The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The unseeing eyes

Posted on August 19, 2020 by

In a development which has caught us somewhat by surprise, we’ve just had a reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) which was both timely (in more than one sense of the word) and actually contained a straight answer.

Join us in our astonishment below.

If you’re in a hurry we’ve highlighted the key part. Click pic to enlarge.

[EDIT 21 August: some readers queried if COPFS might be deceitfully using the words “letters” and “individuals” to conceal other forms of communication, or having spoken to the newspapers rather than the article authors. We checked and got the reply “I can clarify that COPFS has no record of any communication with the individuals or publications.”]

This is a quite extraordinary revelation. What it reveals is that while COPFS instructed Police Scotland to go round to several random Twitter user’s houses to threaten them that they might face criminal prosecution for possibly tweeting something questionable in respect of the anonymity order on the Salmond accusers to a few hundred Twitter followers, they didn’t even issue a gentle informal note of caution to a whole bunch of newspapers – with tens of thousands of readers each – who had published information which enables the immediate and easy identification of one of the protected women.

(Instead, apparently the occasional tweet saying “Hey, don’t commit contempt of court, anyone!” was supposed to adequately serve that purpose. The COPFS Twitter account has fewer than 9,000 followers.)

This makes a complete and unequivocal lie of COPFS’ previous assertions that they’d carefully considered each possible contempt case on its merits before deciding not to pursue action against the Garavelli Nine. It tells us that they simply dismissed the cases against the newspapers out of hand, not even speaking to any of the journalists in question, despite absolute prima facie evidence that they all gave away the identity of one of the key figures in the trial.

(As did Kirsty Wark on BBC1 on Monday night, so we supposed we should call them the Garavelli Ten now.)

It’s an absolutely shocking admission, and if we ever manage to find out who COPFS is answerable to, we’ll be taking it up with them with all possible urgency.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 19 08 20 12:56

    The unseeing eyes | speymouth

121 to “The unseeing eyes”

  1. Jason Smoothpiece says:

    Shocking statement by the unsupervised COPFS.

    The reasonable question is who do they answer to?

    A casual observer may comment “what is that smell” for indeed there is a smell.

  2. Ian Brotherhood says:

    Good luck.

    We’re all watching carefully.

  3. Bob Mack says:

    My jaw is on the floor. Why have they therefore picked Indy supporters?

    Add to this Craig Murray’s revelation that he is being refused permission for witnesses to defend himself, you begin to realise this is not haphazard or accidental.

    They have deliberately attacked supporters of Indy and Alex Salmond. This is a revenge mission pure and simple.

    Apprentice was mortified to lose such a case with numerous witnesses and now vents his spleen at anyone on the other side.

    The journalists are safe because they were part of the Salmond lynch party. They are therefore excused.

  4. Sharny Dubs says:

    Fook mwah!

    For sure we do not live in a democracy.

    Question is how do you find out who COPFS is answerable to? Probably end up being the tea boy sorry person, or none specific gender thingy or even species! Anyway guaranteed not to be anyone who is pulling serious money for their responsibilities.

  5. Patsy Millar says:

    I suppose any ‘response’ is better than none but the response above doesn’t exactly inspire confidence!

  6. Martyman says:

    Just throwing something out there … I don’t know why, but the phrase “I can confirm … that no letters were sent to the ‘individuals’ you name in your request”, and the word “individuals” stood out to me.

    Is it possible, they sent communications to the “newspapers”? ie – the editors etc?

    After reading all the correspondence Stu has been having with the COPFS, it just seems like they are deliberately trying to muddy the water, and I am curious as to why?

  7. A C Bruce says:

    I don’t see how they can proceed with the cases against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst after this admission if they are not also going after Garavelli.

  8. cynicalHighlander says:

    Says all one needs to know about Sturgeon’s SNP government corrupted from the inside out, hell mend them.

  9. Cath says:

    I think I identified one of the women after the Kirsty Wark programme. I’m really hoping I’ve put 2 and 2 together and made 5 because if I’m right, this stinks way worse than I ever imagined.

  10. Craig Murray says:


    You are right and it does.

  11. mike cassidy says:

    COPFS tweeted a reminder on Monday afternoon

    (I wonder why)

    The court made an order preventing the publication of the names and identity, and any information likely to disclose the identity, of the complainers in this case

    No response as far as I can see to the various breaches of the order brought to their attention under that tweet.

  12. susan says:

    Is it just me, or does everything point towards a witch-hunt of Indy supporters who can think for themselves. I guess that’s a rhetorical question.

  13. Ottomanboi says:

    and what else are the Scottish ‘establishment’ authorities lying about?
    The parlous state of the lockdowned economy perhaps?
    Where Argentina leads….

  14. mike cassidy says:

    COPFS tweeted a reminder on Monday afternoon

    (I wonder why)

    The court made an order preventing the publication of the names and identity, and any information likely to disclose the identity, of the complainers in this case

    No response as far as I can see to the various breaches of the order brought to their attention under that tweet.

  15. Paul D says:

    “Letters to……the individuals you name in your request” sounds like weasel words. Other forms of communication (calls, emails, face-to-face discussions) could still have occurred with associates (colleagues, editors, media lawyers etc).

  16. Wee Chid says:

    Cath says:
    19 August, 2020 at 12:28 pm
    “I think I identified one of the women after the Kirsty Wark programme.”

    Me too but didn’t know until then. If they go through with the Craig Murray case they should be prosecuting Wark too. She arguably broadcast the information to a much winder audience too.

  17. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    ““Letters to……the individuals you name in your request” sounds like weasel words. Other forms of communication (calls, emails, face-to-face discussions) could still have occurred with associates (colleagues, editors, media lawyers etc).”

    I don’t think such deception would be really within the rules, but I of course sent them a follow-up inquiry to clarify.

  18. Astonished says:

    susan says:
    19 August, 2020 at 12:42 pm
    Is it just me, or does everything point towards a witch-hunt of Indy supporters who can think for themselves. I guess that’s a rhetorical question.

    Its not just you. This is one law for them and another for us. I doubt this position can possibly be maintained.

  19. ALEX HOLMES says:

    I had a meme based on yesterday’s Leslie Evans session banned as ‘spam’ last night after just three shares of my normal 16 Indy site shares on facebook. I noticed that Peter Bell has given up on facebook for similar reasons. Deep state at work? Bastards!

  20. ALANM says:

    @A C Bruce 12:09

    It all makes sense when you consider the motive. This isn’t and never has been about applying restrictions evenhandedly to all commentators including friends in the MSM; it’s about targeted action against individuals viewed as enemies of the state operating in the blogosphere. Moreover it’s a show of strength specifically designed to warn off any budding Craig Murrays or Stuart Campbells out there.

