegations against Alex Salmond in November 2017 that, alone among all the governments of the world, the Scottish Government needed a new and unprecedented procedure to deal with them, she was obliged by the rules of her job, as well as by plain ordinary common sense, to bring the allegations to the attention of the appropriate Government Minister, namely the First Minister.”

      https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/02/08/a-very-scottish-coup-part-one/

      Looks like the FM has just rejected the second option and admitted to the first? Well, well.

    2. Garavelli Princip says:

      I think she might just have given the game away there!

      But will any of the deadbeats on the investigation committee have the nous to press her on that.

      And if so, will Linda Fabiani let them?

      I hae ma doots

    3. James Carroll says:

      She can try and wriggle off as much as she likes but I’m afraid this a barbed hook!

    4. Kenny says:

      When you set out to commit crime, any crime, let alone one of the sheer magnitude of this one, and when so many are involved in that criminal act, it’s inevitable there will be slip-ups along the way.

      Any casual observer would take roughly 2 seconds to deduce that Nicola Sturgeon’s not only a consistent liar, but also a lousy one – that was a basic but monumental slip-up on Sturgeon’s part, she ain’t so smart.

    5. Skip_NC says:

      In both of today’s clips on this website, the FM seems to be in a rather confident mood. So either she thinks she is in the right (wow) or she thinks that the lie is so big and repeated so often, that most people will believe it.

    6. Meg merrilees says:

      The story begins to unravel….

    7. Hugh Jarse says:

      Another mis-spoke moment!
      Well done Stu.

      If the restrictions are lifted, AS wins.
      If not, the reek of cover up will help to see her off anyway.

      JB seems to be in her element, I wouldn’t be surprised if she drops a bomb.

    8. Astonished says:

      She has got to go and take the wokeratti with her.

    9. ahundredthidiot says:

      Holy Fuck – She basically called her a conspiracy theorist.

      The answer of last resort right there.

    10. ALANM says:

      As Gordon Dangerfield points out in his excellent well-argued blog, it’s inconceivable that NS wasn’t fully aware of events when all this kicked off in November 2017. If the inquiry members get an opportunity to question her before she throws herself under that proverbial SNP bus, they might want to spend some time asking about the sequence of events five months before she claims to have first become aware of the allegations.

    11. ahundredthidiot says:

      NS can still get out of this one.

      Early onset dementia.

      Either that – or she’s just fucking mental.

    12. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      What is that smell? I opine most people can detect an odious stench.

      Some can smell it but are too polite to acknowledge the stench, some without a sense of smell can’t but they are a small minority. Some with proper senses will object to the leaking.

      What we have in Scotland is the classic fart in the lift syndrome.

      It happens no one wants to object to the unfortunate incident which is rude and unpleasant but usually lasts a short time until you exit the box.

      However if the individual farted in the lift repeatedly every day you had to use it you would demand action.

      That is where we are now the smell will not dissipate and it is wrong and needs addressing now.

    13. Liz says:

      I, I, I, I, me, me, me, my, my, my.

      Yet more obfuscation re the women, the complaints and hints AS refusing to attend.

      She is shameless

    14. Ian Mac says:

      She appears still confident that she can brazen it out, and that the other players in this saga are in too deep with her, which means her allies in the Crown Office and the committee will simply refuse to allow the materials out, and she is guaranteed to get an easy ride at the inquiry. The doubters and disbelievers have no traction with the general public she believes, so she can ignore them, and let them gnash their teeth. That is what I believe she founds her confidence on – the omerta of the cosy nostra.

    15. true scot says:

      On the plus side – as long as she shows to give evidence, there’s literally now no way she can simply tell the truth

    16. Tony Henry says:

      I love cooking and watch and learn from top chefs worldwide on youtube.

      I bought an expensive set of very very sharp knives.

      They are incredibly sharp – but not as sharp as Stuart Campbell.His articles are destroying Sturgeon daily.

      I don’t fancy Sturgeons’s chances now because the inconsistencies are all piling up and are in the open for all to see.

      Top work Stu!

    17. Captain Yossarian says:

      I have been at two Scottish Government meetings and minutes weren’t taken. I recorded minutes myself and sent them-out to all attendees to agree/amend.

      This is therefore a deliberate policy of Scottish Government and I’m sure many will have guessed that much by now.

      I read earlier that the new Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital is costing £90m to correct. The meetings that I attended were nothing to do with that project, but they involved another Scottish Government project where things were not right and will now have to be put right.

      It’s all about ‘optics’ with Sturgeon and Swinney. I’m afraid that the law is dismissed as something irrelevant and they have been getting away with that for the full term of this parliament.

      I think that if it comes out that safety has somehow been put at risk in following this dogma, then public confidence in Sturgeon and Swinney will disappear very quickly.

    18. Mia says:

      “So, y’know, that’s interesting, isn’t it?”

      Very much so.

      I think she was really, rattled with that question from Ruth Davidson. It looks like with the question put to her by Ms Baillie and that was the subject of your previous article, she tried to bamboozle us all with her incredibly long winded answer. The problem is that in doing so, anxious as she clearly was, she lost control and tripped over her own waffle.

      It was painful to watch. This is no longer the calm, cold-headed First Minister we had 2, even 1 year ago. This woman is a wreck. A car crash waiting to happen. You can see that she is no longer in control.

      It is quite clear she has been now advised to use the Johnson strategy: avoid the uncomfortable question by giving tediously long-winded answers so at the end of the vacuous waffle, people have already forgotten what was the actual question.

      I can see that in every uncomfortable question she does not miss the opportunity to throw dirt on Mr Salmond, this time criticising him without mentioning him for not attending to the inquiry. The problem is it does no longer stick. Now it makes her look like a vindictive cow.

