|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 8 Jan 16:53
A shambles from the Civil Service part of Scottish Gov has meant the case made by Alex Salmond regarding the complaints procedure after sexual harassment claims is his victory.
This costed hundreds of thousands of taxpayers cash when they couldn't even get a simple procedure right.
The investigator acted unlawfully by having contact with the two women before being appointed.
Alex Salmond was clearly a victim of a smear campaign hence the leak to The Daily Record of the story despite never being charged of anything.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 8 Jan 20:27
I must have missed where and when he was investigated by his own party ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 8 Jan 21:07
Quote:
desparado, Tue 8 Jan 20:27
I must have missed where and when he was investigated by his own party ?
Me too. I think he doesn't realise both Scottish Gov and Westminster have a Civil Service ;)
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 8 Jan 21:10
://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/01/the-salmond-stitch-up-the-incredible-facts-and-why-mackinnon-and-evans-must-be-sacked/
As that probably will not work - pasted below.
Judith Mackinnon joined the Scottish government in 2017. She was slotted into the highly remunerated non-job of Head of People Advice. That really is her title. I saw it in the Record and did not believe it, but just phoned the Scottish Government and they confirmed it. Judith Mackinnon is Head of People Advice at the Scottish Government. She was previously Head of Human Resource Governance at Police Scotland. A senior policeman tells me that appeared in practice to mean professional feminist.
As might be expected from somebody with such pointless job titles, Mackinnon writes gobbledegook rather than English. Here is an extract from her Police Scotland submission to the consultation on the Scottish Government bill on gender equality on boards.
It is vital to note that, in her peculiar non-job at the Scottish Government, Mackinnon had no normal professional contact with the alleged “complainants” against Alex Salmond. It is still more vital to note that the “complainants” did not approach Mackinnon. In January 2018, shortly after starting at the Scottish Government, Mackinnon sought them out and – as it was carefully put in court today (tremendous twitter stream report here), spoke to them in a manner “bordering on encouragement to proceed with formal complaints” against Alex Salmond. It appears this was a process, not just one meeting. Again in the language used in court today, there was a “significant amount of direct personal contact” between Mackinnon and the complainants.
At this stage the complaints were brought to the attention of Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary – assuming she was not the one who instigated Mackinnon to act originally. Incredibly, Evans then appoints Mackinnon as the formal investigating officer for the case.
Even more incredibly, Mackinnon and Evans then together work on a new Civil Service Code which specifically makes the retrospective actioning of these complaints possible.
So Mackinnon instigated the complaints, investigated the complaints and drafted the code changes which made the complaints actionable.
Judith Mackinnon has been a human rights professional operating for over 25 years. It is impossible that Mackinnon did not realise that this method of pursuing a stitch up is absolutely illegitimate, as was today conceded in court. It is equally impossible that the Head of the Civil Service, Leslie Evans, did not realise these measures were completely illegitimate.
The actions of these civil servants are not just reckless, they are a deliberate stitch-up of an individual amounting to the crime of misconduct in public office. It is most certainly a sacking offence and it is Evans and Mackinnon who should be the subject of police investigation. Apart from their deliberate and cold malice towards Salmond, they have cost the taxpayer £350,000 wasted on this case.
Leslie Evans issued a statement today which is breathtaking in these circumstances in its impudence and its tendentiousness. She appears to try to say that she did not know until last month of Mackinnon’s role in instigating the complaints.
This amounts to an incredible accusation against Mackinnon by Evans. To save her own skin, Evans appears to be alleging that at the time of Mackinnon’s appointment as investigating officer, Mackinnon did not reveal to Evans her role in initiating the “complaints”; and presumably also left that out of the investigative reports, if Evans did not find out until December.
However as a former member of the senior civil service myself, I can tell you that the truly disgusting Leslie Evans is here attempting to give that impression by weasel drafting. She is saying that “the full picture” only became clear in December. In fact, Evans already knew a great deal more than she is here attempting to portray. Perhaps she didn’t know whether Mackinnon and the complainants drank tea or coffee together, hence not the “full picture”.
