The Interesting Words Round
Posted on
June 05, 2026 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
We received two emails today, just a few minutes apart. There are a couple of notable things about them. The first came from Claire Somebody at the Crown Office.
The second one, even more thrillingly, came from Service Advisor 1989847 at Police Scotland, which we assume is some sort of advanced crime-fighting robot.
In one of those emails, readers, is a three-word phrase that raised our eyebrows just about right off our heads. Before we chat any more, see if it jumps out at you too.
At this time
Wrong.
Have been advised
…..have been advised?
By whom?
“specialist reporting agency”
Have been advised… presumably by the Crown Office….
Scotland’s morphed intae 1970s East Germany.
Has been advised
“No further action”
No big surprise…
Wrong.
Specialist reporting agency?
Wrong, although that one is also quite interesting.
“Any new information”?
Another reporting agency
Wrong, although that one is also quite interesting.
Hmm. ‘It is for the police to investigate allegations of criminal conduct.’ As for who advises the police not to bother… my guess is COPFS. Do I win a coconut?
Sufficient evidence exists
Wrong.
Have been advised
You win the prize!
Yes 😉
I bet no further investigation is required because the party already declared the funds spend on general party business back when the investigation started. So no new evidence, just new to the public.
When I asked for my £100 scot.ref back in 19th March 2023 it took them a couple of weeks and chase emails with the excuse “It has taken a bit of time to get the necessary change of signatory to allow payments to be made.” on 5th April 23, happy to share the email exchange if it helps.
So it’s all about minimising damage to the public image.
I’ll very happily donate that £100 (and more) to a legal challenge if one is started up.
What’s the prize?
hmmm
another reporting agency
who wid that be then
Wrong, although that one is also quite interesting.
SSPCA, Scottish Water and Gas Companies are some of the organisations that can conduct their own criminal enquiries and submit prosecution reports direct to the Fiscal.
My understanding ring fenced funds should not be touched. However if the organisation was at risk of becoming insolvent and therefore unable to achieve its objectives then it could use tge funds. Is that a crime or a civil matter??
The wording used by Swinney reflected this position.
Assuming they were not at risk the questions is were they used for the puropose i e independence??
The least we are looking at bad faith
“Have been advised”
I wonder if they will tell us by who?
Mmm.
I can only presume Police Scotland has Alzheimer’s. “My wife has advised me I’ve had my tea, but I don’t remember” kind of thing
At this time!
“… at this time”
Ponsonby was talking about it, with Massie, on today’s podcast.
So the police already knew and investigated the information you provided. I’m sure this is the information they passed to the CPS and were angry the CPS refused to allow them to charge someone,most likely the exFM .
,”have been advised”
That looks sketchy, who’s advising the police????
“already been investigated”
…yet it was decided that nothing was to come of it. Oh well.
Anyone fancy a banana? 😐
Those 2 emails were the equivalent polite reply to the comment so-loved by the police of “Advice Given” when the writer is actually saying don’t ask-it’s none of your business.
Keep going Stu it is our business when corruption within the governance of Scotland can be turned into 2 tier policing that affects every single one of us. Imprisoning Craig Murray was just the start of it. A demonstration of their ability to show that they (police & judiciary) can get at anyone who is a thorn in their sides if they so choose.
Have been advised by whom,and when?
2nd email, from Police Scotland: “have been advised”? Who provided the advice?
Specialist reporting agency…wtf
“already been investigated”
Spotted it straight away…
Police Scotland HAVE BEEN ADVISED.
By who?
A special reporting agency maybe
Submit a SAR for a copy of the advice received from? regarding your complaint submitted yesterday.
Have been advised
Who “advised” them? Are they not meant to investigate and find out?
Yes, as I was reading the “Police Scotland have been advised” did make me wonder, but also the persistent use of “at this time”.
Maybe, as Ponsoby suggested, the police should be spammed with comments from people who donated.
So COPFS can’t do anything until the police report to them, but the police “have been advised” not to investigate.
Who’s higher than the police?