  21. Astonished says:

    What is Yusuf doing ? oh aye right defending a specific group from having their feelings hurt.

  22. defo says:

    The untangling continues.

    Spynctor clenching times for the unco guid.

  23. mike cassidy says:

    And the fact others have breached the order is being considered irrelevant in the Craig Murray case

    In other words

    We’re not going to allow you to claim your prosecution is a targeted one

    Although the letter above ‘implies’ that’s exactly what it is

  24. Marcia says:

    One law for them and one for us.

    Some better news of a new opinion poll. Yes 55% (51% including don’t knows)

  25. mike cassidy says:

    And if you need a break – and missed this.

    Scotland’s dreaming: why the SNP appears unstoppable

  26. WhoRattledYourCage says:

    Sounds to me like this is becoming a freedom of speech problem and, by contacting random members of the public, they are trying to introduce a chill factor among Indy supporters on social media, make them think twice aboot sharing some posts after hearing aboot the rozzers turning up at the doors of some people because of posts made. Might be wrong, but this country becomes more politically and artistically censorious every day. Deeply concerning for any free speech advocate, and people not on social media are totally oblivious to it all. Disturbing.

  27. Capella says:

    @ Marcia – good new indeed – thx for posting.
    @ mike cassidy – that new Statesman article is also interesting. Following the supposed “chaos” of the exam results, it looks like Sottish people are becoming immune to the MSM.

  28. Confused says:

    I think poor Craig Murray is going to get an absolute “doing” – they are going to take out all their frustration on him, the blows AS parried and countered.

  29. Dave Llewellyn says:

    I have a wee project going on about this very thing . Unaccountability at the COPFS

  30. Oneliner says:


  31. CameronB Brodie says:

    I see you’re still punting a right-wing agenda. Do you still support philosophers who deny the significance of biology, and place man’s will above the forces of nature?


  32. John Dickson says:

    Kirsty Wark in her hatchet job identified one of the women as a SNP politician. That certainly narrows down the possibilities of who is on the list.

  33. Vestas says:

    I initially identified one of the alphabet sisters through off line means – ie talking to someone (we all remember that right?).

    I identified another from Craig’s blog (Mrs Marmalade) although the rumours about her preceded Craig’s blog.

    The MSM articles identified another three clearly and at this point it was easy to infer who the remaining others are.

    SNP HQ smells quite ripe now I’d imagine….

  34. Beaker says:

    This might be an extreme example, but during the main Nuremberg trials after WW2, the defendants were not allowed to use the defence of “tu quoque”. Basically it means you can’t use as a defence point the fact that someone else did the same thing as you.

    I think. I understand military history but not law.

  35. cirsium says:

    Well done, Rev. You have exposed an example of lawfare – the use of the law by a state against those it regards as its enemies. Keep digging.

  36. Sweep says:

    @Rev Stu @ 1.00pm

    The first thing that struck me on reading the letter was that your question did not specify the medium of contact, whereas the response specifically mentioned letters. You’re right that it is not within the rules but it might have been considered too subtle for folk less alert to have picked up on it.

    For what it’s worth, you’ll likely be on a list of people/organisations whose responses are flagged up by the initial drafter for clearance/amendment at more senior level.

    I look forward to more enlightenment from the Keystone COPFS in due course.

  37. winifred mccartney says:

    Hear police in London dropped the investigation into AS which was passed on to them by Police Scotland. Dirtier and dirtier.

  38. Alec Lomax says:

    Ottomanboi. keep your germs to yourself.

  39. dakk says:

    Ottomanboi 12.43

    That spikedonline article has completely airbrushed out of Covid history the severe shortage/absence of PPE which most of the world faced including frontline health workers.

    Add the unknown disease effects and appropriate therapies/medical apparatus and that’s why cautionary initial lockdowns were necessary.

  40. deerhill says:

    Seems to be becomeing more and more clear that the people against freedom of information in Scotland are not based in MI5 or Whitehall, but are home-grown “Massey-Fergusons”.

    It is a recurring theme in Scottish history.

  41. Ottomanboi says:

    Its ‘the science’…or it bullshit?
    Im under 20 and already im a mega mega sceptic where officialdom is concerned
    Lies, lies and yet more lies……
    You’d think mature people would have more sense….patently not.

  42. Ian McCubbin says:

    More attacks on Indy supporters by unknowns working for a UK government.
    As shocking as was the Kirsty Wark programme overall for its lack of balance and fairness.

  43. CameronB Brodie says:

    Why would anyone think they are supporting Scotland, by rejecting public health ethics and global health law? There were clear legal requirements set out for Westminster to follow, when advised of the global health threat. Unfortunately for us, The Tories are ideologically opposed to the “precautionary principle” and the concept of environmental justice.

    It is not rational to expect the market to ensure public compliance with public health requirements. That’s why we have public health law.

    American Journal of Public Health. 2005 July; 95(7): 1156-1161.
    The Right to Health Under International Law and Its Relevance to the United States


    In recent years, there have been considerable developments in international law with respect to the normative definition of the right to health, which includes both health care and healthy conditions. These norms offer a framework that shifts the analysis of issues such as disparities in treatment from questions of quality of care to matters of social justice.

    Building on work in social epidemiology, a rights paradigm explicitly links health with laws, policies, and practices that sustain a functional democracy and focuses on accountability. In the United States, framing a well-documented problem such as health disparities as a “rights violation” attaches shame and blame to governmental neglect.

    Further, international law offers standards for evaluating governmental conduct as well as mechanisms for establishing some degree of accountability.

  44. Colin Alexander says:

    Imelda and Ferdinand Murrell must go.

    But, to be fair to them, they DID NOT create the corrupt system. It was always there, even under Salmond too.

    The SNP under Salmond embraced the corrupt system and protected the Imperial Establishment vested interests. The Murrells SNP ARE now the head and heart of the corrupt system.

    I won’t be voting for ANY candidate or party that wants to swim in the sewage of British Imperial devolution politics – especially the SNP – the party of British imperial order and British corrupt law.

  45. Republicofscotland says:

    Yet I’ll bet they didn’t even forewarn Mr Murray in any way if I recall correctly from his court reporting that one journalist actually typed up the name of one of the now proven liars in the fit up trial of Salmond. It all fits into place now the denial of the journalist licence, mind you they did that to Assange as well the denial of a fair trial for Craig, by not allowing him to build his case see the link below that also is happening to Assange, a laptop given to him in Belmarsh maximum security prison had its keys glued down so as to make it unusable.