      Honestly, I do not understand how she can stand there expecting some credibility with that face looking like thunder, openly lying when so much evidence is now in the public domain to contradict the rubbish she is saying. But even worse, I do not know how the SNP MSPs sitting behind can possibly swallow their pride and the bear the humiliation of watching how this corrupt liar is totally destroying the credibility of their party. If it was me I would be getting up and leaving her to it.

    19. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      It is only a conspiracy theory because the actual evidence showing that is is an ACTUAL FUCKING CONSPIRACY has been:

      1. Protected by collapsing the judicial review before Liz Lloyd gave evidence.

      2. Protected when the High Court trial was not allowed to have evidence of a conspiracy presented as part of Salmonds defence.

      3. Protected by evidence of a conspiracy not being presented to the Fabiani Enquiry – refusal of A Salmonds written submission and once again by Liz Lloyd not giving evidence, this time protected by Swiney because apparently “the Civil service’s code of conduct prevents the First Minister’s chief of staff from giving her own written and oral evidence”.

      So I’d say it isn’t a conspiracy theory it is a THEORY OF A CONSPIRACY.

      And that theory is looking more like a FACT with every passing day.

    20. Republicofscotland says:

      Watching Sturgeon nervously laugh as the camera cut away from Jackie Baillie, to her for a split second, said it all really, it being a kind of, so what, you know, but you’ve still to prove it, type of facial expression from Sturgeon.

      Lets hope the Spectator magazine is successful tomorrow, Sturgeon might then, be laughing on the other side of her face.

    21. Mac says:

      Liz Lloyd, Liz Lloyd, Liz Lloyd…

      Why is she so protected I wonder.

    22. Robert Graham says:

      Agree with comments about her being sure of herself , oh well she would wouldnt she ,the verdict of both Inquires has been decided it’s just a matter of dictating the weasel worded statements that will bring both to a close , therefore discussion ends in her mind. Matter closed I have a virus problem to attend to now if you would excuse me I have a country to run .
      I knew someone who had the same way of getting out of problems of their own making what they would do was convince themselves they had done no wrong dream up a story and stick to it the fact they convinced themself made it true in their mind a very very convincing liar as it turned out and totally fkn mental .
      Sorry dear you might have fooled yourself but most of us aint buying what you are selling or as some yanks say “it won’t fly”

    23. Sylvia says:

      Mac @6:52 Liz Lloyd no show.

      I am also uneasy with the “protection” circling Judith Mckinnon who is ex-Police Scotland

      https://caltonjock.com/2019/01/16/a-wee-peek-at-the-employment-history-of-judith-mackinnon-head-of-people-advice-for-the-scottish-government-enlightening-indeed/

    24. Lenny Hartley says:

      Jockanese Wind Talker You forget not publishing Geoff Aberdeins testimony or having him at enquiry, telling Salmond that he will be charged with contempt of court if he tells the whole truth under oath And presumably perjury if he doesnt tell the whole truth under oath, talk about catch 22.

    25. Captain Yossarian says:

      I’ve attended government meetings here and in two overseas countries and I can tell you that in Scotland you are faced with the worse delinquent shit and blatent liars you will find anywhere.

      Like Andrew Neil said: ‘we’ve all had enough of this now and it’s time to fight back’.

      What we have at Holyrood and Victoria Quay is malfeasance and ought to be investigated by the Metropolitan Police.

    26. Robert Hughes says:

      The reason she has * apparently * contradicted herself here is down to her desperation to portray herself as at all times a paragon of impeccable behaviour , a stainless upholder of Parliamentary protocol , a person of singular moral propriety , in effect , a saint .

      She should really stop listening to those voices in her head , they’re feeding her a heap of bullshit

    27. Lorna Campbell says:

      She would also have known about the original allegations that were dealt with at time by the line manager being informed and a meeting set up between the two women and Mr Salmond where arbitration came into play. He apologized (and, by doing so, admitted he had been acting inappropriately, but not illegally). The women accepted the apology and went on working with Mr Salmond although it was clear that they had been offered different, but equal status and pay grade, jobs.

      Therefore when the allegations were raised a second time, she must have been aware of what they constituted and that they were renewed or revitalized allegations and not original ones – all the more reason to ensure that they were dealt with strictly by the book precisely because they had been dealt with in the past, so that they, too, were retrospective in nature. Were the women ever made aware of the fact that they were on a shaky peg legally, even at the procedure stage? By the criminal case stage, they must have been very aware that this was a runaway train, and we have strong hints that at least one of them did not wish to go to court with it, although, by that time, she would not have had any say in the matter of criminal proceedings.

      The fundamental question is: WHY were they raised again at THAT TIME. What happened that it made it necessary to raise them again, because, by then, Mr Salmond was no longer at Holyrood. The timing is crucial. Okay, a new procedure was to be instituted. Fine. But why then make it retrospective against Whitehall’s advice and why introduce revisited allegations? There was one person, and one, alone who fitted the bill.

      What power does Ms Evans have that she can blithely ignore the advice of her superiors at Whitehall and not fear chastisement? That is yet another fundamental question that requires to be asked: how did the Scottish Civil Service get to be so powerful and to know that it was protected, not only by the SNPG which had abandoned elected power to an unelected cabal during all this, but by Whitehall, too?

    28. Frazerio says:

      In her response to J Baillie, Sturgeon said she’d be answering to the Inquiry next Tuesday (C U Next Tuesday sprang to mind for some reason!!!). Im willing to wager £5 with anyone daft enough to accept, that she will not be at the Inquiry next Tuesday. And when she isn’t, theres another lie into the misleading Holyrood column. She just cant seem to help it any more.

      Tick tock.

    29. Sylvia says:

      Frazerio@7:16

      You can bet NS will attend the inquiry – an opportunity to discredit AS -as it is televised..

    30. Alf Baird says:

      Jockanese Wind Talker @ 6.41

      Additional protections to the ones you provide appear to include, for several of those involved:

      – immunity from prosecution

      – anonymity

      Which appear to be aspects common with security services personnel/operations.

      Which might then lead to the not unreasonable conjecture of a British state conspiracy.