Very strange that only the second e-mail has an official stamp on it and that no one has a full first and second name only a first name then a number in the second e-mail.Claire (very informal for an official letter).Claire must have been very quick contacting someone to get them to advise her.Very unusual too that it states that the police have been advised ( by who?) It is a speedy response to an issue that is glaringly obvious needs investigation.
Both replies sent a few minutes apart as well.
already been investigated
“have been advised”
The Police have been advised was what jumped out at me too. Who advised them if they are they ones who will decide to investigate according to COPFS?
An embarrassment.
So is the next step an FOI request (or two) to Police Scotland, asking a) who advised them that they had already investigated the info provided, and b) are the police compelled by law to follow that advice (surely it’s up to them to decide whether or not they have already investigated it), and also an FOI request to COPFS asking for name and contact details of other specialist reporting agency or agencies, so that they also can be contacted? The more the merrier!
“ The more the merrier!”
•=====
Or, “The more fronts they have to fight on the better.“
How on the hell can they say they’ve completed an investigation into statements that were made within the last week? Who, exactly, would “advise” the police on their own business?
How long until we hear the First Minister paraphrasing Nixon?
“When the Party Leader does it, that means it is not illegal. Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Party and the leadership. This party was torn apart in an ideological way by the Vietnam Group, as much as the 79 group tore apart the nation when Wilson was Party Leader.”
So can I suggest asking for a judicial review of the advice giving agency.Those who donated money to the funds have legal standing as it was their money. As many as you can get. Ask for a judicial review and keep it in the papers.
I suppose the powers that be will be have some defence. What might it be?
“had already been” – superfluous use of the pluperfect
1989847 Is the PSI of whoever sent the email
PSI Police Scotland Identifier
Stuart, I believe you knew that already
Have been advised.
By whom?
What is your next move?
This absolutely fucking stinks to high heaven. They really are going to brazen it out, aren’t they?!
Of course they are.
‘We have been advised’ that Willie McRae ‘committed suicide’.
They’ve been “brazening it out” for 5 years now. And the brazening has, so far, succeeded.
They even got returned to power by the voters.
For SNP MSPs, that is SUCCESS! Why should they change what’s worked (for them, if not for Scotland)?
It reads like: Police Scotland didn’t know that they’d already investigated this information as part of their inquiries. Someone had to advise them that they had!?
Weird.
“have been advised” – if by COPFS, as seems perfectly plausible, then the wagons are well and truly circled.
On top of the “been advised”, I take issue with there being no new information. Unless the SNP told the police back in 2022 that they had spent the money and continued to lie to the public, the statement from Swinney admitting it, is new information.
Police Scotland have been advised.
The other agency might be the National Crime Agency which is where lawyers and accountants are meant to send Suspicious Activity Reports to in relation to suspected crime, fraud or money laundering. Did the SNP auditors do this? Kate Forbes or Joanna Cherry could also have done as an accountant or KC if they wanted to.
have been advised
Which comes first? Scottish Public Services Ombudsman … or Judicial Review?
A complaint about the initial police response can be made to Police Scotland and, if still dissatisfied, then to PIRC.
As a very last resort, authority might be sought for a private prosecution. The following is AI generated, but accurate:
In Scotland, private prosecutions are extremely rare and generally not permitted as the state possesses an independent public prosecutor. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions are handled by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
However, under exceptional circumstances, a private individual can bring a criminal case to court. Here is how the process works:
1. The Requirement of “Criminal Letters”
To initiate a private prosecution, you must petition the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh for a document known as a Bill for Criminal Letters.
2. The Legal Hurdle: “Special Circumstances”
To be granted a Bill for Criminal Letters, you must prove to the High Court that there are highly “special circumstances” that justify bypassing the public prosecution system.
Specifically, you must show that:
You reported the crime to the COPFS.
The Lord Advocate (the head of the prosecution system) explicitly refused to prosecute the case.
There is sufficient evidence and compelling reason that a private prosecution is necessary to serve justice.