    Who’s prompting the COPFS to continue to prosecute Murray unjustly, whilst the Garavelli Nine who jigsaw identified at least one of the women go unchallenged.

    Scotland grows more Kafkaesque by the day under Sturgeon and Murrell, Lukashenko would be proud of this one.

  46. Alwi says:

    I hope that Craig can introduce your letter as evidence.

  47. dakk says:


    We know UK gov are useless at procurement and everything but lying.

    However appropriate spec ppe for key frontline workers was/is very obviously not.

    And not only for Covid.

  48. Breeks says:

    Alwi says:
    19 August, 2020 at 3:20 pm
    I hope that Craig can introduce your letter as evidence.

    I hope so too, but Craig is now saying he’s not being allowed to call witnesses.

    There’s quite a pungent stench to all of this.

  49. shiregirl says:

    I watched the Wark programme again – I figured out one of the accusers.
    I actually feel sick. This is beyond wild.

  50. Effijy says:

    Absolute disgrace that criminal activity is alive and well
    In our criminal justice system.

    How about we try to get one Wings supported in every Scottish
    Constituency to e-Mail their MP and MSP to ask why HR is turning
    A blind eye on our corrupt justice system.

    We must demand COPFS are answerable to the people and we are entitled
    To know who has decided to prosecute Independence supporters and ignore
    Unionist media agents who have taken the same actions.

    Is there a list of these officials for each area with their e-Mail address’?

  51. Alf Baird says:

    “if we ever manage to find out who COPFS is answerable to”

    The Crown in Scotland (i.e. COPFS and Police Scotland) appears to be the legal embodiment of the state, which implies the British state given there is no Scottish state [].
    I expect the Crown in Scotland is answerable to someone high up in Whitehall, perhaps this might be close: Rev has clarified that Scottish Ministers are not responsible or answerable so must be somebody in the British Gov.

  52. deerhill says:

    If Scotland had a half-decent print media, this would be in banner headlines on every front page.

    But we don’t because our press and broadcasters are all controlled by people furth of Scotland. This has to change.

  53. Oneliner says:

    The puppetry of the COPFS was exposed as long ago as the Willie McRae case. Strings pulled from higher up.

  54. boris says:

    “There were times when I was working as principal private secretary to the former First Minister Alex Salmond which were challenging,” she says, with a heavy emphasis on the word challenging. I would find myself at Bute House at midnight in front of my computer thinking oh s**t, how am going to resolve this by 8am? Long hours. Challenging issues.”

  55. ahundredthidiot says:

    Doesn’t take much to become a conspiracy theorist these days, not when you’re surrounded by fucking conspiracies!

  56. Janet Cuthbertson says:

    I’m sure you know that it’s the spso that you go to Mr Wings

    However have you exhausted the COPFS complaints procedure to date? Cos if you haven’t it will be back to the circumlocution office for you.
    You’re doing a grand job though. I find the action against Craig Murray and Mark Hirst totally bizarre in relation to this response. I wonder whose been dealing with online mail at COPFS?

  57. Polly says:

    Pretty much what I thought would be the case unfortunately. They treat newspapers as professional publications with serious professional writers and who are likely to know the rules of law and unlikely to break them while bloggers, no matter how well they write or their qualifications, are just partisan folk who write for other ordinary folk and need a strict watch since they’re dodgy with their agendas, biases and hubris to think of themselves as professional publishers. They’ve not caught up with new media and are working from the old playbook. It’s only bloggers they think likely to step out of line.

  58. jfngw says:


    Reading the CM letter it would seem their position is ‘we’re not interested in what others did, we are prosecuting you. It’s up to us as we are a law unto ourselves who we decide to prosecute or not and there is nothing you can do about it, in fact there is nothing anyone can do about it’.

    That seems to be the position in Scotland regarding equality in the law, the COPFS are in charge and they will ignore who they want and pursue those they want to silence.

  59. Effijy says:


    Are you suggesting they don’t know all about Craig’s qualifications
    and his profile?

    If Craig virtually copies what the newspapers print then you think it’s right
    For only Craig to be hounded and taken to court?

    Not in my country thank you!

    The law must be applied to all equally or it isn’t the law in the real sense of the word.

  60. leither says:

    The law must be applied to all equally or it isn’t the law in the real sense of the word.

    Its as if democracy is coming to an end……..

  61. callmedave says:

    It’s a labyrinth, constructed as intended. 🙁

    You’ll need a long ball of wool to get back out once you ever find the centre.

    Disgraceful that it’s not more transparent.

  62. SilverDarling says:

    If this were in relation to any other aspect of the SG or Police, Paul Hutcheon would have been issuing FOIs requests like an ex Sunday Herald Political Editor in search of a Press Award. Remember the days?

    But alas, tittle tattle at the DR is now all he is good for.

    Good polling figures, Chris Deerin says it’s because the Yes movement is now independent of party lines. Finally he gets it. Mud slinging at AS or NS and screeds of analysis from form the Garavelli 9(10) means diddly squat now.

    We know party leaders come and go but Independence supersedes whoever is driving the bus. It is the destination that is important. That is why those tied to a party are so blinkered. The freedom and realisation that comes with knowing you don’t have to support the SNP to achieve Independence is like being reborn.

    The SNP will have to re-evaluate the way it treats not just its party members if it wants to keep that support. Independence supporters are looking for a party to deliver it and they don’t have to have loyalty to anyone.

  63. Robert Graham says:

    You’ll have had yer Democracy Then,

    A organisation operating in this country outwith any scrutiny or by the looks of it any oversight or control , I thought the English security services had that little number all sown up and they were the only game in town , now it appears quite a few contenders are jockeying for position .

    It’s ok don’t worry Humsa has it all under control he will sort the Duckers out ,
    stifled laughter in the background ,
    Aye you can’t beat a touch of yer Democracy eh , please let the rest of the crew know if it’s discovered any time soon , so we have all fallen for this Democracy con now that’s not cricket is it now chaps bloody bad show if you ask me not at all satisfactory in my view

  64. twathater says:

    As someone posted up thread the COPFS did post a tweet on Monday informing people that the anonymity legislation was STILL in effect , YET just hours later the bbc aired the wark pish and once again repeated the same pish prog last night which CONTAINED JIGSAW identification of at least one of the complainants,

    So COPFS I as a Scottish citizen DEMAND to know why the bbc , Krispy Wark and her company are NOT being charged with contempt of court when they have DELIBERATELY AND PUBLICLY aired this programme nationwide which may probably lead to persons being identified and subject to the very THREATS that the law is attempting to protect them from

    Either the justice system is being abused and used by state organs and their collaborators to usurp and deliberately flout the law or the COPFS is being selective and BIAS in who they choose to interpret as breaking the law , the justice system is supposed to be evenly discharged throughout not selectively applied to individuals , which appears to be the case when the bbc, KW and newspaper journalists are NOT investigated for their contempt of the law

  65. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I’m sure you know that it’s the spso that you go to Mr Wings”

    The SPSO is an advisory body with no power.