There is a still more important and extraordinary misrepresentation in Evans’ statement, She claims:
All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed
I cannot understand this at all. There has been no judgement issued in the case. The Scottish Government caved in once it was ordered to reveal the incriminating emails and minutes that told the above story. The Scottish Government caved in and settled out of court; therefore the case was dismissed by the judge. It is totally false of Evans to claim that this amounts to Salmond’s other claims being “dismissed” in the sense she intends to convey, and indeed is the opposite of what the Scottish Government’s own QC specifically stated in court. He said that the Government disagreed with Salmond on the other points but that this was “now academic”.
The misrepresentations in Leslie Evans’ statement are simply appalling in a civil servant. She has to go.
All documents in this case should now be released. It is a matter of essential public interest, relating to a politically motivated attempt to impact on the bid for Independence of the entire Scottish nation. One thing that those documents will make clear is whether or not the First Minister’s office was as entirely insulated from events as is claimed.
Nicola Sturgeon must now move to demand the resignation of both Evans and Mackinnon. Both fully deserve to lose their jobs. If Sturgeon moves to protect them, she will attract suspicion that she is motivated by keeping them silent about the extent of her own involvement in the sorry process. To avoid this rumour she has to act swiftly and decisively and invite them to resign tomorrow morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 8 Jan 21:12
Quote:
renegade master, Tue 8 Jan 20:19
It was always going to be the case, off on a technicality after being investigated by his own party. Who would have thought that.
Would love to have some of the private verbal dialogue between Nichola and Alex!
Police enquiry will fail also as it is 1 persons word against the other with no evidence the case wouldn't get to court even if the police believed the women.
The final chapter will be when Alex takes a defamation case against the Scottish Government and wins a nice tidy payout to cover his lack of a salary!
Good job he wasn't a kiddy fiddler, would have kept his salary and got the ermine as a reward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 8 Jan 21:20
Very revealing moviescot.
Heads must roll for this.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Tue 8 Jan 21:44
Interesting to see how Nicola worms herself out of it by communicating with him during the investigation period. SNP first to moan about about other parties but do exactly the same with serious issues like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Tue 8 Jan 22:17
Didn't take you long to get your SNP bad bit in.
It was a stitch-up by civil servants employed by Westminster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 8 Jan 23:28
Quote:
renegade master, Tue 8 Jan 22:58
Desperado and AAP who is the current Scottish Governing Party?
Investigating officer appointed by the SNP, Leslie Evans SNP's permanent secretary. The 2 main players in ensuring this investigation collapsed.
Salmon now saying he is considering suing after crowdfunding to take this case, now set to pocket the comps package.
His rightful duty is to reimburse those who crowdfunded his case not to take monetary gain from trying to prove his innocence!
PS I believe he is innocent!
You've obviously not done your homework here.
Alex Salmond publicly stated any surplus from his crowd funding campaign goes directly to various charities.
He said it last year and repeated it today so don't know why you come out with this statement.
Secondly, read the post from Moviescot again which explains more than I can the details about the appointments made outside of miss Evans.
This is the real crux of the matter and I'm certainly not saying Nicola Sturgeon is clean here either but there actually might be truth to the allegations made but why it was handled so incompetentably costing upwards of £350k is a cause of concern when they knew they were in the wrong legally.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 9 Jan 08:11
You are correct that Mackinnon and Evans were appointed by the Scottish Government. However this is how the appointment system works.
So here is how it works. Westminister builds the list of candidates for senior posts in the Civil Service in Scotland.
They select a shortlist. The Scottish Government can only pick a candidate from that list. They cannot widen the choice by nominating candidates they select.
Then, when it all goes pear shaped and one of their candidates blows £500,000 of taxpayers money trying to fit up the former First Minister of Scotland they retort “ but she was selected by the Scottish Government” and the wholly dishonest and disgusting media in Scotland play along not mentioning London control of the entire selection procedure.
It is critical the Scottish people are kept well away from the corrupt procedure, just deal the manure!
So although Scottish Government do choose it is from a list generated by Westminster.