3. Concurrence
Historically, the Lord Advocate’s agreement (called “concurrence”) was needed to proceed. While the Lord Advocate can formally refuse to concur, the High Court has the power to hear the bill regardless if special circumstances are met.
4. Costs and Risks
Private prosecutions are complex, financially risky, and difficult to fund. While legal aid has exceptionally been granted in high-profile cases involving unique points of law, applicants generally risk being held liable for the accused’s legal costs if the prosecution fails.
Thanks for the information.
Send both again, explaining that you only received anonymous replies from both agencies the first time.
“Another reporting agency”
I recall the Rev previously may have implied that ultimate responsibility for Police Scotland (and perhaps also COPFS?) sits not with Scottish Ministers but somewhere in Whitehall.
And, if ‘criminal conduct authorisations’ have been sought and/or sanctioned by intelligence services relating to this matter they may require signing off by the UK Home Secretary.
So ‘have been advised’ by somebody in Whitehall?
Which of course fits with our colonial reality, i.e. all the really big decisions are taken elsewhere.
So the esteemed Professor’s so-called argument goes
If…
may…
so…
What a heap of entirely speculative keech. Not a fact to be seen anywhere. A real academic would be ashamed to produce it.
Go easy. He’s been colonised.
Exactly as predicted by Cesaire.
Scotland: Rotten Borough
This has the dodgy fingerprints of the The Bureau, SIS, MI5, MI6, CI5, Bodie and Doyle, Jim Prideaux, Toby Esterhase, Bill Haydon, Roy Bland, George Smiley and, last but not least, Crimestoppers Scotland working together in a joint operation all over it.
Those spooks, lamplighters, legmen, scalp-hunters and hoods out of London Circus are everywhere in Scotland these days.
It’s possible that The Bureau is in overall command of ‘Scottish Affairs’ and has deployed a highly experienced Shadow Executive to oversee ‘things’ up in Scotland.
However, having said all that, I expect, as Alf suggests, Westminster has simply told Scotland’s top cop and somebody high up in the Crown Office just to drop it…
No need to call in the Shadow Executives when a quick phone call from some bland, nondescript office in Whitehall is all that’s required.
Plenty on here leapt to shutdown suggestions of external actors. Some of them like to slide in Alec Salmond’s name alongside Sturgeon’s for appearances sake. If State interference was part of this who would be surprised? We just do not know. It is hard for me to believe that Sturgeon was such a superb corrupter of people and that the office of FM of Scotland so powerful that she was able manufacturer this disaster without assistance.
We need all the facts to come out us a clearer picture. Preferably in court.
But where’s the fun in that? That would involve a whole lot of work!
If we approach things in Northy and Alf’s way, we can convince ourselves, before we even start, that we’re so outnumbered, outgunned and outclassed, there’s absolutely no point.
gm says “It is hard for me to believe that Sturgeon was such a superb corrupter of people…”.
I don’t believe she was such a person either. But she was eminently capable of populating the Scottish government with incompetents (I think few would now disagree that she did – many of them still there) who owed their jobs to her. There was no need to ‘corrupt’ them – their lack of ability and thoughtless agreement has been sufficient.
gm also says “It is hard for me to believe…that the office of FM of Scotland (was) so powerful…”. If we think back to the rock star reception Sturgeon enjoyed in front of tens of thousands of dedicated supporters after 2014, she had the power to do pretty much anything she wanted and was really answerable to no-one. And so she created the bourach described above. State interference? it’s possible, but certainly not necessary.
Fact Checker – I don’t know what is possible and what is not possible. Sturgeon is an ordinary citizen now, much discredited amongst the people and it is a far cry from from the Hydro and the 10k crowd in 2015. Yet the protection remains. The Scottish punters do not matter much in this and I doubt they ever did. We are now being discriminated against for housing and there are quotas in the workplace. This tells me that the Scottish punters whatever influence they once had are largely despised by the ruling class. None of this is easy to explain.
Evans, Harvie, and Livingstone left their posts when Sturgeon did. She is still being protected.
