The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The Vanished

Posted on August 19, 2020 by

An alert viewer noticed this evening that after being broadcast twice in two days, “The Trial Of Alex Salmond” has tonight disappeared from BBC iPlayer.

We have no information as to why, although we do know it committed contempt of court by providing so-called “jigsaw identification” of one of the complainers in the case. If that’s the reason for the show being pulled, it’s going to be VERY interesting in terms of our ongoing enquiries with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about why a number of Scottish newspapers and websites critical of Salmond haven’t been acted against for publishing exactly the same information, while pro-Salmond blogger Craig Murray faces a trial and a potential two years in prison for doing less.

We’ll keep you posted with anything we find out.

On the mobile iPlayer, incidentally, it doesn’t show up at all.

It was definitely available to watch before, as this Google cache shows:

And in fact, EVERY SINGLE programme featuring Salmond is now gone.

Another alert reader has notified us that Kirsty Wark has deleted every tweet about the show from her Twitter feed, although we did find one from last week remaining.

The plot thickens.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 19 08 20 20:57

      The Vanished | speymouth

    137 to “The Vanished”

    1. Jason Smoothpiece says:

      Have Mr Salmonds solicitors decided to act?

    2. Fixitfox says:

      Stocks up on popcorn.

    3. Stoker says:

      Message to Surgeon & Yousaf: All under your watch. Corruption! And the COPFS is nowhere near fit for purpose. Embarrassing disgrace!

    4. robertknight says:

      You mean people were able to piece together the identity of someone, whose identity should not be known to the wider public, courtesy of the BBC?

      Off with their heads!

    5. Stephen OBrien says:

      In no small part due to the excellent investigative journalism that you have done on the matter with the COPFS
      Your work matters and makes a difference

    6. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Just posted this on “The Unseeing Eyes”.

      Hi 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:-

      I think you’ll have to download it pretty soon, before the BBC gets wind of it.

    7. Susan Forrest says:

      Just had a sneaky peeky – it says it will be available soon

      What when they have edited out all the contempt of court material and anything which defames Alex ?

      It’ll be shorter than the adverts that they don’t show on the BBC because it prefers to make quality programmes


    8. Ranald Lithgow says:


      You missed the R out of your name mate. ??

    9. Effijy says:

      Not only are the BBC guilty of jigsaw identity by national broadcast and then repeating it followed by
      Making it available over the internet but technically they have forced the general public to pay for the
      Information via their propaganda license fee.

      That corporation should be shut down and license fees returned until COPFS
      get them into court.

    10. Morgatron says:

      I would like to see Kirsty Warks suede doc martens getting shoved right up her sphincter for contempt of journalism.

    11. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      My sources say the removal was nothing to do with Alex.

    12. CraigH says:

      If the programme was pulled because it could aid identification of the accusers surely this would not prevent prosecution as it has already been broadcast?

    13. Muscleguy says:

      If it has been pulled for legal reasons it will demonstrate it was incompetently lawyered in the first place. it could also be due to an avalanche of complaints about it of which I did one noting amongst other things that if the Murray/Hirst trials were jury it & Dani Garavelli’s radio show would have Prejudiced their trials. Judges of course are supposed to be above such influences but they are also human beings.

      It boils my blood that these two programs were not pulled as Grouse Beater requested of Tony Hall. One rule for the BRITISHBC & another for us Scots.

    14. Stu hutch says:

      Listening to lesley riddock podcast.(my words not hers) kirsty wark hooring around looking for female politicians and well known females in scotland to come on her program.would assume all said gtf.and she was left with the usual cppl of suspects.would be interesting to know who and how many told her to gtf.wark smith and what’s her name.doing scottish woman proud.

    15. Frost says:

      Will no doubt only be the faintest of slaps on the wrist for Kirsty Wark and the BBC.

    16. Lothianlad says:

      And so the squirming within the brit nat establishment in Scotland becomes visible!!

      The jury returning a not guilty verdict was not in the brit nat script!!

      That has left an awful lot of conspirators running around frantically searching for their get out of jail cards.

      The panic is palpable!

      Bet they rue the day they messed with you!!

    17. Helen Yates says:

      This is an interesting development, and I’ve no doubt you’re forensic analysis of the case, the media and the COPFS may have contributed to it’s withdrawal, if no charges are brought against Wark, Garavelli and other journalists surely it makes the charges against Craig and Mark more of a farce than they already are.

    18. Craig Macinnes says:

      Just as well I recorded it then just in case Alex’s, Craig’s or Mark’s legal teams need a copy ?

    19. Mark Russell says:

      Garavelli’s broadcast is still available. For now.

    20. Confused says:

      – they will be preparing a Director’s Cut special edition.

      Salmond will discover he is a replicant and then, finally, it all makes sense.

      Then interviews with the director and cast, plus a gag reel.