Post Edited (Wed 09 Jan 08:11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 9 Jan 09:54
Alex Salmond`s statement, looks like he`s going to get a bundle more money....The U.K. government hates him, along with a few more on here.
SALMOND WELCOMES COURT VICTORY AS SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ADMITS DEFEAT
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ACCEPTS PERMANENT SECRETARY DECISION ON SALMOND AS “UNLAWFUL”, “PROCEDURALLY UNFAIR” AND “TAINTED BY APPARENT BIAS”.
The Scottish Government has today conceded defeat in the Judicial Review brought by Alex Salmond. The case was due to start in the Court of Session on 15th January 2019.
In addition, the expenses of the legal action have been conceded by the Scottish Government, at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Speaking after today’s hearing in front of Lord Pentland Mr Salmond said;
“I am deeply appreciative of the work of my legal team who have been outstanding in delivering what is an emphatic victory, grateful to my family and friends who have stood with me throughout the last year, and thankful to the more than 4,000 people who contributed to the crowd funder for this Judicial Review, without whose support I would not have been able to defend my position.
I pledged that any surplus remaining would be entirely devoted to good causes in Scotland and beyond. That will now happen.
As I reflect on the last difficult months, I am mindful of three things.
First, that this process was completely unnecessary. Over the last year my legal team repeatedly offered the Scottish Government legal arbitration to resolve any complaints, and to establish the illegality of this process, without the need for such a damaging and expensive case to come to Court. To my great regret, all such proposals were rejected, leaving me with no choice but to bring this matter to the Court of Session.
As a result, Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary, has wasted huge amounts of public money in an incompetent attempt to enforce an unlawful process. Now, having incurred those costs to the public purse, she has collapsed the case prior to a full hearing.
Secondly, the Scottish Government’s conduct in this case as an institution has unquestionably lacked candour. Officials repeatedly failed to disclose documents to the Court which were of central importance. Those documents ultimately made clear the apparent bias and procedural unfairness which has only now been admitted. As a former First Minister, I find that conduct entirely unworthy.
Those documents remain confidential as part of the court process, for now. But in my view they reveal a clear and obvious breach of the principles of fairness and natural justice. It is a matter of great personal sadness that I have had to bring the Scottish Government to court simply to ensure that those within it are acting fairly, honestly and with due regard for the law.
Thirdly, I want to record my profound unease about the systematic leaking of this matter, from wherever that occurred. Any complaints process requires to be confidential in order to be fair to those making complaints, and fair to those about whom complaints are made.
In the leaking of those details to the media, rights of privacy and confidentiality have been blatantly disregarded.
That was done deliberately, and to inflict the maximum damage to my reputation. It included the leaking of detailed complaints to a tabloid newspaper, complaints which I emphatically dispute. It included also the briefing of the supposed advice of the Lord Advocate to the press. That breaches a fundamental constitutional principle - that of the independence of the criminal justice system from political interference.
From the outset, I have argued both that the decision made by the Permanent Secretary was unfair, biased and unlawful and that I have never engaged in any criminality.
The first point has now been established. The second point I believe will follow.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 9 Jan 10:26
Renegade Master, are you suggesting that NS let this procedure go ahead, knowing it was flawed, so that AS would be exonerated after the procedure was investigated? Do you think she would do this knowing all the flak directed at the SG that would follow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 9 Jan 10:57
Quote:
renegade master, Wed 9 Jan 08:26
moviescot.
Great answer however 2 questions.
Will the Scottish Government know the Political allegiances of the Civil Servants on the list?
Who created the position of Head of People advice?
Bottom line is that NS was never going to let AS fall under the bus let alone throw him under it and this is such a basic technicality costing best part oh £500,000.
Many questions to come, I think NS better get her teflon cape out!
Political allegiances are only known if declared by the nominees. Not sure if they did or did not.
Head of people advice was a Westminster creation. Not even sure what it means and clearly neither did she.
Not saying that NS is completely in the clear here but it does look like it was badly handled by the civil servants involved. I think by the time NS would get involved the damage was probably already done. Not sure she really had much influence in what occured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 9 Jan 11:01
It's still interesting that the people who were brought forward to accuse AS we sought out by the civil servants. It does sound like a smear campaign that went badly wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 9 Jan 11:08
This is a "black ops" set up and nothing less imo.