“The Scottish punters do not matter much in this and I doubt they ever did. We are now being discriminated against for housing and there are quotas in the workplace. This tells me that the Scottish punters whatever influence they once had are largely despised by the ruling class. None of this is easy to explain.”
Astute observations, gm.
The explanation here is simply that colonialism always involves ‘hateful racism’ (Cesaire) as the basis of the colonizer-colonized relationship.
Hence independence/liberation ‘depends on the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group’, in oor case us Scots-identifying fowk (Hechter); and with national consciousness based on oor ain Scots langage an cultur (Fanon).
link to cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com
Have been advised…..by whom
Your response:
Following your investigation, please confirm whether Police Scotland considered there was sufficient evidence and, if so, whether a report was submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.
It’s the Crown Office that have advised the police that it has already been investigated. The response was coordinated.
A recurrent assertion on recent Wings threads is that Scotland’s constitutional crisis is “home-grown”. However, the structurally flawed devolution settlement which has given rise to this crisis was not “home-grown”. David Davis in his famously brave and incisive Commons Speech “Scotland – A deficit of power and accountability” (March 2021) made this clear:
Excerpt from David Davis’ speech –
« For the past few months, Scotland has been transfixed by the Holyrood inquiry seeking the truth of what went wrong with the investigations into the former First Minister, Alex Salmond.
« The inquiry is investigating matters of the most serious kind. Serious for the proper handling of sexual harassment complaints in Scotland. Serious for the accountability of those in positions of power, including the Scottish Government’s Permanent Secretary and its Lord Advocate. And serious, if the former First Minister’s claims hold any water, for the future of the present First Minister’s administration of Scotland.
« These matters are unquestionably something that should properly be dealt with in Holyrood. But Holyrood has great difficulties exposing what went on. The inquiry has come up against endless impediments in its efforts to fulfil its remit.
« These difficulties can be traced back to the Scotland Act 1998 in which the British Government of the day, and this House, decided to devolve power to a Scottish Parliament, but failed to do it properly. These failures were broadly on three fronts.
« First, this House failed to guarantee separation of powers to Scotland. We have known for centuries that the separation of powers is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Yet in Scotland, the Lord Advocate both leads the prosecution service, and serves in the Scottish Cabinet. This leaves him conflicted and compromised, with his Department’s independence undermined.
« Second, the Scottish Civil Service was left as a part of the wider UK Civil Service. It therefore does not have its own mechanisms of control and accountability in place but is only loosely controlled by Whitehall as we shall see in a moment. The result has been tolerance of failings which ordinarily would have led to resignations.
« Third and most important, Scottish Parliamentarians were not given the same powers and privileges that MPs of this House enjoy. This means that evidence relevant to the Holyrood inquiry can be freely discussed here today using parliamentary privilege.
« But if an MSP in Holyrood were to do the same, they would likely find themselves facing down prosecution. Indeed, the Crown Office has been making such threats to Mr Salmond’s lawyers, to various journalists and even the Holyrood inquiry itself. They made clear that they would deem disclosure of evidence to a committee of elected representatives to be a criminal offence. We have, in effect, given the Holyrood inquiry the right to summon evidence, but not to use it.
« It is because of these failings I have brought this debate today. We need to reinforce the ability of the Scottish Parliament to hold its own government to account. I’m here to strengthen the Scottish Parliament, not to bury it. […] »
See the following Wings post for full transcript and video of speech:
THE STORIES THAT ARE TRUE
(Posted on March 16, 2021 by Rev. Stuart Campbell)
link to wingsoverscotland.com
And here again for convenience is a direct link to David Davis’ House of Commons speech:
“David Davis & the Salmond inquiry – Scottish Civil Service & the operation of the Scotland Act 1998”
link to youtube.com
An important thing to remember. We should all be outraged and angry at what’s going on in Scotland and direct anger at the corrupt and the enablers of corruption, but that outrage and anger should be multiplied several times and directed at the Brit state.
Is that right?
Seems to me there’s SFA stopping any Scottish politician or party standing for office on a platform of seeking to rectify the shortcomings Davis identifies.