    21. Mags says:

      seems poor Kirsty has deleted all her tweets promoting the show too, oh my

    22. Capella says:

      Chrid McEleny says Kirsty Wark has also deleted all her tweets about the programme:

    23. Black Joan says:

      It’s probably going to reappear with a bit cut out and BBC will pretend nothing happened.

      Except that there’s a YouTube version and goodness knows how many privately recorded versions out there, so any comparison of those with a newly edited one would actually assist in the jigsaw identification process.

      Tangled webs, etc . . .

    24. A C Bruce says:

      Maybe the Wark/Clements combo have had their collars felt.

    25. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Garavelli’s broadcast is still available. For now.”

      Garavelli didn’t repeat the contempt.

    26. MaggieC says:

      Rev Stu

      If you go to this link through the programme guide , it shows that

      * This episode will be available soon *

      Are they doing a quick edit of the programme ?

    27. kapelmeister says:

      Maybe it is still on the iPlayer.

      Under the title The Goes Wrong Show.

    28. Jim Forsyth says:

      Rev Stu 8.54pm.

      What ARE your sources suggesting then?

    29. Oneliner says:

      ‘Lawyered’ eh? ‘Shystered’ more like.

    30. Kenny says:

      What I don’t understand is how any “journalist” (we know Sarah Smith and Kirsty Wark are not journalists by the normal sense of the word, meaning international practice) can be allowed to know the identifies of the accusers. How can the judge allow this and now issue warrants for their arrests? Similarly, what was the chain that led them to know the identity of the accusers? Either the accusers willingly gave up their anonymity themselves or there was a go-between… who should also be subject to the appropriate response by the judge.

    31. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What I don’t understand is how any “journalist” (we know Sarah Smith and Kirsty Wark are not journalists by the normal sense of the word, meaning international practice) can be allowed to know the identifies of the accusers.”

      Every journalist who was in court knows their identities.

    32. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What ARE your sources suggesting then?”

      They don’t know.

    33. handclapping says:

      As I understand it lawyers for the Accused in a case can also make a complaint of contempt of Court to the Court.

      It might cause a bit of a stushie if Alex’s lawyer turned up at Craig Murray’s hearing on the basis that, depending on the result, the Accused in the Alex Salmond trial might cite other publications that merit being heard for Contempt of Court

    34. Beaker says:

      Another history lesson (apologies).

      WW2 Germany again. A leak was started which appeared in a newspaper, but the story didn’t get pulled until it was known for definite that the papers had sold in Spain and Portugal (neutral countries).

      Then surprise, surprise, the story was pulled and the instigator kept a low profile in apparent disgrace.

      But the damage had already been done…

    35. iain mhor says:

      As has been pointed out, the Beeb broadcast the ‘Jigsaw’ to a far wider audience than any of the bloggers, or even newspapers. Further, it has fueled a renewed interest in identifying the accusers. Which has shit it well up search emgine rankings.

      I didn’t even have to guess, or read any of the original offending articles – a certain popular search engine helpfully suggests ‘People also search for’ and ‘Related Searches’.

      Banging in any combination vaguely related to the Salmond case, will throw up the same name consistently in the ‘suggestions’ (including their particular assigned court moniker) So no need to even follow hyperlinks to come up with an identity and which one of the 9 they were.

      I can’t help wondering if the Chocolate Factory’s Algorithm will be ordered to appear before the beak for blatant identification – ‘I’m afraid I can’t do that Dave’

      The tricky thing is, it’s an offence to even try and identify an accuser I believe – so is “I wasn’t trying to find out, I was shown unsolicitedly” a defence? – Asking for a friend…

    36. ahundredthidiot says:

      Penny has eventually dropped somewhere – they can clean house all they like, but that guilt stain ain’t washing out.

    37. iain mhor says:

      *haha shit it/shot it – either works.

    38. Mike d says:

      The warks and their ilk will have a day of reckoning.

    39. Joemcg says:

      I was astounded to read today that every accuser was given an alarm and security advice by Police Scotland after the verdict. They tried to jail an innocent man for fuck sake!

    40. Kenny says:

      Rev Stu @ 9.27.
      ‘Garavelli didn’t repeat the contempt.’

      No, but as you’ve documented, her other work was contempt. Her hands covered in the same muck, no smirks from her now.

    41. defo says:

      Loved the YouTube title
      “A nasty piece of Wark ”

    42. Asklair says:

      Feel left out here, never had a TV licence, identity crisis too, I am no longer part of the 45, I am the 55. Its all WoS fault,leaving no stone unturned, as someone said earlier, get the pop corn out.

    43. John Hamill says:

      Glad I still have it recorded

    44. winifred mccartney says:

      I sincerely hope that everyone who was unhappy with the programme has complained to the BBC. I certainly have but don’t hold your breath though I can only hope thousands have complained.

    45. Paul K says:

      This is an incredible development. What a mess. The dogs in the street know the show should never have seen daylight. Heads are surely going to roll.

    46. Jim Forsyth says:

      Where’s Jackie Burd?

      Always suspicious when the Burd wummin is out of sight.