The outcome doesn't matter to these people it is the publicity, speculation, public slander and libel that they look for and in this case have received in full value.
The headlines were all there to be seen at the time, the truth was just a bi-product down the line when everyone has been poisoned and then lost interest.
I don't know if the actual allegations will be shown to be true and even if they are what many of us have experienced in the work place and no more. However the damage has been done and Salmond whether innocent or guilty will always be guilty for most who either don't like him or don't agree with independence.
To all on here who are gearing up for Indyref 2, I'm sure this is just the tip of the "dirty tricks" iceberg to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 9 Jan 11:15
RM, I think you're confusing the Scottish Government with the Administration of the Scottish Government who are civil servants. I would think the First Minister would stay out of the process as I think she should. By your analysis she would have been damned for covering it up and she's damned for letting the process run its course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 9 Jan 14:07
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 9 Jan 11:15
RM, I think you're confusing the Scottish Government with the Administration of the Scottish Government who are civil servants. I would think the First Minister would stay out of the process as I think she should. By your analysis she would have been damned for covering it up and she's damned for letting the process run its course.
Was just going to post the something similar. I'm a bit confused by some bits but I didn't think NS has the remit to get involved in the process even has head of the SG?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 10 Jan 17:44
Quote:
renegade master, Thu 10 Jan 16:31
Yet she has confirmed secret meetings and telephone call between herself and AS did take place during the course of the investigation.
Not just involved but up to her neck in it!
Labour leader RL calling for her to refer herself to the standards committee!
Again , RM you're telling porkies like your leader in the Scottish Branch.
She held NO meetings with AS after the investigation began.
Prior to it she had a meeting at her house but importantly with a third party present so as to prevent accusations of a cover up or collusions.
Sturgeon had no meetings with Alex Salmond after the official announcement and hasn't had contact since.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Thu 10 Jan 22:53
As she had nothing to do with the investigation I can't really see what it matters if she saw him or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 10 Jan 23:33
It wasn't a criminal investigation and still isnt so like Hugh Gaffney and Labour and these Tory councillors etc etc no laws were broken for internal party investigation.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 11 Jan 09:49
The police investigation is separate from the SG investigation which Nicola Sturgeon is now being accused of interfering with. It seems like a storm in a teacup but I'm sure the Unionist media will have a field day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 11 Jan 10:29
Now the deputy Provost of Aberdeen has been suspended by his party due to Police investigations into sexual harassment claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 11 Jan 12:08
For it to be a criminal investigation there has to be charges brought which to my knowledge there hasn't been.
The police are probing and deciding whether to press charges which is different to a criminal investigation surely?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 11 Jan 12:13
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Fri 11 Jan 12:08
For it to be a criminal investigation there has to be charges brought which to my knowledge there hasn't been.
The police are probing and deciding whether to press charges which is different to a criminal investigation surely?
Not if you have a different agenda
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 11 Jan 18:37
Quote:
renegade master, Fri 11 Jan 17:21
Explain the difference between a police investigation and a criminal investigation?
See which agenda you make that fall in!
Nether, your agenda, the hatred for the SNP blinds your judgement....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 11 Jan 18:48
Quote:
renegade master, Fri 11 Jan 18:41
No hatred whatsoever.
However the blinded defence on here is........
You even have those sayings did not happen after NS has admitted they have!
Alex Salmond was a very astute and clever politician and I voted for him.
Nichola Sturgeon in such a populist line puller it is deplorable, I'd love to see an Independent Scotland but not under the current SNP rule.
Does that fit with your agenda!
You do realise the SNP wont necessarily run an independent Scotland ?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 11 Jan 19:04
So someone who is in favour of his country being independent would sacrifice that ambition because he does not like some of the current crop of politicians , knowing full well that if we turn it down again that will probably be that.
* shakes head*
Are you happy with the current WM mob ?