In fact, I’d go further. One of the necessary conditions for Scottish Independence is a cadre of politicians and a party serious about rectifying the shortcomings Davis identifies, as, until they are rectified, Scotland will be in no place to aspire to being a serious, Independent nation.
Of course, without a savvy, committed, SERIOUS Scottish electorate determined to hold our politician’s feet to the fire to get them to start behaving like fucking grown ups, there’s no incentive for any of our politicians to stir themselves.
Your response, Crisiscult, sums it all up. Give our boys at HR a free pass, and blame it all on the English.
@Hatey McHateface – you reveal everything by using the word “English” when I said British. As with most Brits, yous are anti English as much as you are anti Scottish. The British state is and always has been a vehicle for wealth extraction including colonisation to make a select few very rich and keep the rest poor (there was an temporary glitch around WW2 and just aftwards but we’re very much back to normal now). As you’re hanging around a blog most of the day, I assume you aren’t in the select few getting rich. Probably a plastic Ulsterman – certainly “loyal”/staunch enough to be.
Spot on Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh..
Scotland Act 1998, bit about Scottish Administration –
(1)There shall be a [F1Scottish Government], whose members shall be—
(a)the First Minister,
(b)such Ministers as the First Minister may appoint under section 47, and
(c)the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland.
and that is it. There must be a FM and the two top prosecutors in Scotland as ministers. That’s it as far as ministers in government go. No other ministers are required by law? As near to the opposite of the separation of powers as ye can get, on reading at least. Planned by the UK Gov and legislated for by the UK parliament. Just as well COPFS is an independent organisation beholden to nane.What does it mean in the context of Sturgeon’s reign?
I dare say there are arguments against the separation of powers in a state although I am not familiar with them. It could also be argued that a prosecution service outside of goverment could be equally or similarly compromised but the role of the UK state\Westminster\England is there in the Act.
I thought it was going to be ‘FAO CHIEF CONSTABLE’ in the subject line…
It’s very strange that in both emails they do not address you properly or sign off properly. And both emails have an informal, chatty “Good afternoon”.
Not the standard of communication I would expect from Government departments – especially in view of your formal emails to them.
Both emails will have being sanctioned by the Chief of COPFS and Chief of Police Scotland making both liable for its content. Save to file for future reference.
“ Both emails will have being sanctioned by the Chief of COPFS and Chief of Police Scotland”
======
I very much doubt that.
The arid style of both suggests composition by the AI assistant to Judge Kemp of Sandy Peggie fame.
There are surely AI hallucinations here?
Also you made a rookie error in contacting Police Scotland – sure you provided all the references and evidence and case law and so on, but you forgot to tell them how badly your feelings were hurt because of it all.
Maybe I need to quickly transition and report it again.
Then you could just as quickly transition back!
Just one of the many benefits of self I-D surely…
Is that ‘have been advised’ just clumsy English inside what smells suspiciously like an AIslop reply
“Have been advised”
By whom? How very sinister.
“Whenever law ends. Tyranny begins”. John Locke. We live in extremely dangerous totalitarian times in Scotland.
FAO Chief Constable
Sheriff Court and Simple Procedure it is then!
Inundate the bastards with civil cases!
Have been advised .. at this time
I’m interested that iRobot forwards it to the Chief Constable
That second one might as well have come from ‘Service Advisor 1984’.
Other Special Reporting Agencies can be HMRC, Social Security, SEPA.
These agencies can submit “Police Reports” directly to the Procurator Fiscal when they investigate offences within their areas of responsibility.
SEPA now there’s another thoroughly rotten and corrupt government agency.
Money, big money criminality, folks don’t as they say know the half of what goes on. Land fill tax evasion with unregulated waste dumping being one particular area.
In the due course of time, the legacy of ill health will like so many other toxin driven diseases become apparent. As they say, where there’s muck there’s brass, and money talks, and talks big. Check out Revenue Scotland upper tribunal tax claim cases and secret close out deals – but I digress.