    31. Ian Brotherhood says:

      This is where her ‘I didn’t know anything because the procedure made it plain that I wasn’t meant to know’ defence comes in, isn’t it?

      Listening to Wolffe etc trying to justify paragraph 10 of ‘the procedure’ was tortuous enough – this promises to be even worse.

    32. true scot says:

      Think her and her hubby have temporarily suspended their embargo on talking shop at home?

    33. Prasad says:

      In that quote she seems to be contradicting within the same sentence. A good barrister would tear her to shreds.

    34. Captain Yossarian says:

      Adam Tomkins: ‘I gave a speech this afternoon about corruption. Holyrood is so broken it doesn’t even know it’s being lied to any more.

      Salmond. Malicious prosecution. Civil servants being coached to dissemble.

      Scotland is starting to stink. Of corruption’.

    35. Hugh Jarse says:

      With the emergency meeting of the committee being proposed for Friday, post Spectator, they’ll have no time to squeeze AS in, before the heavily relished Tuesday booking.

      As she’s committed to carrying on with the charade, there’s bound to be plentiful additional ammunition for Eck’s coup de grasse.

    36. stuart mctavish says:

      FM is responding to a question about 6 June.
      If the beans were claimed to have been spilled on 28 March, and/or 2 April, is it not the case that the bit in brackets at end is slightly misleading and more informative answers could have been obtained from questions such as when and by who was AS first informed, what protocol was followed in doing so, when, why and by who was GA informed, when why and by who was FM first formally informed, etc.

    37. Robert Hughes says:

      Lorna – a possible answer to the question posed in your last paragraph is that their sense of impunity derived from knowing they were part of plot hatched in the shadowy recesses of the UK Security State and therefore would/will be protected at a very high level .

      As ever with such conjecture it’s impossible to know with 100% certainty if it’s accurate , but as more information emerges , revealing for any but the most wilfully myopic the extent of the determination to destroy Alex Salmond , the resources , the legal contortions , the blatant cover-up , and the fact , as yet , not a single person has been held to account for these crimes – for that is exactly what they are – suggests political manoeuvering beyond our ken . I imagine you already know this .

    38. Jonathan Blake says:

      We may all want to spend time getting to the bottom of what actually happened. But as with Watergate, isn’t the cover-up in many ways what will in the end lead to their undoing.

      When the First Minister promises that she will ensure that the committee get to see everything they want to, and then does everything in her power to avoid that happening, one has to wonder.

      The legal advice that hasn’t been published
      The FOI requests that have gone unanswered, or with so many redactions that they are meaningless
      The gagging orders
      Halting a case before the key evidence has a chance to be heard
      Paying a company to prepare witnesses for their time in front of the committee
      Paying lawyers to come up with a document they try and get the committee members to sign which would prevent them asking questions on the very things that are the most incriminating, in case they get near the truth
      Claiming that Liz Lloyd can’t go before the committee because its against the civil service code. How many civil servants have been before the committee already. And in what sense were they stopped on the grounds of it being a breach of the civil service code
      The only reason that things haven’t been proved is because the evidence has been withheld, redacted, ruled inadmissible, or any other trick in the book to prevent it being used.
      All of that points to a cover-up. And if people have done nothing wrong, why go to such lengths to have a cover up.
      And then there’s Sue Ruddick. She was for many years in a different role to her current one. What happened in May 2018 that necessitated her promotion. Was there a COO in place before she took over? Why suddenly the need for a big promotion?

    39. zebedee says:

      Sorry, no I disagree that she said anything suspicious.

      The policy was developed in Nov Dec 2017 due to ‘me too’ and desire that policy is fit for purpose. Evidence shows that potential complainers were known about by Evans et al in Nov but there is no known evidence that Sturgeon was informed.

      The formal complaints were lodged in Jan 2018, triggering the process. Sturgeon is saying here that she did not want to intervene or compromise that process.

      At this point these FMQs are just letting her go over her lines another time before Tuesday.

      She is claiming all her meetings were as party leader, meaning she has an answer for the lack of government witnesses or minutes. We can say we don’t believe that but it will be difficult to catch her out. And if she is caught out she will say ‘honest mistake, wee apology, good intentions’.

    40. Prasad says:

      ‘contradicting herself’

    41. Bob Mack says:

      There. is one basic fact of the Civil Service that cannot be refuted. Im sure any former Civil Servants on here would agree.

      The Civil service would never initiate an action like this and then run with it fo 6 weeks anonymously because of their relationship with Ministers. It is utterly ridiculous. Civil servants SERVE Ministers. They problem solve and ride shotgun for government only.

      If this was true Leslie Evans is a mole. Yet, Nicola rewarded her with a contract extension.

      Evans carried out this process becsuse she was ordered to. Its that simple and that evident thst Nicola knew of these accusations long before March or April 2018.

    42. Shug says:

      Will she make it to the election

    43. Cath says:

      suggests political manoeuvering beyond our ken

      I also think it’s way beyond Sturgeon. Whatever her role, I suspect this was/is a plot to take out both Alex and her – Alex on the sex charges; NS on the cover up. ‘Who knew what’ at those early meetings could be very important to getting to the truth of what happened.

    44. Shug says:

      If salmond proceeds and pulls her down I do worry about how the yes movement will react to him

    45. James Horace says:

      I think its fairly clear that Sturgeon has been corrupt here .

      I think its fairly clear she broke the ministerial code.

      Its pretty clear that this breaking of the code will be proven.

      But Priti Patel broke the ministerial code and is still in role.

      And her personal approval ratings are far lower than Sturgeon’s are now.

      So why won’t Nicola Sturgeon survive too?

      Especially if Wightman’s performance this week is an indicator of how the Greens will vote in any potential vote of no confidence.

      Talk me through this Stu. Why will Nicola go down when Priti didn’t?