I suspect that you are not and never have been in favour of independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 11 Jan 20:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: calpar
Date: Fri 11 Jan 21:24
Aye, cos vast number of Scots are affected by the trials and tribulations of grouse shooting
Ffs 🙄
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 11 Jan 23:34
Bet the grouse might be happy.Always better not getting shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 12 Jan 01:04
So RM what do you suggest Nicola Sturgeon does about the drive to veganism? Personally I wish these rural types would try to understand what urbanites have to endure so they can maintain their lifestyle out in the country. By the way there are very few truly rural areas in Scotland, certainly none south of Perth.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 12 Jan 07:54
Good to see that the SG are dealing with the illegal Fox Hunting, who says they're ignoring rural issues?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 12 Jan 10:34
RM your defence of Scottish Labour is admirable but on each and every occasion Richard Leonard is pressed to give an alternative whether Brexit or otherwise he says it is a matter for Labour party members.
Does he not have his own opinions?
I listened to his interview with Hayley Miller this morning on BBC Scotland and a car crash is an understatement.
Opposition parties have big mouths but never come up with alternatives.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 12 Jan 13:03
Quote:
renegade master, Sat 12 Jan 10:42
AAPS
My defence of Labour????????
have never and will never vote for them they are an utter bombscare of a party please don't think I have a drop of Labour blood in me they have even less idea of what this country needs.
My voting alligence is assessed at each time it is required based on party manifesto and belief and knowledge, and if they none appeal I won't vote.
Like I said when AS was in control of the SNP I thought he was the right man for the job and he and his party got my vote.
But you would now vote no to independence because of Nicola Sturgeon even knowing you could vote for any party after it?
Doesn't add up, sorry.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 12 Jan 13:50
Quote:
renegade master, Sat 12 Jan 10:38
TOWK
I take it you haven't spent much time in Dumfries and the border towns?
These villages and towns are as Rural as you get Farming, Salmon, Shooting and Stalking the mainstay far above tourism which to a degree has missed these areas.
Tenruh
What Illegal fox hunting? Not a single prosecution of a horse mounted hunt in Scotland surely if they were hunting illegally and the laws being broken then these hunts would have been prosecuted? After all they all get filmed by the Sabs? Abuse of power like this is what is turning many voters off them. Remember the vast majority of horse hunts are made up of all the Pony Clubs from the local areas giving children to ride through the countryside on land they would never normally get access to. These children and parents have now seen that privilege withdrawn by the SNP ignorant abuse of power try to chase a few more urban votes. Where actually they have just shown to another section of potential voters how little they understand about our countryside.
Also on this note explain how the hill farmers who are already competing with geese for grass, ravens pecking out lambs eyes and tongues, Sea Eagles taking whole lambs now have no help from the various packs of foot hounds (not horse back toffs that the urbanite all think) to control the vast areas of hillside to protect there flocks from foxes? PS all these foxes are flushed with hounds and shot!
Well this tells a different story RM.
Two huntsmen from the Scottish Borders have been found guilty of breaching fox-hunting law.
It is the first conviction of a traditional fox hunt under legislation introduced in Scotland in 2002.
Johnny Riley, 24, and his father, John Clive Richardson, 67, of Bonchester Bridge, were fined £400 and £250 respectively for deliberately hunting a fox with dogs near Jedburgh last year.
They plan to appeal against the decision.
During their trial, the pair had denied breaching the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.
Their defence lawyer David McKie said they had worked within the terms of the legislation by using hounds to flush out a fox from cover to waiting guns.
However, depute fiscal Fiona Caldwell argued the two men had clearly broken the law at Townfoothill near Jedburgh on 16 February last year.
I'm
The conviction is the first of a traditional fox hunt under the 2002 legislation
She said evidence had shown it had been a "deliberate course of acts culminating with those responsible for the hunt, hunting the fox with dogs".
The verdict was welcomed by the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland which supplied video footage to the trial.
Its director Robbie Marsland said: "Today's guilty verdict is the first successful prosecution for mounted fox hunting in Scotland and while we're delighted with the outcome, and our role in this, we remain of the view that the law needs strengthened.