Can one of these entities be asked to take the case? ‘The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity.’
What about these guys? I hae ma doots
Curious and curiouser..
Some light research (all timescales approximate);
Watergate scandal attempted cover up – 2 years
Iran Contra attempted cover up – 5 years
Partygate attempted cover up – 2 years
Profumo affair attempted cover up – 2 years
JFK assassination attempted cover up – ongoing
Stakeknife attempted (legal) cover up – 7 years
Tricky Nicky and “Honest” John are doing quite well in comparison though “you’ve been a naughty wee boy Peter” has fallen foul of the Squid Game now..
How long can Tricky Nick and “Honest” John hang on in there?
Some light research (all timescales approximate):
Watergate scandal attempted cover up – 2 years
I ran Contra scandal attempted cover up – 5 years
Partygate attempted cover up- 2 years
JFK assassination attempted cover up – ongoing
Steak knife (legal) attempted cover up – 7 years
All things considered Tricky Nicky and “Honest” John have had quite a good innings so far but “you’ve been a very naughty boy Peter” has fallen at the first Squid Games hurdle..
Dunblane massacre cover up-100 years.
Aye- John Major was in power when that happened wasn’t he bumpkin?
1996!
Ok Lochy. It’s sit in the corner and face the wall time.
Stupid boy.
MB
What exactly are you burbling on about?
Maybe the Police were “advised” by Murrell himself through his Vietnam WhatsApp contacts.
Don’t forget he’s the tosser who reckoned Alex Salmond’s first appearance in Court over the bogus allegations was “a good time to be pressuring the Police”, since “The more fronts he (Salmond), is having to firefight on the better for all complainers.”
Hmmm, what did he actually mean? Who specifically was in a position to pressure the Police? What form did that pressure take? Was it a commonplace occurrence? Were the police susceptible to influence and / or corrupt? Are they still? Was someone from COPFS already in the Vietnam WhatsApp group?
Still think Murrell’s greatest sin is sticky fingers or cooking the books?
How about conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to brand an innocent man a sex offender?
Maybe you’re just asking questions about the wrong crime Rev Stu.
When David Kelly dumps himself in the woods after committing suicide, or someone starts glowing after Polonium tea, one’s first thought may be Ha! they’ve made that one too obvious. One’s second thought may be less cheerful.
I assume one’s second thought is always that having blown a state secret wide open on a public forum, and exposed to possible scrutiny the shadowy deep state actors for whom illegality, tracking tech, advanced weaponry and extreme violence are everyday tools of their trade, one has just painted a bright red bull’s eye on one’s back.
Maybe one’s family and neighbours are in the frame too, if the “fix” adopted is a convenient gas explosion.
Luckily for the eejits forever broadcasting to the world that they alone have got to the bottom of these stories, they really haven’t.
I would love to know WHO advised the police? And when you hope to get a proper reply from both.
Could you break the PS refusal down into the elements –
a) ” Police Scotland have been advised ” –
By whom, and when, and request a copy of the contents of that alleged advice
b) ” that the information provided had already been investigated ” –
ask PS when this WoS information was allegedly investigated, and what proof do PS have ;
How could the new information from WoS be investigated in 24 hours, and a reply be written so quickly ?
Ask if they have already investigated 100% of the contents of the WoS letter ;
Did PS present all, or some, of that investigation and related documents to the COPFS, and what happened at COPFS ?
Ask who did this alleged investigation ?
Was it PS or COPFS or both ?
Ask to see the proof for the use of the word ‘investigation’; what was actually done ?
c) ” as part of our inquiries ” –
When did these inquiries take place, and who did the inquiries, and proof that these inquiries mean PS can claim ?
d) ” and no further action will be taken at this time ” – Why is PS refusing to investigate the new evidence ?
How can PS rebut the WoS evidence within 24 hours when it is new evidence ?
These are the new PS and COPFS tactics, similar to Sean Clerkin. Refuse any further inquiry.
Should David Davis be asked to step into the chamber at Westminster to ask questions, as the rule of law, justice and democracy in Holyrood is seemingly non existent ?