      She’s either away getting more plastic surgery, Or she is filming a fly in the wall docudrama featuring the Murrells.

    47. Camy says:

      I’m seeing it as… (iPlayer on PC/Web)
      This episode will be available soon
      The Trial of Alex Salmond

      In March 2020, Scotland’s former first minister Alex Salmond emerges from the High Court in Edinburgh, cleared of 14 charges of sexual misconduct. The verdict concludes one of the most dramatic trials Britain has ever seen.

      From the moment the story breaks in the Daily Record in August 2018 to Salmond’s acquittal the very day the UK locks down against Coronavirus, Kirsty Wark follows the ups and downs of a case that has seen tabloid scoops shock the nation and the destruction of one of the strongest political partnerships in modern politics. Along the way, Kirsty traces the origins of the criminal case to the Me Too movement and, for the first time on television, speaks to some of the women at the centre of the trial.

      Set in the heart of Edinburgh, with the growing Covid-19 pandemic looming in the background, the film sees Kirsty travelling across Scotland as she follows the trial and interviews the people present at key moments surrounding the political scandal. Talking to Alex Salmond’s former press adviser Campbell Gunn, Kirsty learns that Campbell was ‘stunned’ when he heard the criminal charges against his former boss.

      Throughout the film, Kirsty looks back at Alex Salmond’s political career and examines the growing rift between him and his former protege, Nicola Sturgeon. As Salmond prepares to take the stand, these divisions come to the fore, and some of his allies allege that there is a conspiracy at the heart of the Scottish government to stop Salmond returning to politics. Kirsty explores these controversial claims and interviews Nicola Sturgeon, who denies them. Kirsty also reveals how this trial has widened divisions and exposed tensions that threaten to have a huge impact on Scotland’s politics.

      Speaking to insiders who witnessed the story as it unfolds, Kirsty reveals the explosive inside story that has seen a man who was once Scotland’s most powerful politician fight for his freedom, and asks what the fallout could mean for the SNP and Scotland’s political future.

    48. Fireproofjim says:

      I also wrote to the BBC.
      I Urge everyone to do the same and flood them with complaints.

    49. There was a tweet last night from BFI who said the Crown service were talking to the BBC and Wark about contempt of court.

    50. Robert Graham says:

      Eh nothing to do with you guv ?

      Good work Stu see sometimes you get a surprise, it’s not your good luck it’s bloody hard work and I hope folks realise that dicey road your traveling

      Again Well done

    51. Hughsie says:

      Sturgeon and Wark,

      A couple of frauds.

      A couple of chancers.

    52. Is it just me but Kristy looking a wee bit dishevelled on Newsnight tonight

    53. tartanfever says:

      To add insult to injury, which no-one has mentioned as yet, is although the programme has disappeared, there is still an active link, called ‘ Information and Support’ above the photo of AS.

      Click on it and see where it takes you.

    54. Harry mcaye says:

      What if a few of us contacted our local police to say that, thanks to the big clues in Wark’s show, we have been able to identify Woman H? Do you think they would take it seriously or could we expect hassle for putting our heads above the parapet?

    55. F. McRae says:

      Only thanks to your good self, to Craig and other bloggers, has the truth of this whole sorry fiasco been kept alive. Without you all, well, goodness alone knows how many would gave simply believed the keech that the MSM trotted out….
      #isupportsalmond #nastypieceofwark

    56. Mark Russell says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      19 August, 2020 at 9:27 pm

      Garavelli didn’t repeat the contempt.

      That’s a very narrow use of the word. Perhaps not with disclosure of witnesses, but undermining justice is another issue altogether.

    57. A C Bruce says:

      The programme is on iPlayer. I’m watching it now on my iPad.

    58. Tannadice Boy says:

      Alex Salmond has had to sell a major stake in his tv company to help pay his legal Bill’s from the trial. Source Telegraph. An expensive business proving your innocence!

    59. MaggieC says:

      Rev Stuart

      A C Bruce @ 11.30 pm

      I’m watching it now on my phone , it’s still showing 59 mins for length of programme .

    60. AberdeenPict says:

      It is on iPlayer now, not watching it again though.

    61. Meg merrilees says:

      Curiously, I’ve just gone to the BBC I player website and used the alphabetical menu to search.
      The programme about Alex seems to be available; 59 minutes duration, available for 30 days, ‘contains some upsetting scenes apparently’.

      However, I can’t tell you whether it is playing or not as I have to sign in to go any further.

      Can anyone else check it out?

      Love the thought of Ms. Wark deleting all her texts … “out, damn spot, out damn spot, out damn spot” Karma has a horrible way of coming back at you. Don’t play with fire and a whole lot more words of advice….