    46. Skip_NC says:

      Shug, the Yes movement will celebrate. Those who claim to be yes but are, at best, devolutionists with other agendas will slink off and mess up another political party.

    47. Prasad says:

      zebedee says:
      10 February, 2021 at 7:39 pm
      “Sorry, no I disagree that she said anything suspicious.”

      Zebedee her ego is so great that she can’t resist claiming the credit for a policy she, in the same sentence, also tells us she wasn’t involved in. She is telling us right here that she did initiate the process. She wants it both ways.

      “I was determined that I would do nothing to intervene in or compromise the confidentiality and the independence and the integrity of a process that was kicked off […] because women came forward with complaints and I thought it was important that they got properly investigated.”

    48. Bob Mack says:

      I will tell you why I know this is all a lie. In 2018 the entireity of heads of the Civil Service received a circulation from a court judgement about an incinerator in N Ireland.

      Given there was nobody at Stormont to make decisions, a top Civil Servant made their own. The case eventually went to court which clarified that no Civil Servant could initiate or take action without Ministerial approval. That was for the whole Civil Service.

      Did Evans break that ruling? I think not.

    49. Dave Llewellyn says:

      I was talking to Mike Fenwick earlier on and he asked ame a question that kind of opened my eyes. Liz Lloyd set up the meeting on March 29th with Geoff Aberdein and the First Minister to discuss setting up the April 2nd meeting with Alex at the First Ministers home. Liz Lloyd previously contacted Geoff Aberdein to set up the 29th March meeting. If the FM is to be believed and as LL is the FMs chief of staff and not involved with the investigation how did she know about the complaints at the time she made the first contact with Geoff Aberdein ?
      It’s not something she would pick up during her job as CoS if the FM didn’t know. You can see why they collapsed the Judicial review before she was due to be called and why Swinney won’t let her testify under the Civil Service Code when Leslie Evans has appeared 4 times along with a swathe of civil servants.

    50. ClanDonald says:

      Exactly. How could she know to remove herself from the complaint process if she didn’t know the complaints existed?

    51. Tommy says:

      “Wheest for Sturgeon”?

    52. 100%Yes says:

      @Shug

      God I hope not.

    53. Artur sweet says:

      What her answer to RD’s question is that “I’m not a crook”. Those of us long enough in the tooth to remember was that was Richard Nixon’s response at Watergate. It’s the cover up which kills you, and thanks to people like Stu, it’s the cover up which is being exposed. I have a lot of time for Jim Sillars – again showing my age, he was my MP in Cumnock in the 70s – and if I remember rightly was no fan of Alex Salmond personally, so when he calls for the leadership to be swept away, it should draw a lot of water.

    54. Artur sweet says:

      Sorry, final comment for this evening, but how long will it be until the phrase, “the men in the Tartan suits might need to have a word with Nicola” springs up?

    55. David R says:

      If the FM dips her toe into Twitter she’ll be confident that her supporters are ensuring that anyone that raises questions is quickly accused of being against indy. There are a few suggesting that this is just the WoS lot causing trouble etc.

      Pretty much expected although even a cynical soul like myself raised an eyebrow when I saw that using the word woke somehow made you a member of the extreme right and likened to the people that tried to ‘overturn democracy’ in Washington earlier this year. Also plenty of “I can’t believe I stood with these people during the last indy ref”

    56. Hugh Jarse says:

      Bob
      Evans & co. were duty bound to inform her from the start, as she was the one who was to decide on how to proceed.
      Not Evans.
      FFS we’re asked to believe LE didn’t know basic protocols?

      Gordon Dangerfield lays it bare here..

      https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/02/08/a-very-scottish-coup-part-one/

    57. Beaker says:

      @zebedee says:
      10 February, 2021 at 7:39 pm
      “And if she is caught out she will say ‘honest mistake, wee apology, good intentions’.”

      Chief Executives of large organisations (usually) get to that position by having a phenomenal attention to detail and a first class memory.

      “Honest mistakes” are difficult to justify at that level.

    58. Artur sweet says:

      # James Horace,

      Don’t want directly to speak for Stu, but I’m pretty sure he said earlier the difference is that Patel did not need to withstand a vote of No Confidence, and he is confident even the Greens could not support her in the circumstances…though personally I’m beginning to doubt the Greens.

    59. Beaker says:

      @ClanDonald says:
      10 February, 2021 at 8:00 pm
      “Exactly. How could she know to remove herself from the complaint process if she didn’t know the complaints existed?”

      Schrodinger’s Politics?

    60. Lothianlad says:

      Is she rattled? Feeling a bit uncomfortable? Anxious anout the coming storm?

      She should be.

      Sturgeon was tempted by power. It’s not worked out well.

      I think she was compromised years ago. Then bought’ then controlled, then owned.
      Once owned she became subservient to the brit state.

      It’s not worked out well for her and all the spin wont wash.

      When Alex was a bit timid in retaliating to johanne Lamont at FMQ, sturgeon once filled I for hom and tore her a new one!!

      That gained her much respect. Her final words in the exchange was ‘ joanne lamont, new Blair’ !

      How ironic that she has now become ‘New Blair’!

    61. Daisy Walker says:

      To me, she very confidently failed to answer the question.

      And the question was a good one. Why, 5 months down the line after officially becoming aware, and deciding it was now Government Business, why did she not properly record it as such, even then?

      The meeting on 29/3/18 was not recorded (or the record removed) because it would have named all those present – a real issue if one of the officials in the investigation goes on / or is even at that time, also wearing the hat of a complainer against Alex.

      What would official Government records of the meeting with Alex in June ’18 disclosed? Oh yes,

      it would have recorded him highlighting to her, that the process being instigated against him was fundamentally unlawful,
      it would have minuted him disclosing his legal advice to her explaining the legal reasons for this,
      it would have minuted him highlighting to her, her legal duty as First Mininster to intervene and that as a lawyer herself she should know better.

      And who knows, it might have listed once again, all those present, some of whom still wearing the 2 hats.