"The Scottish government has committed to consult on the hunt ban following a review by Lord Bonomy, who clearly stated there was evidence of lawbreaking by Scottish hunts."
He said the guilty verdict had confirmed that to be the case and said they looked forward to working to help "strengthen the law".
However, the Countryside Alliance voiced disappointment at the conviction claiming the huntsmen had been subjected to "trial by television".
It said footage which had been given to the BBC had put pressure on police and prosecutors to take the case forward.
Director Jamie Stewart said: "Scottish mounted packs not only adhere to the law but also work under an enhanced protocol."
He said the organisation was disappointed with the verdict and would await the full transcript of the judgement before making further comment.
PC Andrew Loughlin, wildlife crime officer for the Scottish Borders, said: "Wildlife crime is a priority for Police Scotland and we will always take action against those who breach wildlife laws.
"I would ask those who undertake countryside pursuits to keep their dogs under control as they will be held accountable should their dogs chase or kill wild mammals.
"We continue to work with our partners to tackle the issue of illegal fox hunting and would encourage anyone who witnesses this activity to get in touch with police via 101."
Post Edited (Sat 12 Jan 14:09)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 12 Jan 16:51
Quote:
renegade master, Sat 12 Jan 14:15
I forgot about that stitch up Tenruh which I won't go into details of.
So 1 breach of the law in 17 years and they are now wasting Parliamentary time and money changing the law. Yawn. Like I say big headlines to please the popular urbanites, where actually no problem exists.
Not a stitch up when Wee Eck and Nicola are involved though? Looks like double standards to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 12 Jan 18:42
Quote:
renegade master, Sat 12 Jan 17:23
how is it a stitch up when Nichola has admitted to Parliament she has spoken to him during the inquiry?
Sabs Releasing a fox in front of the hounds then filming it being caught by the hounds is a stitch up!
Same trick they have tried a number of times and were caught last week in Yorkshire doing the same thing and have now had an injunction imposed on them!
Deary me, you would have to be an idiot if you don't believe that all the people involved in the Salmond case haven't been stitched up for political gain, but to defend individuals who illegally involve themselves in blood sports is taking it to a different level altogether
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 13 Jan 17:02
RM, it's the urban vote that will win any independence vote as that's where the votes are. Don't worry, even in an independent Scotland, the rural population win continue to be subsidised by the rest of us.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 22 Jan 19:43
Craig Murray’s take on things....a good...long read....
Scotland’s retention of its own legal system, based on an entirely different legal inheritance to the Anglo-Saxon one, is an important part of its national heritage. Senior judiciary and lawyers held a unique social status in national life for many centuries, as joint custodians with the Church of the residual national autonomy. The lawyers of Edinburgh are still a formidable, and broadly conservative, caste. That caste is collectively astonished by the revelations in the Alex Salmond case, and especially by the Scottish Government’s brazen reaction to the judgement of Lord Pentland and the inexplicable failure of Leslie Evans to resign. Secrets that are sealed and kept from the public are shared in whispers amongst the legal brotherhood. In the corridors of the Court of Session, in the robing rooms, in the Signet Library, in the Bow Bar, in the fine restaurants concealed behind medieval facades in the Old Town, in the New Club, the facts whirl round and round, in an atmosphere approaching indignation.
I think now you should share in some of those facts.
The Scottish Government’s version of events was that in December 2017 a new civil service code was adopted which allowed complaints to be made against former ministers. That new code was published to staff on the Scottish Government intranet, which resulted in two complaints against Alex Salmond being received in January of 2018.
Neither I, nor the collective consciousness of legal Edinburgh, can recall any example in history of a government being caught in a more systematic and egregious lie by a judge, but yet continuing to insist it is in the right and will continue on the same course. Every point of the above official government story was proven not just to be wrong, but to be a lie, because Lord Pentland called a Commission on Diligence.
This is a little known and little used process in Scots Law where one party challenges whether the other party has really produced all the important evidence in disclosure. A Commissioner is appointed who, in closed session, hears evidence on oath as to what documents are available and their meaning.