  66. kapelmeister says:

    Kristy Wark, Sarah Smith, Dani Garavelli.

    Ladies Who Lynch.

  67. robertknight says:

    Rev Stu writes…

    “This makes a complete and unequivocal lie of COPFS’ previous assertions that they’d carefully considered each possible contempt case on its merits before deciding not to pursue action against the Garavelli Nine. It tells us that they simply dismissed the cases against the newspapers out of hand, not even speaking to any of the journalists in question, despite absolute prima facie evidence that they all gave away the identity of one of the key figures in the trial.”

    Just to be clear, is the absence of a letter, (after all, the COPFS clearly and no doubt intentionally states in the reply that “no letters were sent – to the individuals named in your request”), is it possible that forms of communication other than letters may have been employed, and that these e-mails or telephone calls were directed towards editors or other individuals in the organisations involved, other than to the individuals named?

    Furthermore, is the absence of external communication on the part of the COPFS absolute proof that they failed to considered “each possible contempt case on its merits before deciding not to pursue action”? They’re not in the habit of information individuals/organisations that having considered carefully a publication, they have elected to do nothing.

    I’m not doubting YOUR integrity Rev, but I sure as hell doubt theirs and don’t want you walking into a labyrinth of Minos on this issue.

  68. robertknight says:

    Apologies ….

    Others further up have made same points – disregard all previous.

  69. Polly says:

    @ Effijy

    No, I’m not suggesting they don’t know who the bloggers are, or at least that they will have enlightened themselves before taking action. What I meant of course is there is very obviously a deliberate double standard. And though bias against independence supporters from the establishment is one theory – and any establishment is bound to be biased against an insurgent grouping so I’d not argue – but I’d think the more obvious reason might just be that they’re used to dealing with newspapers and know how to deal with them and their journalists, while bloggers of any hue are looked on as loose cannons with bad motives who are more difficult to control. Hence they come down harder on them.

    ‘The law must be applied to all equally or it isn’t the law in the real sense of the word.’

    I see you’re an optimist then. 🙂

  70. SOG says:

    @ boris

    So has Fransesca Osowska decided about mountain hares yet? She’s had three years, the ongoing protests about culls might indicate not.

  71. dakk says:

    “The Unseeing Eyes”

    Well they do say justice is blind right enough.

    If only.

  72. Robert Graham says:

    After weeks of watching listening and reading about civil service this civil and service that, goings on at the BBC and particularly the Legal professional it occurred to me we have got entirely the wrong people in positions of power and authority , A whole class of useless bloody brain dead middle class tossers , who make sure their type of person is ultimately given prefrontal treatment when any position requires filling , a self perpetuating jobs for the boys bloody mafia that bars entry to their club , The type who shops at Lidl and then puts the shopping in a M & S bag all bloody show and no substance fur coat and nay knickers comes to mind ,if you thought England was class ridden have a long look at Scotland it’s just that our tossers are just better at concealing it .

  73. Al-Stuart says:


    You know your readers and those who support you pretty much unequivocally. I hope to be within that grouping.

    There was a time I would have seen this as an extraordinary revelation. The COPFS is in a dreadful state. You have demonstrated that and exquisitely presented the COPFS source material where they contradict themselves and when you try to find the person in charge? Nothing. Gone fishing. No longer at this address.

    Stuart, this is where I become equivocal and question Cui Bono?

    Your time is precious, your talent and ability more valuable than a ton of gold.

    You are vital to the TRUE YES movement.

    You are dangerous to the Union in a magnitude beyond your ken.


    If I were being a wee bit cynical, I would use the simple analogy…

    Hey Stuart, look, a squirrel…

    This COPFS has TASTY MORCEL written all over it.

    Yet we are RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

    Both WoS and Alex Salmond and the crowdfunders have been bled and bled and bled.

    Stuart, how much of your physical, mental and emotional energy did the waste-of-space Kezia Dugdale take?

    My friend, now is the time we need to box clever. We have to see what the British Empire is capable of and beat it at its own game.

    I don’t think for one second the COPFS are deliberately designing ways to waste all of your time and consume more money with the lottery of a VERY EXPENSIVE legal mind field where the COPFS and their Unionist ilk have the home field advantage.

    The vital term is called OPPORTUNITY COST. In short: Do you have enough time to go chasing down COPFS infractions? They are legion. That can and may become a full time job.

    But we are RUNNING OUT OF TIME.



    Fuckk making Freedom of Information requests. That is now an insulting use of our time and your ability.

    Far better to have a qualified and good justice minister replace the cockwomble inplanted be the Dreghorn Devolution Addict. Alex Salmond would be instructing his new Justice Minister to sort this COPFS mess out. That is what we need to enable.

    We go straight to the top of this whole, complex problem. How?

    We devote all our energy to getting rid of the McWokeist infection at SNP High Command.

    At this point, EVERYTHING ELSE is amateur student union level politics.

    Stuart PLEASE go and take one of those long walks, the one you wrote about after speaking with Alex Salmond and hoping so much you were wrong about Nicola Sturgeon.

    You both turned out to be right about that BIG issue back then.



    Put the M.I.5 stuff on the back burner. The Ministry of Idiots pointing at 5quirrels can go fuck themselves.

    We need our SNP Leader back. Either get Alex Salmond reinstated as First Minister, or start that Scottish Independence List Party.

    Or accept that we ain’t getting Scottish Independence in any of our lifetimes.

    If we miss or overshoot May 2021 Holyrood elections, then by all means as a HOBBY, go chase COPFS Squirrels, but for the sake of sanity, PLEASE can we sort out the McWokeist infection and get Nicola Sturgeon and her collection of wasted IndyRef2 mandates the fuckk out of Bute House. Do it this side of Christmas 2020.

    Focus on ONE BIG ITEM or play with 1,000 squirrel projects. Brilliant and interesting squirrels, but I for one want my country back and soon please.

  74. Stuart MacKay says:

    Boris @4:32pm re Francesca Osowska

    “There were times when I was working as principal private secretary to the former First Minister Alex Salmond which were challenging,”

    The experience was clearly too much for Ms. Osowska who sits in Inverness and for want of an easy life just does whatever the shooting industry wants.