Would it be better to shut Holyrood Parliament down for a time, hold a short inquiry in Westminster Parliament with Holyrood MSPs, COPFS, PS people and others called to give evidence and then re-open Holyrood ?
Continuing Holyrood, COPFS, PS cover up, or Westminster try to obtain transparency ?
An emergency meeting was held at the Grand Lodge. A goat was involved. A few handshakes and we’re all square, on the level and keeping the Scottish Rite.
Is it true it’s always the same people shaking hands?
And always a different goat?
Or is it the same hands shaking people? This is Matilda’s last year as goat mascot. She’s off to climb a mountain.
By the way. Who was British Prime minister of the UK in 1996?
Sorry, Mark, I don’t know.
I do know who was UK Prime Minister of Britain, if that helps.
“we assume is some sort of advanced crime-fighting robot”
It’s an AI assistant “trained” on a reply set almost guaranteed to dissuade all but the most implacably determined.
So I wouldn’t read too much into the “have been advised” phrase. I’m betting it’s AI slop, nothing more.
Put simply, the initial request has been routed to a channel auto-generating replies of the form, FOAD.
Only just a smidge more polite.
So Scotland’s Justice system is being run by two chatbots – what a f*cking sorry state of affairs.This is biggest scandal in Holyrood’s history – shut it down if it is so corrupt and ineffective.Save some money and let the 2 chatbots run the country.This is beyond the usual party bun fights this is an existential threat to the government of the country.
You’re on fire Rev and have been for 5 years.#No_Justice_No_Peace
AI bot or not, we cannot see the wood for the trees.
Bruce Bowman’s brief thread on the WOS twitter has it.
Please read it.
SCOTLAND IS CORRUPT.
Perhaps “another reporting agency” could lead them to consider Italy’s Polizia Finanziaria. They’re quite effective against various Mafia type groups. Apparently.
“…… had……”
Is Claire the same chatbot who deals with late deliveries from Evri?
Yes! I was trying to remember which of the many couriers I’ve complained to fobbed me off with “Claire”.
By the way, in these turbulent times, free mental health checks are available to everyone and they only take a few seconds to carry out. I hadn’t used this resource in years, you really ought to try it – visit WGD it’s guaranteed to give you a clean bill of health, 20-20 vision, the works.
Contortionism still remains a circus act.
Whereas it takes a fucking clay pot to tell us what is staring us in the face – “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” — that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. John Keats
Late to the party but knew it was “have been advised” without looking up the answers .
They are tying themselves in knots !
It is beyond obvious that the English colonial state is behind everything that is wrong with Scotland.
Short of Westminster plastering a huge neon sign on the side of England’s Houses of Parliament flashing the words…
“We, the English colonial state, are behind everything that is wrong with Scotland.”
… it could not BE more obvious.
In fact, the thing most difficult to understand is why so many Scots can’t see this truth.
I suppose 300 years of brainwashing designed to make a people forget who they are and blind them to the real culprit lurking behind their nation’s problems will do the trick.
Think “The Manchurian Candidate” (1959 – by Richard Condon) and you’ll get the idea.
The novel popularised the notion of psychological programming and explores how individuals can be manipulated for agendas beyond their control.
Welcome to
ScotlandNew Manchuria.What really grinds my gears, Northy, is that the huge neon sign is illuminated by electricity stolen from Scotland.
That and the English re-purposing of Hadrian’s Wall to keep all the midges on the north side.
Here’s a ploy for you as your time hangs heavy. Look up the Scots word for “novel” (n). Perhaps then you’ll learn how to use it in a sentence that impinges, however tangentially, on reality.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC recused herself from decision-making in Operation Branchform—the police investigation into SNP finances—to avoid any perception of conflict of interest, as she sits in the Scottish Government Cabinet.
While she formally withdrew from directing the inquiry and taking prosecution decisions regarding the SNP, she still retains ultimate responsibility as the head of the Crown Office.