      Something worth highlighting. The civil procedures, right from the start, into allegations of possible sexual harassment in the workplace, right from the get go, attempted to install anonymity on the complainers, when even Leslie Evans giving evidence conceded that it was apparant AS knew who they were.

      Because of the subsequent Criminal complaints, no one is raising an eyebrow about this anonymity ‘order’ being imposed for the civil procedures. But it serves the purpose of Civil complaints of harassment in the workplace not one whit.

      In fact it is ridiculous.

      Imagine you go to work, are pulled in, and informed that complaints of sexual harassment have been made against you by work colleagues. But they’re not going to tell you who the complainers are, you’ll just have to guess!

      First off by its nature, sexual harassment means the assailant knows who they are sexually attracted too, even if not by name, and second off, for it to be harassment, it needs to be a course of conduct, ie more than one incident.

      So the anonymity ‘order’ for the civil complaints was being done for another reason – to ensure that there could be no association to NS, and she could pretend to be the crusading feminist, and not someone stabbing her mentor in the back and betraying the Indy Movement.

      From her performance today, I think she is very confident of staying head of the SNP past May. Everything is being kicked down the road for her performance at the Inquiry, and they are a shower of toothless bunny’s.

      If there is to be a break through on this, its going to have to come from outwith.

    62. Mac says:

      Aye Sylvia.

      I don’t know with any certainty who the alphabet women are. Craig Murray and this site did a very good job not making it deductible. (I should have been reading the MSM had I wanted to work it out it seems.)

      What I am noticing is that there is heavy, heavy protection of people who appear intersect with the following two features.

      They are a (suspected) accuser and they are also a (suspected) plotter.

      These rare people, and there are only a few of them, seem to be afforded an extraordinary level of ‘protection’ by the COPFS and Police Scotland to keep them secret from the public view.

      How convenient for them.

    63. Willie says:

      You know what? Nicola Sturgeon knew all about this early doors and Salmond knows it too, has evidence of it.

      Sturgeon is literally on the scaffold waiting for the trap door to open.

      But she’s not going to get the luxury of her being dispatched just yet.

    64. wee monkey says:

      Well Stu, that was quite an important point it seems Sturgeon just can’t help but dig herself deeper in the shit.

    65. David says:

      It was clear with Alex’s closing speech at the SIC on 14 th of November , there was a rift between him and Nicola.

      All we need is a leader who wants to lead . Anyone have a recording of the speech , he also announced the Scotsman news that day.

    66. Artur sweet says:

      I now see it is reported that a set of Sturgeon’s speeches will be published by a company receiving money from the SG. FFS when will her ego end? Will we be made to buy and wave a copy, just as Chairman Mao did? When the fuck did she utter a memorable speech anyway?

    67. Andrew Morton says:

      The arguments for there having been a conspiracy are many and varied; however, for me the clincher that gave it all away was her reaction when she was asked to congratulate Alex after his acquittal. With a face like thunder she refused to even mention his name, let alone offer her congratulations. Instead it was still all about the women who’d been ‘denied justice’.

    68. Robert Hughes says:

      Cath @ 7.48

      Yes ,that’s how it’s looking for me .And we can see by the way the MSM – now that it’s starting to take an interest in ” all this ” -is going nowhere near the conspiracy aspect ( clear beyond a shadow of a doubt ) and trying to nail Sturgeon * only * for misleading Parliament . Because , of course, if they’re compelled to report on the plot they would have to concede Alex’s innocence , and they couldn’t countenance that .

      The targets are AS, NS and by proxy the entire Independence aspiration

    69. Christian Schmidt says:

      While Boris Johnson remains in charge, the Scottish independence movement is unstoppable – Stephen Bush‘s New Statesman column is worth reading in my view

    70. Alan Mackintosh says:

      Dave Lewellyn, can you tell us anything about the answerphone recording from a couple of nights ago?

    71. Sam says:

      As suspicious as this whole thing is, this particular statement doesn’t stand out to me.

      It would be easy for her to say that she was talking about the period after she was informed of complaints, and was determined to not intervene in the process because she thought it was important they got properly investigated. Nothing in her answer suggests she’s talking about any period before April.

    72. Bob Mack says:

      @David,

      I think that is a very important part of this jigsaw. Nice find.

    73. Tinto Chiel says:

      “To me, she very confidently failed to answer the question.”

      Yes, Daisy. But she knows she will get softball questions next week (unless she has some Covid crisis to deal with which may excuse her) along the lines of:

      What’s your favourite colour?

      Can avocados be part of a calorie-controlled diet?

      Won’t someone please think about the poor women in all this?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phSxxVJCZsc

      No, we need a judge-led inquiry, if you can find a straight one in this country. I’m not sure where we go from here without Mr Aberdein breaking cover and that would entail considerable personal cost (in both meanings of the word).

    74. Mark English says:

      Recently arrived at this excellent site. So excuse the stupid question from south of the border….

      Why do you think that NS surviving is the end of Indyref2? I just don’t get the logic of that…

    75. Elmac says:

      Artur Sweet 8.03pm

      As a young enthusiastic SNP supporter I can remember a particular general election campaign by labour in the early 1970’s when Sillars was their candidate. It was a nasty affair with labour fighting dirty because they felt threatened in a seat they thought it was their right to own in perpetuity. In particular one moment stands out in my memory when 3 of us attended a Sillars rally in Auchinleck a few days before the vote which was open to the public. We were singled out on arrival and surrounded by a group of very large miners who threatened extreme violence if we so much as sneezed, let alone ask a question. I wonder if those miners ever realised that they were assuring their own self destruction when they opted to vote for a unionist candidate. I hope they were filled with regret when their local pit closed and they stood in line to collect their dole cheques. They could have opened their ears to an alternative point of view. Some things never change.