    Alas, it appears Mr. Salmond has drained all the energy out of the executive layer across many, perhaps all, of Scotland’s institutions. All that’s left are a parcel of embittered has-beens, wash-outs and clock-watchers. Not exactly stellar material to start a new country with.

  75. wull says:

    I am not sure whether the point below is relevant and, if so, what exactly its relevance is:

    Guardian Headline today, on the evidence of Leslie Evans:

    Sturgeon told of Salmond allegations earlier than thought, inquiry told
    Bye-line (if that is what it is called): Leslie Evans, permanent secretary to Scottish government, says she warned first minister in November 2017.

    The article continues:

    “Nicola Sturgeon was warned about allegations of misconduct against Alex Salmond in November 2017, five months earlier than previously thought, Scotland’s chief civil servant has said.

    “Leslie Evans, permanent secretary to the Scottish government, told a parliamentary inquiry she warned the first minister that Salmond had been calling civil servants in connection with a Sky News investigation into an alleged 2007 incident at Edinburgh airport.

    “Questioned under oath, Evans told the inquiry ‘a whole range of people’ inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers and former ministers.

    “She said they began surfacing in early November 2017 at the height of the #MeToo movement and the crisis about alleged harassment at Westminster and the Scottish parliament, and soon after John Swinney, the deputy first minister, announced a new zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.

    “The inquiry is investigating the Scottish government’s handling of a botched internal inquiry that upheld two complaints of alleged misconduct against Salmond in August 2018, and when Sturgeon knew about those allegations against her former mentor.”

    END of Quote from the article, which nevertheless continues, and can be read on the Guardian website.

    I have not been able to keep up to date on this story, so probably everyone is far better informed about it than I am. What I am about to say adds nothing to the debate. All the same several points struck me:

    1. Does Evans’ testimony contradict what Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament when she was questioned about when, exactly, she first knew AS was being investigated on such allegations etc.? I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if it does.

    2. If that is the case, several other questions arise, for instance:

    i) What will be the consequences for NS when she faces further questions about this in the parliament? Will she be guilty of having misled the parliament?

    ii) According to some comments here and to previous WoS articles, as well as elsewhere, NS and Leslie Evans worked closely together on this whole project from the beginning. This includes on the decision to ignore Westminster’s advice NOT to make the new rules retrospectively applicable to former Ministers and First Ministers. The renewal of Leslie Evans’ contract also suggested a close working relationship between the two.

    Granted that Evans was speaking under oath, and could not and presumably would not lie, does this divulgence on her part not – all the same – put NS in the soup? With the Scottish parliament, in particular.

    It could be asked if this will sour the NS-LE relationship, although LE’s perfectly justifiable defence, even in front of NS, would be ‘sorry – but I can’t lie under oath’.

    Another question could relate to whether there is still an agenda, somewhere, to take down NS along with AS, and LE is (or originally was) part of that. This could still be the case even if the departure of NS would now be seen as collateral damage by some Unionists, who might – just might – consider NS’s continuation as First Minister as useful for their cause. LE’s evidence, it seems to me, does make things uncomfortable for NS.

    3. Several questions also arise from Evans’ statement about other Ministers and previous Ministers, reported by the Guardian as: “Evans told the inquiry ‘a whole range of people’ inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers and former ministers.”

    These include:

    i) What happened to these concerns about other Ministers and former Ministers? Were they just buried? If so, why? Or were they investigated, and found not to be substantiated? If so, where is the paperwork showing those investigations, and these findings?

    ii) Why is it that the only complaint to be picked up and go forward, among all the various complaints that she says were circulating, happened to be the one against Alex Salmond? To what extent (if at all) does the fact that the others were dropped, and not further investigated – if that is a fact – call into question, or at least cast doubt upon her further testimony to the effect that AS was NOT being targeted, when the retrospectively applicable code of conduct was being drawn up? If her testimony to that effect is true, it should be demonstrable by showing what happened to the other complaints of which she says she was clearly and fully aware.

    iii) When LE seems to say that the ‘whole range of people’ raising the complaints were ‘inside the Scottish government’ – which presumes that the reporter is not giving a false impression, because these words are not in inverted commas and seem to be his paraphrase of what LE actually said – what is meant by ‘inside the Scottish government’?

    Does she mean ‘inside the Scottish civil service’, referring only to people like herself and those who work under her? Or does she mean MSPs in governmental positions within Holyrood, which would mean they are all SNP MSPs? Or, does she mean a mixture of the two, both civil servants and SNP MSPs?

    It is quite important to get clarification on this matter. If it was only civil service people, without any MSPs, that is one thing. But if MSPs – that is, quite specifically, SNP MSPs in the Scottish government were involved – then that is quite a different story, which could have important political undercurrents or ramifications. Especially when it comes to assessing the claims of AS (as far as I have understood them) that an important factor in this whole business lies in the allegations against him being politically motivated.

    These are just some questions which come to mind. I have not the transcripts of LE’s evidence, so maybe some on the committee did pursue the points in question. Or maybe they did not. Either way perhaps someone who has been able to follow everything more closely than I have done, or can, may be able to shed more light on these matters.

    I was never any good at jig-saws, and I haven’t tried this one, and won’t be trying it. Nevertheless, from what I have read elsewhere, a certain suspicion is beginning to dawn on me, which I very much hope proves to be wrong. If it is right, this whole business is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions – and one shudders to think how it will all end (the final act in those of Shakespeare always required an awful lot of tomato juice, or whatever the theatricals of his time used for the purpose).

    I really do hope my suspicions are wrong, because if they are right, they are truly awful. On the other hand, if they are right, it somehow explains why the anonymity issue seems to be such a big for the courts and – it seems – other establishment figures. And also why they are so apparently unjustly going after CM and others on the pro-independence side of the argument, in case the cover they are trying to provide does eventually get blown. It also explains some other things as well.

    Yet – although I personally am unable to put the pieces together – their ‘cover’ seems to be pretty much shot already, at least among the more discerning. In which case the establishment (or whoever) must surely know that it is only a matter of time before everything is rumbled … It’ll all come out soon enough.

    This, I expect, is just too big to hide. It is not simply local, like the Dunblane shooting affair … They won’t be able to keep the wraps on it indefinitely. Is it not very likely that it will all unravel sooner rather than later. Indeed, very soon …

  76. Must admit, I think that we can put this partly down to the influence of the #MeToo crusade and its effect on bitter middle-aged wannabe-trendy faux-feminist Scottish women in politics, eager to copy America’s lead, as usual, but being too fucking halfwitted to even carry out a decent political character assassination. It’s actually beyond embarrassing.