Ms. Bain recently came under fire in Holyrood for briefing First Minister John Swinney on embezzlement charges against former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell before the information was made public, though she vigorously rejected claims of political corruption.
—————————————-
Does anyone, anywhere believe that Bain was NOT involved in the process?
It is the Crown Office who advise the police. No mystery about it. What has clearly happened here is that the police investigated this matter and submitted their evidence by means of subject reports. The Crown , on assessing this, took the decision that there would be no case to answer and advised the police accordingly.
Here’s the question I would like to see answered properly: “What exactly was investigated during Branchform, and what conclusions were reached regarding the referendum funds?”
Can you put this question to both Police Scotland and the COPFS?
I see that Yousaf has said that Sturgeon looks like a broken woman.
It’s lonely at the top. It’s even more lonelier when you’ve been cast down to the bottom again.
Can this be judicially reviewed? I know that’s often the keepers reaction. I guess the problem is identifying an error in law about how the decision has been reached.
Shouldn’t John Swinney be giving his new information, with all the details which he is capable of giving, to Police Scotland?
Maybe you could write a letter to him suggesting that
SARA SALYERS for LIBERATION SCOTLAND –
Interview with JERÖME BOUQUET-ELKAÏM
at UN C-24 Caribbean seminar in Managua, Nicaragua, May 2026.
INTRO FROM SARA:
link to youtube.com
INTERVIEW:
link to youtube.com
Thank you for the links, Fearghas! I had missed this so I am, even now, listening to the interview. It’s good to get caught up with Liberation Scotland’s progress and to know what they are presently doing.
Thank you again. 🙂
Just a minor point but since when do officials sign off with a first name and no title? Claire the cleaner??
It would not surprise me if the Brit State spend more money and time infiltrating and fucking up anything that would lead to Scottish Independence than they do in fighting the so called soviet communist scourge.
Yes there is a War it’s a class war and the Brit establishment are the world’s leader in vindictiveness and cruelty, ask the Irish ! If by any chance you think you live in a democracy, you are deluded ! One phone call from London to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) bend the knee and fuck over justice in Scotland and the Scots.
If there was ever a rallying call for Freedom this is it for Scotland and all Scots, this is IT ! Thievery, corruption, no bounds, no law for them, not the same for the rest of us who are bound by the law, whereas politicians, royalty and their ilk don’t give toss ! Enough is enough for Scots their is only one enemy and it lives in London not Moscow !
It’s quite a jump from the SNP splurging the ring-fenced Indy Ref fund on themselves to it becoming a rallying cry for class war and proof that London is behind it all.
But you made it, James.
What’s your secret? An Olympian physique, steroid abuse, or did somebody just give you the mother of all punts up the arse.
“one enemy and it lives in London not Moscow”
The day London threatens to nuke us off the face of the Earth, maybes aye. Until then, get a grip.
Here’s a question for you. If this all comes good, in that the investigation into the missing ring-fenced fund is re-opened, and those who miss-used it are forced to refund those who contributed in good faith, will you come back here to apologise for being wrong?
‘Police Scotland have been advised that the information provided had already been investigated as part of our inquiries and no further action will be taken at this time’.
Unless this is some kind of standard expression in Scotland, what strikes me about this statement is that is makes little actual sense grammatically and thus obscures what it really means.
At base level it seems to be saying, ‘we have already investigated the stuff you mention’. But it gets complicated by the fact they start by saying someone else (COPFS?) ‘told’ them they ‘had’ already done this. But why would they need telling when it was they, the police, who did the investigating? Had they somehow forgotten what they did?
I can only assume what they are really saying is ‘our hands are tied by . . .’ whoever ‘told’ them, and if so, whoever told them has the ultimate power to take it forward i.e. the Crown prosecutors, and that that power extends also, almost by default, to the new evidence Stuart cites in his letter.
I cannot see this going any further and given that we already know the police were angry at the failure of any prosecution of NS over the Murrell theft, I suspect they are powerless in the matter and so see no point in wasting time and money on further investigation only for it to be knocked back (again).