      Sillars won but the SNP did make inroads. I have never forgiven him for the way his campaign trawled the gutter and his later conversion to the SNP cause filled me with cynicism. I have friends who think highly of him, as you do, as their former MP but I would never trust him an inch. As far as I am concerned he was always about self promotion and his conversion to a supporter of independence was always dubious.

    76. Hatuey says:

      Well, I’m sorry to be depressing, but you’re as well hearing it from me…

      Sturgeon is going to say her lack of clarity and apparent inconsistencies on dates, etc., stems from her concern for the anonymity of the complainers.

      The anonymity law stops Salmond giving a detailed account of his case and it also prevents us from unpicking her case.

      All she has to do is say her apparent mistakes, episodes of forgetfulness, and omissions were actually down to her being conflicted, with a desire to be as honest as possible on one hand whilst protecting the complainers on the other.

      She can literally answer any question she wants with “I can’t answer that because I am obligated to protect the anonymity of the complainers and answering might compromise them…”

      That response is there for her any time she needs it, whenever she gets into difficulties, and there’s very little anyone can do about it.

      And that’s why I don’t think Parliament or the inquiries will make a dent. Only the MSM can bring her down. The MSM will bring her down.

    77. Bob Mack says:

      @Sam,

      The complaints had been active for months. No Civil Servant was going to do anything without Ministerial approval.

      So how could she recuse herself from these procedures to remove bias if she did not know until April 2018

    78. David says:

      Bob Mack , i picked up a rift that day, with Alex and snp lack of leadership .Sure others there felt the same .

      Without knowing the-real implications . It was just the mention of November dates tonight , that made me search when the conference took place in Usher hall the 4 th of November 2017.

    79. Artur sweet says:

      Elmac at 8.40

      I can well understand that you felt that way and there were and remain very many nasty people in the Labour Party. If it is any consolation, Sillars was actually at the receiving end of those same miners in the 1979 election when he was defeated by George Foulkes when he stood as Scottish Labour. It was quite a sacrifice Sillars made in 1979, when it would have been easy to stay put in the Labour Party.

      A few of Sillars statements have disappointed me – “ninety minute patriots” and all of that. But I genuinely think it was not all about him.

    80. Hugh Jarse says:

      Gird yer loins Hatuey, that’s what the strategy seems to be.
      Reality however, will prove their mettle, an amalgum of slag.

      The MSM has given their best, but this saga has Wings of its own now.

      😉

    81. Anonymoose says:

      Michael Russel is going all out attacking Ruth the mooth, Dross and Jackie Baillie about the inquiry on twitter tonight.

      Something has definately got him all riled up.

    82. Craig Jones says:

      Nicola Sturgeon, the saviour of wronged women everywhere.

      Or the biggest chancer ever to enter into politics.

      The condisending way she talks down to anyone who has the temerity to ask her a question about this whole sorry affair.

      And what is the hand gestures all about when answering a question.

      Also the kicking back of the seat as she goes to stand up during FMQs?

      She’s a right nasty little piece when she gets started.

    83. Mac says:

      To this site and all the good folks on it.

      You are really making them feel threatened now.

      Shields up folks.

    84. Not for me to say says:

      Looked very unnerved. Lying but finding it difficult to hold together. An awful embarrassment.

    85. Andy Ellis says:

      @Andrew Morton 8.22pm

      There is a fairly exact overlap between those whose default position is “believe the women” and those who fail to condemn the abuse of Joanna Cherry, Joan McAlpine and others by the Twitler Youth. In some cases it’s because they fervently believe that anyone who dares to question their faith based position is a transphobe / bigot / regressive, in many other cases, they don’t really agree with the othering but have sold their souls to the devil and have no way back.

      The problem for the movement broadly, and more particularly for those gaslit enough to remain in the SNP despite the state of the party leadership and its moral and political cowardice, is this: how do they expect folk like Joanna Cherry and those (the overwhelming majority) who agree with her, to simply accept what is going on, or to campaign shoulder to shoulder with their abusers? It’s obscene.

      Listen to Cherry’s interview with Mandy Rhodes. What kind of party allows the abuse Joanna and others suffered by others inside the party? What kind of leader – indeed what kind of woman – would allow that to happen, indeed tacitly encourage it, whilst vociferously and with alacrity supporting TRA ideology and throwing women’s rights under a bus?

      Enough and more than enough with this nonsense. Sturgeon has to go, as does her husband and the coterie of sycophants, SPADs and unelected activists.

    86. stonefree says:

      Christine Grahame in the background does not look happy with Sturgeon Maybe it’s just me

    87. Beaker says:

      @Mac says:
      10 February, 2021 at 9:10 pm
      “To this site and all the good folks on it.
      You are really making them feel threatened now.
      Shields up folks.”

      Set phasers to malky…

    88. Puzzled says:

      “And I call on anybody who has got anything to help with the process of that committee to sit before this committee and do what I’m going to do and put an account on the record on oath” Unless of course your name is Geoff Aberdein or Alex Salmond. This also puzzles me.

    89. Daisy Walker says:

      Is the Director of Smart Sustainable East Kilbride – ie Linda Fabiani still allowed to be chairing the Inquiry into whether ministerial protocals have been breached, since it appears she failed to declare the above on her MSP interests… in what looks like a breach of Ministerial rules?

    90. JimmyB says:

      She is going to brazen it out and she will probably pull it off in the court of public opinion. She will argue that she was aware of rumours and potential complaints back in 2017. On that basis she authorised the drafting of the new procedures but delegated their application to Leslie Evans making it clear that details of formal complaints should not be revealed to her until investigated, due to potential conflicts of interest. That will satisfy the Wheesht brigade. The story will be that Liz Lloyd set up the Aberdein meeting without telling Sturgeon, confident of finding a slot to squeeze in something. If she didn’t succeed, well Nicla’s a busy woman, these things happen.

    91. Hugh Jarse says:

      Or Ms Lloyd.
      Or the legal advice.

      Puzzle no more, it’s as bad as it looks.