  77. ‘wull says:

    Granted that Evans was speaking under oath, and could not and presumably would not lie…’

    Ur ye joking? Ah’m no being funny. If you look in the dictionary under the word ‘liar’ you see a photay ay her! Check this oot:

  78. kapelmeister says:

    WRYC @ 6:36

    Nail firmly hit on head there.

    This Scottish version are the #Me Too Dim movement.

  79. leither says:

    Granted that Evans was speaking under oath

    was she? i thought the oath taking had been rejected and replaced with a promise?

  80. Capella says:

    @ Wull – I don’t think it does necessarily contradict Nicola Sturgeon’s version of events. Without sitting through the whole thing again – IIRC Leslie Evans said that staff had contacted her after Alex Salmond contacted them about an incident at Edinburgh Airport which SKY was going to broadcast. LE said she did tell NS about it but it was not a complaint.

  81. ‘leither says:
    19 August, 2020 at 6:41 pm
    Granted that Evans was speaking under oath

    was she? i thought the oath taking had been rejected and replaced with a promise?’

    She couldnae even repeat the oath she swore tae. It wis fascinatingly telling. See if ye kin find footage ay it, right it the start. It’s mental. She flubs it sae badly she confuses the women (cannae mind her name the noo) gieing it tae her tae recite.

  82. robertknight says:

    On the upside, all this week’s media circus will have no doubt enabled others to identify those involved and what their connections are in the tangled web that has been spun around the Salmond trial.

    I include myself in the above.

    And for that reason, I would not be surprised if the bread crumb trails had not been placed there deliberately, in the knowledge that once identities and relationships are known, the days of Sturgeon’s SNP will be numbered.

    Whoever set the whole thing in motion to arrive at where we are today, I salute you for a job well done. Talk about pulling the pin, rolling it in, then quietly closing the door…

    I just hope the old SNP and Yes can rise quickly from the ashes.

  83. leither says:

    it wasnt an oath so it isnt legally binding

    morally yes, legally no

  84. Leither: here ye huv it. Jist watch, nine minutes in, when she tries tae repeat the affirmation she’s gied. Ah watched the first hauf oor when it wis oan. Mind-numbing.

  85. ‘leither says:
    19 August, 2020 at 6:59 pm
    it wasnt an oath so it isnt legally binding

    morally yes, legally no’

    Fair enough.

  86. bipod says:


    Thanks for that link, it really illustrates the foolishness of trying to control a highly infectious respiratory virus with government policy. It sort of like trying to stop the tide with chicken wire.

    The only countries in the world that can claim some success are austrailia and new zealand. But it wasn’t just a lockdown there it was also more importantly a lock out, the moment they start letting people come back to try to get the economy moving again the outbreak starts happening as we have now already seen. They also had the advantage of being geographically isolated unlike Scotland.

    The reason that nicola pivoted from talking about deaths and hospitalizations (the only statistics that matter) to cases is because she wants to keep the fear and hysteria high in order to justify the continued lockdown and restictions, because she is utterly incapable of admitting she made a highly damaging mistake with the lockdown. That is all this is now, one big face saving exercise.

    Its important that we don’t allow nicola to redirect responsibility for the economic carnage and the ruination of hundreds of thousands of lives onto the virus itself or westminister. It is entirely the fault of her and her measures, which have been sustained by the hysteria that she has generated for the past five months now, helped by gullible fools in the public and media.

  87. Ron Maclean says:

    ‘Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.’ John Locke, 1690

    ‘essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse , as a last result, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.’ Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

    ‘… no man is above the law, …’ Professor A.V. Dicey

    ‘The core of the existing principle is, I suggest, that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts.’ Lord Bingham in ‘The Rule of Law’.

    ‘In seeking to uphold the rule of law …’
    ‘… the law should operate in a clear and predictable manner where possible.’
    ‘… there is a strong presumption against legislation being retrospective …’
    ‘… – any government is simply shooting itself in the foot if it undermines the rule of law.’
    ‘An example which affects everyone in government – officials and Ministers – is the ‘duty of candour’ before the courts, which arises from a respect for the rule of law and the importance of the role of courts. In court we are obliged to do more than avoid telling outright lies – rather, we have a duty to be transparent, not to withhold significant information from the courts – in short, not to dissemble in any way. The duty of candour applies to all those “who derive their authority from public law”, and so includes both Ministers and their officials.’
    From the keynote address delivered by The Advocate General for Scotland The Rt Hon Lord Keen of Elie QC at the Scottish Public Law Group (SPLG) annual conference in Edinburgh: 11 June 2018

    Fine words.

  88. Effijy says:

    Totally disagree lockdown is a fault to be put on the First Minister!

    Lockdown could only happen if the finance was available to support people
    Who are staying at home and not spreading the virus further.

    Scotland is not allowed to access such funds so if we wanted lockdown it
    Wouldn’t happen unless Westminster agreed.

    If we didn’t want it and Westminster did, we would be getting it.

    She is responsible for several issues I’m not happy with but I don’t buy into this one.

    Heard immunity will kick in automatically on 1st October when furlough comes to a stop.
    Those who catch it will be contaminating transport, colleagues, friends and neighbours.

    Belgium is approaching a 1% death rate in their population and I believe that will be the minimum
    loss that any nation could expect.

    The vulnerable will need to take every precaution available to them.

  89. Chardon d'Ecosse says:

    You don’t even have to google any particular words. The newspaper articles, covering the civil case, still exist all over the internet…where the attendees of that meeting at the end of March were, openly, reported.

    I have given Nicola (and the SNP) the benefit of the doubt, despite many misgivings, because she has raised the profile of an Independent Scotland – to the point where people in Europe are, almost, taking it as read.

    What happens when she/they are shot down in flames? What happens? What happens??

    I, actually, feel sick.

  90. Liz says:

    The so-called Edinburgh airport incident was discredited ages ago.
    This sounds like Evans muddying the waters again.

    Remember she thought she was going to win the war.
    Someone on Twitter today said that Evans Hubby is in the SNP Edin Central group.

    Had heard before that Angus’s reward was being parachuted into this constituency for services rendered.

    It came out in the trial that an MSP was one of the alphabet sisters.
    This is why we need names. Who would want to vote for any of those liars

  91. mike cassidy says:

    I’ve made no attempt to identify the anonymous accusers.