The Scottish Government had opposed before Lord Pentland the setting up of the Commission on Diligence, on the grounds that there was no more relevant documentation – which turned out in itself to be a massive lie.
Over the Festive period, the Commission in the Salmond case obtained quite astonishing evidence that proved the Scottish Government was lying through its teeth and attempting to hide a great many key documents. The oral evidence under oath, particularly from Leslie Evans given on 23 December 2018, was even more jaw-dropping. It is because of what was revealed behind closed doors in the Commission on Evidence that legal Edinburgh cannot believe Leslie Evans has not resigned.
The truth is that Judith Mackinnon had met at least one of the complainants against Salmond at the very latest by 7 November 2017* – just three months after Mackinnon took up her job as “Head of People Advice”. On 7 November 2017, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans was briefed about the complaint, which fact was minuted, in a manner that very definitely made Evans acutely aware of Mackinnon’s involvement. Evans claimed on 23 December 2018 under oath to have not noticed this, or to have forgotten it, when Mackinnon was later appointed Investigating Officer.
Evans being informed of the complaint against Salmond on 7 November, coincided very closely with the initiation within the Civil Service in Scotland of the drafting of a new Civil Service Code enabling complaints against former ministers. This Civil Service activity included seeking the views of the Cabinet Office in London on creating a code enabling complaints against ex-ministers. The Cabinet Office in London did not support the idea. Nevertheless on 22 November 2017 the First Minister agreed the change in principle, as in line with the aims of the MeToo movement.
Judith Mackinnon’s preparation of the complainants against Salmond then entered a higher gear. She had numerous meetings and communications with both complainants in early December 2017. At the same time, she was actively involved in the drafting of the new Code to enable the case she was working on. Astonishingly, the two complainants were themselves actually sent the draft Former Ministers Procedure for comment by Judith Mackinnon, before it was adopted! One of them, who had left the Civil Service, also appeared to be potentially encouraged by Mackinnon with the prospect of re-employment, a fact which again Leslie Evans does not now recall.
The Former Ministers Procedure in final form was not adopted and active until 20 December 2017, when it was signed off by Nicola Sturgeon, at least 43 days after Mackinnon initiated action to proceed with complaints against Salmond. The new procedure was not advertised on the Intranet to staff until 8 February 2018, three months after Mackinnon’s first meeting with at least one of the complainants.
Contrary to the lies of the Scottish Government, zero complaints against Alex Salmond were received from staff following the publication to staff of the new former ministers procedure on the Intranet. The only two complaints had both been canvassed and encouraged a minimum of three months earlier.
Leslie Evans was aware of Judith Mackinnon’s contact with the complainants at least from November 7 2017. Evans was repeatedly informed throughout December 2017 of the development of the complaints and of Mackinnon’s contacts with the complainants. The complaints against Salmond were being developed in parallel with the drafting of the Code which would retrospectively cover them, and being developed by the same people doing the drafting, and even the complainants were consulted on the draft Code. It was not until January 2018 that Mackinnon was appointed as “Investigating Officer” despite the fact that the Civil Service Code stipulated that the Investigating Officer must have “no prior contact” with the complainants. She had in fact had intensive contact with them over two months, and Evans knew this, though she has now forgotten that.
Nicola Sturgeon, reacting to her Government’s court defeat, disingenuously described to Holyrood Mackinnon’s contacts with the complainants as merely “welfare support and guidance”. Sturgeon knows for a fact that is not true. The documents the Scottish Government was forced by the Commission to disclose prove that Mackinnon’s involvement comprised, as described in open court:
the substance of the complaint, evidence to support the complaints, circumstances in which they arose, the manner in which they could go on to make formal complaints and a significant decree of assistance to the complainers bordering on encouragement to proceed with their complaints.
Still more of a lie is Leslie Evans’ astonishing and unrepentant statement after the humiliating capitulation of the Government case before Lord Pentland. It is a statement woven through with falsehood and deceit, but the most obviously untrue point of all is her refusal to acknowledge what the documents show, that she knew full well all this was happening at the time.
After reassessing all the materials available, I have concluded that an impression of partiality could have been created based on one specific point – contact between the Investigating Officer and the two complainants around the time of their complaints being made in January 2018.