    62. Meg merrilees says:

      Tartan fever@ 11.18

      I’ve just clicked on the Information and Support button associated with the picture of Alex Salmond – a man who was found NOT GUILTY i.e. an INNOCENT man – yet the BBC in its folly has created a link from this programme to a whole host of websites for people who have been affected by sexual abuse. Did they do that for any programmes about Jimmy Saville?… oh, hang on a minute, they didn’t do a critical programme about him and he was guilty.
      Wow, just wow, Beeb sailing very close to the wind now – defamation of character? slanderous and libellous?

      It’s a sign of how dangerous they think AS is to their precioussss Union. Shame on them all.

    63. Jardo says:

      If your ISP allows it…

      You might need a VPN to download the ‘torrent’.

    64. Keith Fraser says:

      Saw the fact that it wasn’t available but signed in and can still access it. Strange ….

    65. Cath says:

      Looks like the documentary is back on the iPlayer.

    66. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Jardo.

      Your link just sat in a tab in Firefox, perpetually loading.
      Eventually got this message:-
      “The server at is taking too long to respond.”
      Was it, perchance, to this simple link?

    67. Quinie frae Angus says:

      I’ve just been listening to this excellent dissection of the Kirsty Wark programme, by Stuart Cosgrove and Eamonn O’Neill.

      Had to hunt around the web page for the play button, but they don’t miss a trick. Even then you can tell they are still being carefully and tactfully restrained, given that they undoubtedly know personally and professionally many of the “journalists” and programme-makers involved.

      Don’t miss it. Well worth half an hour of your time. Get a cuppa or a glass of something to accompany.

      By the way, this was broadcast (or podcast?) *before* the pulling of the Kirsty Wark doc from BBC i-player.

      What I wouldn’t give to be a fly on Eamonn O’Neill and Stuart Cosgrove’s wall to listen to their off-record opinions on the whole thing in the light of “The Vanishing”….

      I must admit, this was the first time I’ve listened to their new platform. I’m impressed.

    68. Meg merrilees says:


      I gave youtube 12 minutes but the whole tone of the programme is so tawdry I can’t bear to hear any more of Ms. Wark’s presentation of the salacious facts e.g. about Woman H when we know retrospectively that Woman H was never actually there and is fantasising.
      She also thinks it is derisory that the lawyer for the defence is trying to pick holes in Ms. H’s story – that is the job of the lawyer for the defence Ms. Wark – grow up!!!
      What a dreadful programme.

    69. MaggieC says:

      I presume that if anyone recorded the programme from Monday night and played tonight’s programme and watched the two versions simultaneously they would be able to see if there were any edits to the programme . Unfortunately I didn’t record it .

    70. Jardo says:

      Sorry, forgot to mention that you need a BitTorrent Client as well. get one here…

      It’s not illegal to have but might be illegal to use – for some things.

    71. leither says:

      Tomorrow’s National front page: S

      SNP MPs in revolt over NEC’s controversial election ruling,

    72. Elmac says:

      Effijy @ 8:53 pm

      “Not only are the BBC guilty of jigsaw identity by national broadcast and then repeating it followed by making it available over the internet but technically they have forced the general public to pay for the Information via their propaganda license fee. That corporation should be shut down and license fees returned until COPFS get them into court.”

      Could not agree more unless, of course, the BBC are subject to a different set of laws than the rest of us.

    73. Beaker says:

      Oh FFS. Katie Holmes is back on Twitter using the handle “Katie H”.

      She tweeted this in the past few minutes:

      “Hillary was 64% ahead. Hows Alex Salmond?”

      I’m assuming it is her. Judging by her Twitter feed it certainly seems to be.

    74. PacMan says:

      Goodbye Kirsty Wark, nice knowing you, not.

    75. Effijy says:

      Careful what you wish for!

      If Wark ends up in Cornton Vale Prison she could be teaching other
      Felons how to get rich as a confidence trickster.
      With her skills on how to manipulate people and deceive we
      could be in big trouble when they get released.

    76. Quinie frae Angus says:

      If the Kirsty Wark programme has gone back up on i-Player, that makes me think there has been just enough time passed for a few hours’ frantic re-editing of any “legally problematic” elements that the Beeb and the Two Rivers production company may have been alerted to….

      What needs to happen now is that someone with meticulous forensic skills and painstaking patience needs to make a second-by-second comparison made of what went out originally, and what’s gone back up on I-Player tonight….


    77. robertknight says:

      Earl’s company will have sufficient cuttings on the floor to splice in however many seconds is required to fatten it out to the full 59 minutes – once they’ve done what presumably the COPFS has suggested so as to avoid any nasties in court. Shhhh…

    78. robertknight says:

      Bloody spell checker… Wark’s! Not Earl’s… FFS!

    79. Effijy says:

      Watching a show about the lack of affordable housing in Manchester.
      The show finished at 00.31 on BBC 2.
      They immediately advised the Wark documentary attacking Alex Salmond
      Was available on I-player.

      The Westminster powers of corruption must have given them the green light
      to continue with impunity.

    80. Beaker says:

      From the Press and Journal (6.57pm today):

      “I have written to the head of the civil service for his input on Leslie Evans’ refusal to answer this question, as it could be a breach of the Civil Service Code.”

      Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross

      Things are getting either juicier or messier, depending on your point of view.

    81. Elmac says:

      I recall once talking to someone in the legal fraternity who knew Kirsty Wark referring to her as the “Cowcaddens Corncrake”. Can’t really add much to that except, although corncrakes are loud, I don’t think they are bile ridden, corrupt, and obnoxious liars.

    82. crazycat says:

      @ Elmac

      Corncrakes are also endangered (and rather nice).

    83. Quinie frae Angus says:

      Effigy at 12.35am

      Whether or not it has been re-edited to remove any legally problematic elements, I still find it *utterly astonishing* that the BBC promos department are still punting it as a “must-watch” when it has been absolutely panned by every reviewer/commentator that I’ve seen, and when the organisation must have been flooded with complaints. Even some of the usual suspects have remained tight-lipped about it – I am not seeing any of the usual mutual appreciation and backslapping from fellow journos that usually follows a “big one” like this as soon as it’s broadcast.

      It will have been the talk of the steamie *inside* the BBC, and have no doubt: there will have been a lot of criticism of it from those professionals within there who *do* understand the basic rules of journalism. Believe me, they do exist!

      However, that the BBC at corporate level are still seeing fit to show and punt this binfire of a programme, is hubristic arrogance – indeed, trolling – on a monumental scale.

      Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

      But I am.

      This was a BBC London commission. I.e., it was a Current Affairs Commissioning Editor in London (no doubt pally with Kirsty Wark) who commissioned her hubby’s production company to make this.

      This was not a BBC Scotland-generated programme. I reckon there are a fair few journos within BBC Scotland that are embarrassed by this show.

      Their silence on it, is deafening.

    84. leither says:

      Quinie frae Angus says:

      tx for that QFA

    85. Stoker says:

      Ranald Lithgow wrote on 19 August, 2020 at 8:53 pm:

      “@Stroker You missed the R out of your name mate. ??”

      Aye! Sure! If you say so!

    86. twathater says:

      OT but good “The TWAT wi the hat is being supported by Michael Gove the twisted slavering GUB

    87. Willie says:

      I suspect Kirsten Anne Clements and the BBC may be in some legal difficulty post the broadcast of this programme.

      The matter of breaching court restrictions placed on the non identification of witnesses may be one thing, but Mrs Clements and her employers have opened up a new legal front with the broadcast of this production.

      When first one conspires to do damage a party should carefully consider ALL the consequences of its actions.

      Pulling the Catch Up after four days has been done for a reason

    88. Camz says:

      Still on the i-player for me. Didn’t watch it. Not bothered. Didn’t look for it, until folk started saying it was gone.

    89. winifred mccartney says:

      So what was taken out of the hatchet job on AS and the justice system to save them being charged – I would go on saying it was an SNP politician involved or is one of the alphabet women.

      If that programme was not contempt of court I don’t know what is.

    90. Dave says:

      What actually is the legal justification for keeping the identities of the witnesses who perjured themselves secret after the trial was concluded anyway?

    91. Dave says:

      Surely the BBC would have been only too happy to expose any SNP involvement in the stitch up of Alex Salmond? Wouldnt they set aside an entire program specifically on that issue?

    92. Wookie says:

      Seems to be back up this morning, although I don’t know if it’s been changed.

    93. highseastim says:

      Winifred :- I have also registered a notice of complaint with the BBC!!

    94. johnj says:

      Is it possible for a private individual to ask the COPFS to investigate an apparent breach of the Law or does it have to be the Police?
      I know that’s what Rev.Stuart has effectively been doing informally.

    95. Achnababan says:

      Talking about over-promoted females full of their own self importance … somebody posted a link to a brief bio of Lesley Evans and I must admit I was slightly taken aback to find out that someone with no distinguishing features – poor A levels, poor University Degree should rise so high – in the old days one would question who she has been sleeping with….. but today I kind of know its because she is a professional feminist many of whom are now at the top because of it….

    96. Shiregirl says:

      Achnababan says @0749.

      I get your drift, but…I failed my highers- school wasnt for me. I went back to college for access to university and got a not bad honours degree. I’m doing pretty well in my chosen career and near enough at the top of the ladder in my area. School and uni results mean you can sit an exam. They are poor at showing potential and drive. And I didnt sleep with anyone to get my current position but do have feminist leanings. That isn’t a bad thing though!?

    97. Grouser says:

      I watched this programme and was so angry I tried to complain to the BBC on their complaints/comments website. I had too many words so had to heavily edit my comments. My problem was where to start and how to stop. However, complaint now lodged and I await the reply. I will be surprised if it is anything other than the usual bland BBC stock reply where they tell you they have read your complaint but don’t agree with you, so yah, boo, sucks to you.
      By the way, it was from information on the Trial of Alex Salmond as presented by Kirsty Wark that I worked out the identity of one of the complainers. I hadn’t done it before as I did not know where to look. However, Ms Wark presented it to me on a plate.