    But judging by the WTF reactions of others who are piecing it together

    Am I right in thinking that the removal of anonymity would not just be embarrassing for the SNP hierarchy

    But the political equivalent of the Titanic hitting the iceberg

    Going down

  92. Karen Allan says:

    Quis custodiet ipsos (!) custodes? (Who watches the watchers)? Juvenal.

  93. Jim Forsyth says:

    It is a MUST that these “anonymous” cowards are named long before the end of the year.

    So we know who is running for which seat at next year’s Hollyrood election.

  94. Chardon d'Ecosse says:

    I meant to say that, ‘I HAD given hen her the benefit of the doubt’.

    My illusions are shattered.

  95. Beaker says:

    I’ve finally figured out why Sturgeon has no desire for independence while she is First Minister.

    She won’t be able to blame Westminster / Boris / England / Tories (delete as applicable).

    The latest is the hike in train fares. What is the response?

    “They are lower increases than in England.”

    Who gives a fuck? I’ll still be paying more.

  96. bipod says:

    Nobody is twisting nicolas arm, forcing her to go on TV everyday fear mongering about a virus that hasn’t killed anyone here in more than a month now, or making her continue applying worthless lockdown measures. Thats all on her.

    Just to give you some perspective you know that the summer flu is now killing more people than covid right? Hardly the plague its made out to be by nicola. But peoples perspectives have been completely warped out of all proportion by daily doom mongering briefings, death figures and now “case” figures.

    And who says that people are staying at home and not spreading the virus? Thats the fundamental mistake lockdown supporters keep making. Thats not feasible in the real world.

    Belgium has one of the highest death rates in the world (but certainly not 1% there are plenty of experts or organizations like the CDC or WHO that predict that when it is all said and done in a few years time the IFR will be anywhere around 0.1% to 0.3%, about the same as swine flu) and it also had a very severe lockdown.

  97. ahundredthidiot says:


    fuck up about covid would you – many of us have figured out it’s as dangerous as a bad flu.

    Just gie us awe peace wid ye

  98. Janet Cuthbertson says:

    Rev Wings says:

    The SPSO is an advisory body with no power.

    Yes I know that and you know that but do all the people who read

    know it to:-)

    I think they’re trying to force people into having to go into court to complain against them, knowing fine well that more than the vast majority wouldn’t have the wherewithall in many, many ways – not JUST cash.

  99. Effijy says:

    100 Idiots,

    You are selling yourself short.
    I’m responding to 2 other posts on that topic.

    Just forward a list of the topics you like and let us know what we need to agree with.

  100. Beaker says:

    mike cassidy says:
    19 August, 2020 at 7:43 pm
    “But the political equivalent of the Titanic hitting the iceberg”

    Good analogy.

    The Titanic’s fate was sealed when it hit the iceberg, as latest research (and a good documentary) showed that there was a coal bunker fire present from the moment it left port. Bunker fires were commonplace in those days. The heat weakened the metal and the iceberg did the rest, ripping the rivets open like a zipper.

    The enquiry was held by the Board of Trade, the very same one that had passed the ship as fit.

    So internal problems that had been stirring for a while added to an already dangerous situation, and an inquiry carried out by those with vested interests…

    Sounds familiar.

  101. I was recently working as a delivery driver. Between myself and two other driver colleagues, we worked out that we had done around 3000 deliveries or so during the preceding few weeks during the pandemic. I had encountered one single person wheezing and spluttering and coughing, and neither of the other two guys had encountered a single one. You would remember if you had, during a supposedly deadly plague.

    Now I know people are dying, my sister-in-law had it bad, but…something totally stinks aboot this whole thing. I still wear a mask in shops, still do what I am supposed to, but the fact I do not trust or like our current government, or Sturgeon’s wee look-at-me-me-me-camera selfie-serving plague bulletins…does not make for happy thinking or observing.

  102. Black Joan says:

    The Warkfest attack on Alex Salmond has become “unavailable” on iPlayer . . .

  103. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    While catching up with the older, still active, WOS pages a wee while ago, I posted a couple of comments in answer to “Sweetie” –

    This got me rereading Craig Murray’s blog posts from March this year. And what jumped out? Here’s a quote:-

    “Which brings me on to the role of the Head of the Scottish Civil Service, Leslie Evans. “We may have lost a battle, but we will win the war”. That is how, in January 2019, Leslie Evans had messaged a colleague the day they lost in the Court of Session. It is an interesting glimpse into the lifestyle of these people that the colleague she messaged was in the Maldives at the time.

    It is incredible that after a process Evans claimed in court to have “established” was described as unlawful and unfair by a very senior judge, her first thought was on “winning the war”. That message alone is sufficient to sack Leslie Evans.

    It shows that rather than being a civil servant engaged in an effort to administer justly, she was engaged as parti pris [my addition – “a preconceived view; a bias”] in a bitter battle to take down Alex Salmond. She would not even accept the verdict of the Court of Session. It astonishes me, as a former member for six years of the senior civil service myself, that any civil servant could commit themselves in that way to try ruthlessly to take down a former First Minister, with no heed whatsoever either to fair process or to the decision of the courts.

    It is quite simply astonishing that Ms Evans has not been sacked.

    Well, Leslie Evans did carry on her war. At the cost of many millions to the Scottish taxpayer, she has now lost the battle in both Scotland’s highest civil court and in Scotland’s highest criminal court. The campaign to destroy Salmond has been trounced in both the Court of Session and the High Court. That Leslie Evans is still in post is a national scandal. That Nicola Sturgeon a few weeks ago extended Evans’ tenure by a further two years is an appalling misjudgment.”


    “In Alex Salmond’s case, after going through all the evidence, his legal team were utterly bemused as to why it was Alex Salmond who was being prosecuted; rather than the members of the WhatsApp group and senders of the other messages, texts and emails being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
    There could not be a plainer conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Not only were members of this very small political grouping orchestrating complaints in the documented communications, they were encouraging their creation.

    It is much worse than that. There is plain reference to active and incorrect communication from the SNP hierarchy to Police Scotland and the Crown Office.
    The reason that Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal’s office prosecuted the victim of the conspiracy rather than the conspirators, is that they had themselves been politically hijacked to be part of the fit-up.

    I fully realise the implications of that statement and I make it with the greatest care. Let me say it again. The reason that Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal’s office prosecuted the victim of the conspiracy rather than the conspirators, is that they had themselves been politically hijacked to be part of the fit-up. Just how profound are the ramifications of this case for the Scottish establishment has so far been appreciated by very few people. “

    You should read all of his post.

  104. William Wallace says:

    @Bob Mack 11:48am

    Add to this Craig Murray’s revelation that he is being refused permission for witnesses to defend himself, you begin to realise this is not haphazard or accidental.