    92. Boris says:

      22 Nov 2017: Nicola Sturgeon’s “letter of instruction” was sent to Leslie. It read:

      “As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”

      Note: Nicola Sturgeon’s written comment: “people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago.” This can be construed as a reference to the on-going gossip about the former First Minister, mentioned by James Hynd at the time of his appearance at the inquiry.

    93. Boris says:

      22 Nov 2017: Nicola Sturgeon’s “letter of instruction” was sent to Leslie. It read:

      “As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”

    94. Captain Yossarian says:

      Fannying about at Holyrood or at the Fabiani Committee is never going to bring Sturgeon down. Forget about it.

      If The Spectator gets a result tomorrow, then the English press will have Sturgeon, her skanky husband, Swinney, Evans and Wolffe removed and replaced by the end of the month.

    95. Puzzled says:

      Frazerio says:
      10 February, 2021 at 7:16 pm
      In her response to J Baillie, Sturgeon said she’d be answering to the Inquiry next Tuesday

      Actually she said she ‘hopes’ to be attending. Hmmmm

    96. PhilM says:

      Has anyone ever seen any footage at all of Liz Lloyd speaking in front of a camera or any recording at all where her voice is heard?

    97. JimmyB says:

      I think Fabiani’s Smart Sustainable East Kilbride revelation won’t gain any traction. It’s a new start up Company limited by Guarantee of £1. It will be argued to be a non-profit community venture.

    98. Sam says:

      @Bob

      I’m not saying she didn’t know earlier. I think she did. I just don’t think this particular answer from Sturgeon strengthens that argument in any way.

    99. Tannadice Boy says:

      I thought it was inconceivable that Nicola would lead the SNP into the next election. I still think that she won’t. A touch demonic today with reference to relish three times, I thought she was referring to Branston Pickle. I take no joy in her impending denouement because my anger is directed at SNP MSPs and MPs for allowing this situation to develop. A power centred environment works for small enterprise. But not for a Government. Independence is off the agenda for the foreseeable. Thanks baffie Pete n Co.

    100. Anonymoose says:

      JimmyB says:
      10 February, 2021 at 9:39 pm

      I think Fabiani’s Smart Sustainable East Kilbride revelation won’t gain any traction. It’s a new start up Company limited by Guarantee of £1. It will be argued to be a non-profit community venture.

      —-
      Even if it is a non-profit, she should have it declared in her register of interests incase any conflicts of interest arise.

      She should also not be lobbying for support for it due to the obvious conflict of interest.

      See this thread by Mark Hirst on the topic, specifically the 3rd and 5th posts in the chain: https://twitter.com/Documark/status/1358853313228374019

    101. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      Davidson and Sturgeon – two pieces of scum attacking each other. I will never go for this “I feel guilty for supporting Labour and the Tories when they attack Sturgeon” angle. I can’t stand any of them. All of them have run Scottish politics, and Holyrood, into the fucking ground. This country’s politics are now a mendacious, female-destroyed embarrassment, and it’s impossible not to resent them for that. Well done, ladies. You wanted a PC matriarchy? You got one. And you just showed why women are no better than men in the absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely stakes, dangling dick or none.

    102. Mia says:

      “The policy was developed in Nov Dec 2017 due to ‘me too’ and desire that policy is fit for purpose”

      As proved by the numerous text messages Ms Harvey received, there was some kind of fishing expedition that predated the initiation of the review of the existent complaints procedure, never mind the planning and development of the brand new and bespoke for former ministers with no precedence anywhere else in the UK.

      This fact blows completely out of the water the idea that the “me to” thing motivated this in any way or form. There was other motivation and that motivation predated the me too thing. The “me too” thing was used as a cover up to justify it a posteriori, but it was not what motivated this. In my opinion what motivated this was ejecting Mr Salmond out of the SNP so they could then neuter the SNP as a pro indy party.

      It would be interesting to know besides Ms Harvey, how many people got contacted during that fishing expedition and actually when it did start.

      “Evidence shows that potential complainers were known about by Evans et al in Nov but there is no known evidence that Sturgeon was informed”

      There is no evidence either that proves that she was not informed already in November if not before.

      As a matter of fact, if you look at the “roadmaps” that were submitted as evidence to the inquiry, in many of them, drafted in November, “informing the FM” is linked to the complaints against Former Ministers. Well, the complaints may have been officially filed in January, but by the time those road maps had been drafted, he complainers had already made contact.

      In addition, she is the leader of the SNP. It is pretty wild to claim you are the leader of the party and then pretend you don’t have a clue about such a serious complaint. It either says very little of your leadership or that she is lying.

      It is also pretty unbelievable that you push full steam ahead for a renewal of the complaints procedure for civil servants in government but you don’t do the same for the members of staff in your own party when you are the leader.

      “The formal complaints were lodged in Jan 2018, triggering the process. Sturgeon is saying here that she did not want to intervene or compromise that process”

      She can say what she wants. The process was not triggered in January. The process was triggered in November 2017. The question to ask here is when did the fishing expedition fo find complainants start, who commissioned it, who implemented it and how much did the FM and leader of the SNP knew about it.

      “She is claiming all her meetings were as party leader, meaning she has an answer for the lack of government witnesses or minutes”

      When wearing the hat of party leader she cannot hold meetings in government offices. As a party leader she should know that on the 5th November 2017, according to a witness in the criminal trial against Mr Salmond, a complain was filed through the SNP. As a party leader she should know that improper requests seeking to damage Mr Salmond were being made to Ms Anne Harvey from SNP HQ.

      “We can say we don’t believe that but it will be difficult to catch her out ”

      I think she has already been caught. She is trying to lie her way out of it and they are clearly helping her by removing from the inquiry all the evidence that proves she breached the code.