    98. Achnababan says:

      Absolutely Shiregirl…don’t get me wrong there are obviously many who work hard to have a successful life despite School (me included)

      I guess my actual point is that we are talking about the British Civil Service where a good degree from a top University was (I thought) a prerequsite to gain access to the higher echelons.

      If that has changed then good but why are there so few black people in the higher echelons or people from poorer backgrounds in deprived areas?

      I do feel that there are too many middle class females who have risen high in organisations because they have ridden the feminist wave (3rd or 4th?).

    99. Effijy says:

      BBC complaints automates a standard letter telling
      You that you are wrong and you can appeal.

      The appeal goes to the next tier of BBC management
      Who again tell you that you are wrong but you can appeal.

      The appeal goes to the next tier who repeat the process but you can appeal
      To the next tier of BBC management.

      They are their own judge and jury and no one with any power gives a damn about you,
      Unbiased reporting or Scotland do just F*** Off.

    100. Astonished says:

      Shiregirl says:
      20 August, 2020 at 8:05 am
      Achnababan says @0749.

      Shiregirl – I am sure Achnababan meant it to apply to L.Evans alone.

      I have met many talented woman in my career, and much more can be achieved by a kind word and a steely look than by shouting. I also believe exam passes are a poor guide to a person’s ability – but ,at present, they’ve all we’ve got.

      This makes the current situation interesting. How will those who have been given a university place do ? This virus has allowed the biggest intake into university of the poorest children. I think, and hope, that they will do well.

      Regarding L.Evans – I too think she has been promoted way beyond her ability. I suggest that this is because of undying loyalty to our imperial masters.

    101. “Quick! Hide the criminal broadcast evidence! Nobody will notice!”

      This whole clusterfuck becomes more desperate, pathetic, and disgusting by the day. I am disgusted with what this country has become, I really am. As is pretty much everybody here. And this is not a country I want to live in, in its current governmental and cultural and legal form. Red the lot ay them.

    102. Ottomanboi says:

      blame it on covid-19….the default excuse for every eventuality.

    103. Breeks says:


      So that’s 13 out of 48 MP’s signing a letter of complaint about the NEC decision to ban Westminster MP’s and it’s deemed a revolt. 13. It’s less than 1/3 of them prepared to backup Joanna Cherry and Philippa Whitford…

      I’m sensing the SNP still haven’t really got the hang of “revolution”.

      ” The NEC, I think, wanted to guard against the possibility of lots of Westminster MPs deciding to stand and then creating a whole slew of by-elections.” says Nicola Sturgeon, with her fingers crossed behind her back.

      Nevermind rooting out the WooWoo clan, we need to be rooting out the Quakers next. That’s not a derogatory refernce to religious Quakers who “quaked” before the word of God, but first generation quakers who tremble at the knee when asked to defend Scotland’s interests.

      Seriously Scotland, we need to be a lot more choosy in selecting our defenders. These bumbling allstars are not going to deliver. It would seem Wishart finds himself in good company and we are deluding ourselves to expect anything bold or decisive coming from these wet flannels.

    104. ‘James Caithness says:
      19 August, 2020 at 10:53 pm
      There was a tweet last night from BFI who said the Crown service were talking to the BBC and Wark about contempt of court.’

      That made me laugh oot loud. A guid start tae the day! 🙂

    105. Ian Brotherhood says:

      What about that old one that justice ‘must be seen to be done’?

      All the forked-tongued stuff, as if, by imposing more restrictions, redactions and using the good old memory-hole, they’re being more progressive. FFS, while watching Evans giving evidence t’other day I was crossing fingers that she didn’t just blurt out an alphabet woman’s name – Fabiani would’ve had to hit the big red button and broadcasting would’ve stopped instantly.

      That’s where we’re at now. The Wark/Clements production was a travesty. That appears to be consensus. But it’s gone now. Some will have copies, aye, but for the student five, ten years hence, that particular part of the jigsaw simply won’t be available.

    106. Prasad says:

      If you want to save it you can still download it using get-iplayer (Windows not just Apple) using the URL

    107. Garavelli Princip says:

      It’s back up on the player. Don’t know if it has been edited. Can’t bear to look at it.

    108. Scozzie says:

      If Craig Murray is going to the clink his defence should be ‘may as well get hung for a sheep than a lamb’ and out the whole bloody lot of them. Not like they’re allowing him to put up a defence anyway according to his latest blog.

    109. Ottomanboi says:

      BREEKS 08:40
      Ii has become too easy to make a life in politics. Besides thr standard of the political type is generally rather mediocre, regardless of country. Look at Lebanon or Japan!
      Because there is so much cronyism and worse few honorable men and women want the job. Those that do soon feel the weight of the system crushing the integrity out of them.
      One thing is certain, being in public life ought not to be a job for life. Being a politician should have a short shelf life. And elections ought to be based on a pure proportional system to encourage greater representation of opinion however ‘rocky’ that might make government.