    I’m a bit confused about your comment regarding witnesses for the defence. Is it even possible to block defence witnesses in Scots law? I never knew such a thing was permissible in law tbh. How can there possibly be a guarantee of a fair trial if you can’t call witnesses for the defence?

  105. Lothianlad says:

    Well done Stu!!
    You have them on the run! I fall asleep with great amusement and satisfaction knowing that the establishment in Scotland, has sleepless nights wondering how your going to expose them next!!

    Suddenly they are feeling vulnerable.

  106. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hj Black Joan at 8:24 pm.

    You informed,
    “The Warkfest attack on Alex Salmond has become “unavailable” on iPlayer . . .”

    If you have the Firefox add-on

    Easy Youtube Video Downloader Express

    you can download, or just watch, it here:-

  107. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hj is an idiosyncratic “Hi”!

  108. Black Joan says:

    Thanks for the thought, Brian Doonthetoon, but
    I would find watching it too emetic an experience.

    The Twitter conversation is wondering if COPFS or Alex Salmond’s lawyers have had a word with the BBC and, if so, YouTube may be required to suppress it too.

  109. Achnababan says:

    I think I know what is going on. Thanks to this blog site’s posts and comments largely. But there are 2 things that help make things crystal…

    1. Lesley Evans works for the British (CS)

    2. The British know that Nicola S. dislikes heterosexual males and is an ardent feminist

    So it was really just a case of LE lighting the fuse and …. kaboom!

  110. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi Black Joan.

    I just think it’s one of those videos that the BBC doesn’t want anyone to see, like the “Goodness Gracious Me” sketch, “Going For An English” that was also removed from YouTube.

    Of course, maybe as a result of the COPFS btl comments on Twitter, the BBC has had its knuckles rapped?

  111. MaggieC says:

    Wull @ 6.19 pm

    If you go back to yesterday’s post from Rev Stu ,

    You’ll see I put up two posts at 11.22 pm and 12.18 am which gave links to the Scottish Parliament inquiry including the transcript from yesterday’s session .

    It’s interesting reading so far .

  112. Wee Fatty says:

    Dob them in. Repeatedly.

    People can contact COPFS & police, say they think they’ve identified one of the key figures involved in the Alex Salmond trial, as the result of a report.
    State the name of the person, and say which program, newspaper etc they gleaned the info from.
    Ask them to do something about it, because it’s against the law.

  113. ‘Achnababan says:
    19 August, 2020 at 8:48 pm
    I think I know what is going on.’


  114. Mike d says:

    Jfngw 5.07pm.’we are a law unto ourselves who we decide to prosecute or not,and there is nothing you can do about fact there is nothing anyone can do about it’.

    Thats what brian faulkners stormont government and their ss b specials thought re catholic civil rights. Look how that turned out.

  115. Monsieur le RoiGrenoulleverteetprofonde says:

    This development is truly breathtaking. I had no interest in identifying the complainers until the contempt issue came up with Craig Murray.I immediately reread the articles, did a quick google and came up with one name.I remember thinking how easy it was. At that point I stopped, because going further would have been time consuming and pointless.
    My point is that drawing attention to the matter has actually caused more people to get to know the identities.One must also wonder at the value of the knowledge of a few names? For the outsider (most people) they are just names in a huge range of possibilities.The fact that someone called Cardigan MacPtarmigan was involved is a matter of indifference to the great majority.To an insider, it is also irrelevant as he or she will already know, so why did the judge apply this ruling. It just seems like a gratuitously authoritarian gesture, lacking any real insight into the overall significance of the event, or any sympathy(understanding)of the political context.I think I am saying that there are some grossly incompetent individuals in key positions. The contempt case just makes the situation worse.

    One must then ask about the right to anonymity and its purpose. Of course it protects the victims of violence or abuse, but I am not quite sure that anonymity is much solace after the event. It seems like both a feeble fig leaf and a distraction-(Ooh! something covered up.It must be interesting, and immediately people start to peek under the obscuring device.
    So self- defeating. Of course at the early stages of an incident, during an investigation anonymity is essential but by the time it reaches a court, which is an emphatically public display for detailed scrutiny and assessment of credibility and evidence, the identity of the plaintiffs is likely to be crucial.
    I wonder if it would be better to just publish and be damned, as the anonymity rule leaves it open to abuse. There isn’t much doubt that the the complainants were bolstered by the thought that their accusations carried little risk to them which allows them more freedom for embellishment and exaggeration.
    There is something deeply craven that all the publications above, and the writers themselves, are happy to see the victimisation of someone who has done less, or no more than they have themselves to identify the women concerned.
    Another concerning issue is the way that it reveals the underlying contempt of the legal and and other centres of power(establishments) for the office of FM and the Scottish polity. One cannot avoid a strong impression that if the elected leader is a valid target for slur and innuendo and an unsupportable prosecution, and this can be done with apparent impunity or freedom from accountability, the general political context of an independence seeking electorate is trashed.It reveals the raw nature of our colony status. There is a mighty stink about the whole affair, but I hope that the egregious behaviour of some of these people, by revealing their true natures, will unleash an unstoppable demand for independence.

  116. Dogbiscuit says:

    Media police and government are obviously working together.

  117. Dogbiscuit says:

    When the judicial system is run by politicians in such a ‘hands on’ way as appears to be happening in Scotland it is perhaps inevitable their lies will be revealed by incompetence a lack of coordination between the liars a dangerous undermining of the Procurator Fiscals office.
    If politicians can’t be sure of a fair trial and impartial justice what chance do the rest of us have?

  118. Dogbiscuit says:

    The Scottish Governments attack on freedom of speech accords fully with Agenda 21 which will stand for no criticism of policy.
    Agenda 21 is a gangsters charter an accounting of everyone and everything ownership of the human herd. Rosa Koires on YouTube gives a frightening rundown.

  119. CameronB Brodie says:

    Agenda 21? Have you got a better critique than simply hostile and unsupported assertion?

    hypotheses, Published 25/06/2018 · Updated 25/06/2018
    Critical perspectives on the Sustainable Development Goals: are universal indicators meaningful?

    On the 25th and 26th of June IHE Delft joins forces with The Centre for Sustainable Development Studies of the University of Amsterdam and other academic institutions for the conference “Critical perspectives on Governance by Sustainable Development Goals: Water, Food and Climate”. In this post Hameed Jamali reflects on the universal indicators adopted to monitor the SDGs, discussing their need for mobilizing resources to implement an ambitious global development agenda, but also their limits in terms of understanding the cultural and political specificity of local contexts.

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