      “And if she is caught out she will say ‘honest mistake, wee apology, good intentions’”

      If she is caught, the crown agents and spooks will help her ride the wave until May to stop the SNP using this election as a plebiscite and then she will smoothly transfer the control of the SNP to the next British state puppet who will no doubt already has a seat ready waiting and who will ensure no independence referendum is delivered, no progress towards independence is made and that the GE 2024 is not a plebiscite either.

      This was always about stopping Scotland’s independence. Their urgency now is stopping that election becoming a plebiscite on independence.

    103. Mac says:

      If you were living in a country where..

      The main stream media were corrupted. (long time now)

      The COPFS was corrupted.

      Police Scotland was corrupted.

      The SNP Government was corrupted.

      The SNP internally as a party was corrupted.

      The 2014 referendum was corrupted.

      The witch hunt of Salmond was corrupted.

      Do you get the picture?

      No matter which democratic road you go down they will screw you out of the fair result just like they did in 2014.

      We are already living in a totalitarian state.

    104. ALISON BALHARRY says:

      PhilM says:
      10 February, 2021 at 9:36 pm
      Has anyone ever seen any footage at all of Liz Lloyd speaking in front of a camera or any recording at all where her voice is heard?

      Best I can do is was in a lot of bat phone calls with her in 2014 she’s from Newcastle, sorta posh, shit accent eh shit person, very thin gruel.

    105. Ricky Shiels says:

      Again, I must be missing something. Maybe it’s because I’m only educated to Secondary School level, but it appears to me that “nothing WAS put in the way of investigating the allegations of these women”. The crux of the matter was that, NEW rules were made and used retrospectively, to investigate these claims. This is what is being investigated here. There were/ are no poor downtrodden or much maligned women here. They got more than an adequate crack of the whip on this.
      The fact is, the Civil Service and/or someone senior enough in Government manipulated the Code of Conduct (by changing it) to investigate claims and not permit the accused a chance to defend themselves. This not only can’t be right, it isn’t right. And it had better be fixed because I don’t want MY potentially Independant Government acting in this way in the future.
      Notwithstanding that the claims have now been found to be baseless.

    106. somerled says:

      Andy Ellis says:
      10 February, 2021 at 9:15 pm
      @Andrew Morton 8.22pm

      What kind of party allows the abuse Joanna and others suffered by others inside the party? What kind of leader – indeed what kind of woman – would allow that to happen, indeed tacitly encourage it, whilst vociferously and with alacrity supporting TRA ideology and throwing women’s rights under a bus?

      Enough and more than enough with this nonsense. Sturgeon has to go, as does her husband and the coterie of sycophants, SPADs and unelected activists.

      Totally agree. Its very interesting watching FM Questions live and witnessing all the SNP sitting behind Sturgeon clapping, cheering, nodding their heads and noisily vocal in support. Remember that when the election comes. Its not just Sturgeon that has to go, it is ALL of them, they back up the Murrells, as do most of those in Westminster with a couple of exceptions. Swinney, Yousaf, Freeman, Russell, Hyslop, Somerville, Fabiani, the 4 SNP MSPs on the Inquiry and all the rest must NEVER be allowed in Government again and hopefully those not retiring will be shown the door by the electorate. They are all capable of standing up for Truth ad putting their own reputations and integrity before that of the Party but they toe the line.

      Anybody still a member of the SNP now after this or still voting for them (even holding your nose) is guilty of supporting a Dictatorship and needs to think about what they value in a politician. I don’t believe there is another Government or political party in the World that is as corrupt as this one. How can anybody believe a single thing that comes out of their mouths now, about Indy, Brexit, Covid or anything. Sturgeon and the rest are LIARS and the the SNP will forever be tarnished with this corrupt legacy. The deceit and dishonesty of the Civil Servants involved in the Conspiracy as well as the Cover Up can’t be forgotten either and there needs to be a full clear-out, resignations, sackings and imprisonment of some.

      Why aren’t the decent people like Joanna, Kenny, Neale, Joan resigning on masse and joining the ISP? They cannot save the SNP now and the longer they stay, the more they will sink with the rest of them, no matter how honorable they think they are. The Titanic only had one journey and it sank with its Captain, most of its crew and many passengers. Even if it was salvaged, it could never journey again and would just be a ghost ship and nobody would risk getting on board. It is over. A new party must now lead from the front.

    107. Saffron Robe says:

      “I was determined that I would do nothing to intervene in or compromise the confidentiality and the independence and the integrity of a process that was kicked off…because women came forward with complaints and I thought it was important that they got properly investigated.”

      So she admits that she was the cause of the effect, but when questioned about the implications of the effect she denies prior knowledge of the cause?

      Just as the effect cannot come before the cause, knowledge of being the cause cannot be denied prior to the effect if necessary causation occurs.

      And all the evidence proves necessary causation.

    108. Lulu Bells says:

      I guess I am looking at this too simply, but to my mind, Nicola Sturgeon has just shot herself in the foot.

      She told Parliament she did not know about the allegations until the 2nd of April, as a result of the meeting with Alex Salmond. Alex Salmond did not know about the allegations against him until after the investigation was completed by Judith MacKinnon.

      Nicola Sturgeon says she thought it important that the complaints were properly investigated. By the time she says she knew about the complaints in April, the investigation was complete.

      So quite clearly if she was ensuring the complaints were properly investigated she knew long before she says she knew and has just said so on camera.

    109. Breeks says:

      You’d be quite confident any competent criminal barrister would take Sturgeon’s testimony apart, but then you remember, she’s going before Fabiani’s Holyrood inquiry and all bets are off.

    110. @nairnkev says:

      Daisy walker Alex Salmomd said in one of his written submissions, in the civic case it was HE who put anonymity in place for the complainants, the Scot gov didn’t even turn up to the motion.
      18. On 4th October at the first hearing of the judicial review (and on my insistence), my
      legal team lodged a motion to protect the anonymity of the complainers. The Scottish
      Government chose not to attend this hearing.

    111. Stuart says:

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaron-Mennie now I bet. 2 disabilities , stutter and Tourettes.



    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