      “If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.” Plato

    110. ‘Ian Brotherhood says:

      But it’s gone now. Some will have copies, aye, but for the student five, ten years hence, that particular part of the jigsaw simply won’t be available.’

      Oh aye it will. If ye kin torrent suhhin, is somebody awready did above, it will nivir go away, cannae be buried firivir. N thir’s nae guarantee this removal ay the hing will be permanent yit. Remains tae be seen whit thir nixt move is, an editit version, the original version, or trying tae erase it firivir. Nane ay these options will work. The damage is done. The fact it goat screened in the first place is the mental hing. Talk aboot ineptitude…

    111. Jomry says:

      Breeks 8.40
      Not necessarily as disheartened as you about the ‘revolt’. Delighted that at least these 13 have been prepared to put their heads above the parapet – and I think there are more to follow. Also Cherry and Whitford have not signed – probably to avoid charges of self interest . Also expected to see Angus McNeil there as he has been very critical of NEC. Some obvious MPs will never sign. However, interesting to see how the lesser known MPs divide.

    112. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @WRYC (9.19) –

      Remember the BBC show ‘Artworks’? They had a series where they matched up artists from different genres e.g. Irvine Welsh and Bobby Gillespie, then showed then chewing the fat, visiting favoured haunts etc.

      They had one called ‘When Ian Rankin met Jack Vettriano’. I had to do some research on the former, years ago, tried to access that programme (because I remembered seeing it when originally aired and wanted to quote him accurately on specific topics) but you can’t get it now. It’s still ‘on’ the BBC I-player archive, registered with IMDB etc but the programme itself cannot be viewed. (I won’t tempt fate by writing down my opinion on *why* it may have been pulled but anyone who remembers it will be able to have a fair stab.)

      I know I’m not comparing like with like here but the basic point is that stuff can and does ‘vanish’ sure enough and when individual memories also fail or end then that’s it gone forever.

    113. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “What if a few of us contacted our local police to say that, thanks to the big clues in Wark’s show, we have been able to identify Woman H? Do you think they would take it seriously or could we expect hassle for putting our heads above the parapet?”

      As we noted the other day, the police won’t act unless instructed by the Crown Office.

    114. mike cassidy says:

      Lesley Riddoch: Kirsty Wark’s biased BBC doc swept aside all unresolved issues

      The BBC’s ‘justification’ for the programme is in here.

    115. Cuilean says:

      It’s all part of the anti-public legal establishment in Scotland.

      Scots judges refuse to sign up for a ‘Register of Interests’ and refuse to attend Scots Parliament Committees, when invited.

      In England & Wales, solicitors are regulated by a totally independent body, which regularly strikes off crooked lawyers.

      In Scotland, solicitors are overseen by the Law Society of Scotland for conduct complaints. It’s not independent. It’s not, like the Queen, subject to the Freedom of Information Act

      For service complaints its the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which is populated by ex-staff from the Law Society of Scotland.

      Neither are completely independent, as the body in England. THis may account for why so few crooked Scots lawyers receive anything more than a small fine or slap on the wrist for any shortcomings.

      Oh and in Scotland if you were not happy with the Law Society of Scotland’s decisions on everything, you used to be able to complain about the Law Society of Scotland, at no cost, to the Scottish Legal Ombudsman.

      Now, if you are unhappy with the Law Society of Scotland or the SLCC’s decision, you can complain to the Scottish Legal Discipline Tribunal, a formal court process, BUT, and its a big BUT, you are warned that is you lose, you will have to pay the opposition’s legal costs if you lose. That can run into many thousands of pounds. Oh and if you want to appeal the Discipline TRibunal’s finding, you have to do that at the Court of Session, using a QC. That will cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds.

      In England the regulator is totally independent of the legal establishment and there are no costs in any appeals.

      So Scotland used to have a completely free appeals system, against the legal establishment but now you have to be as rich as Auld Nick to buy justice from any legal system’s short comings or jiggerypokery in Scotland and the Law Society is under no obligation like other public bodies to show transparency under the Freedom of Information legislation, as is the case in England.

      Basically in Scotland Joe Public is at the mercy of legal system bias against it and one’s ability to fight any legal establishment bias depends entirely on how deep one’s pockets are.

      There is current draft legislation to remove the Law Society’s self-regulatory power away from it which the High Heid Yins within the Law Society of Scotland are fighting, tooth and nail.

      THis is the toxic, undemocratic, anti-public, entitled mentality that the COPFS inhabits.

      It acts as it does because it knows it is unaccountable. THis is the biggest scandal in Scotland and the MSM is complicit in its cover-up.

    116. AlmannysBunnet says:

      The programme appears to be back on iPlayer but according to the BBC it’s not really about Alex Salmond, oh no, their defense today is “the film aimed to examine what impact the trial had had in terms of the me too movement and Scottish politics.” WOW! I hope that’s their defense in court because it will get them as far as those folk that jump off London bridges with paper wings to see how far they can fly.

    117. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      ‘Ian Brotherhood says:
      20 August, 2020 at 9:48 am
      @WRYC (9.19) –

      Remember the BBC show ‘Artworks’?’

      Ah, a challenge! Did you ever write to the BBC and enquire aboot it? This is whetting my ‘find obscure stuff online’ appetite… 🙂

    118. Alf says:

      It is available now. And it doesn’t appear to have been re-edited in any way. Probably just a technical glitch. Sorry, mate. Maybe chill out a bit next time before rushing to conclusions.

    119. WhoRattledYourCage says:

      If the thing is back online, somebody needs to get the two edits side-by-side and see what, if anything, (probably) has been edited out/in.

    120. Black Joan says:

      From the next (Darwin’s Failures) thread:

      Terry says:
      20 August, 2020 at 1:02 pm

      “ The BBC has confirmed it pulled The Trial of Alex Salmond from iPlayer to make a “small change” to the programme, but hasn’t disclosed what change it made.”

      Therefore a comparison of the original with the new version is likely to result in a further threat to anonymity facilitated by Wark and the BBC?

    121. Alf says:

      The bit highlighted in your previous blog is still there.

    122. ALANM says:

      I don’t suppose Stu dare risk posting the clip which the BBC decided to cut after their “documentary” was originally broadcast. The powers that be will be watching closely with a court summons already prepared and ready to send.

    123. robertknight says:

      Alf @ 1:34

      “Maybe chill out a bit next time before rushing to conclusions.”

      Dose of your own medicine perhaps? Unless and until you’ve watched both original and current versions, simultaneously if possible. (Don’t go on basis of length of programme – what was left on the cutting room floor is easy to splice back in to account for the removal of something else).

    124. Paul K says:

      Here’s the BBC response to my complaint.

      Thank you for contacting us about the Trial of Alex Salmond and we are sorry to hear of your concerns. However we don’t agree that this programme was biased or unfair.

      Alex Salmond has been a senior political figure for many years and his trial and subsequent acquittal was a major news story, which received extensive coverage at the time. The outcome was fairly reflected in the programme and would have been known to everyone watching. Within that context, the film aimed to examine what impact the trial had had in terms of the ‘me too’ movement and Scottish politics.

      A range of different views were heard, including authoritative contributors who made points in support of Alex Salmond, such as Jim Sillars and Kenny MacAskill. Mr Salmond himself was invited to take part but declined to do so, as the film made clear. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines require us to be duly impartial and accurate in our reporting and we believe this was the case here.

    125. Anne says:

      I see The Trial of Alex Salmond is back on BBC Iplayer. What on earth is going on??

    126. Caledonia says:

      Watch out for it coming back with edits
      Hope someone has kept the original

    127. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Caledonia.

      There’s an edit at 6min 53sec from the end, where the caption “Actor’s voice” has been added. Not on the original. Haven’t found any more ‘visual edits’ so far but there appears to be no change to the audio and both the original and the edited version are the same file size.

    128. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      And the same length.

    129. Louise Hogg says:

      Has anyone asked the BBC why a programme about an innocent man has been linked on their website to various ‘support for sexual assault survivors’ sources? Are we being told that Mr Salmond has been a victim of sex-based harrassment, perhaps by a whole group of women?

    130. David Caledonia says:

      A female can get a job working with your local council, she can know absolutely nothing about houses, apart fro the fact they have 4 walls a door and windows, but ofc, they have been to university, well it looks good on paper, yes toilet paper if you know anything about houses as I do having been in the building trade in my foolish youth, it wasn’t half cold mum

    131. David Caledonia says:

      here is a funny thing you might find interesting

      I once had three 36 inch TVs, I gave them all away to my sons and my oldest brother, I have a small TV in my bedroom and somebody nicked my outdoor aerial and I never even noticed till a guy I called came to get me on to digital TV
      He went outside and we looked up at the roof, he said no wonder you are not getting a signal you don’t have an aerial, I said it was there the last time I saw it lol
      He wanted me to pay his company £240 for him to fit a new one, he was a nice young guy who came to scotland from southampton 7 years ago and love it here, alas I had to say no, as I never really watched the little life killer anyway
      And I have about 6 TVs in storage one is a 50 inch model that I bought for about £25 at auction, I am keeping that one for myself along with an apple mac that I got for £25,
      I never watch the BBC or any other channels for that matter unless I am in someone else’s house, as its allways on for the indoor all the time crowd lol
      I consider myself to be unfairly happy when I look at lots of other people’s lives and how they have to live, but I made myself a good life, nobody gave it to me, I had to work damn hard for it, sometimes 24 hour days with little rests and naps in between my working hours, now I am happily retired, well I get my pension, but I still do a bit of this and that , mostly that if I’m being honest, but if any this comes a long I will allways have a bit of that lol

      Wallace Wallace Wallace

    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