The full picture only became evident in December 2018 as a result of the work being undertaken to produce relevant documents in advance of the hearing.
Evans’ blatant attempt to pretend she knew nothing, and thus throw Mackinnon under the bus alone, is morally disgusting. Still more so is her utterly false claim that, the case having fallen after she conceded it on the basis Mackinnon ought not to have been appointed Investigating Officer, all Alex Salmond’s other legal points fell. Evans’ statement reads:
All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed.
That is a total untruth. It was made perfectly plain in Lord Pentland’s Court that, the Scottish Government having conceded the case, there was no point in hearing all the other grounds. This was made specific in court, where the other points were described as “now academic”.
I hope I have managed to make plain to you that Mackinnon’s appointment as Investigating Officer was the least of the many dreadful things of which the Scottish Government was guilty in this case. They naturally conceded on the least embarrassing. In fact, the entire matter is an orchestrated stitch-up.
Finally, I am obliged to consider the role of the First Minister and her subsequent defence of Evans and Mackinnon. I do so with the heaviest of hearts, because I know that any criticism at all of Nicola Sturgeon is considered utterly inadmissible by many of my fellow campaigners for Scottish Independence. Believe me, if I did not feel a strong obligation to truth I would much prefer not to speak of it.
But consider this, with as open a mind as you can muster.
Sturgeon’s defence of Mackinnon, as doing no more in the instigation of the complaints than provide welfare counselling and advice, is completely untrue. Sturgeon knows very well that it is untrue.
Consider this as well. Had the Scottish Government not thrown in the towel, Nicola’s Chief of Staff Liz Lloyd would that day have been questioned under oath about who leaked the salacious details of one of the allegations, to David Clegg of the Daily Record. Lloyd knows Clegg well.
It really is very difficult to look through all the facts – including some I have not given here as they have not been referred to in open court – and conclude that Nicola was unaware of the stitch-up. I have spoken to dozens of sources this last three weeks, including many elected SNP figures, a couple of civil servants, and others who know Nicola personally. This is my conclusion.
It is no secret that feminism is Nicola’s passion. A gender-balanced Cabinet, all-female shortlists for SNP Holyrood candidates, gender balance on boards of public authorities, these and many more are results of Nicola’s feminist activism in government, much of it admirable. Leslie Evans is close to her and a key ally in driving forward that agenda.
Leslie Evans has built a career out of promoting PC identity politics within local authorities and the civil service. In this story of her dishonesty when an officer at Edinburgh City Council, that appears to be her motivation against the project she sought to penalise. Evans frequently states her feminist principles.
And my gender politics too – my feminism – and I am a feminist – dates back to learning about Elizabeth 1st’s speech at Tilbury (‘I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king’)…
Most Permanent Secretaries are male and the product of private schooling and the Oxbridge system. You might have noticed I’m none of these things. In fact I am only the 30th female Perm Sec in whole history of the UKCS and the first female Perm Sec in Scotland has ever seen.
She was chosen, from a shortlist, to head the Civil Service in Scotland by Nicola. I am quite certain that the fact she was a woman with a history of promoting gender issues was a major factor in Nicola’s choice. Precisely the same factors also characterise Judith Mackinnon’s career in human resources, as I previously reported. Here is Leslie Evans on gender equality throughout Scottish government:
There’s another key difference between Scotland’s government and the UK’s – for Holyrood’s a world leader in gender diversity. Not only are the perm sec and the leaders of the three biggest parties women, but also half the cabinet, half the directors general, and 46% of the senior civil service.
As in all fields of diversity, Evans warns, this parity’s fragile: “It only takes one or two people to leave, and you’ve got a completely different balance again. You can never have the luxury of thinking you’ve done it.” And does achieving that balance change how government operates? She’s cautious. “I’d be foolish to say that this government feels very different from others, or that the cabinet operates in a markedly different way,” she replies. “I do think there are some broad themes that I can pick out. I think women tend to be a bit more collaborative; sometimes they’re a bit more thoughtful, and less likely to jump to conclusions. But I’m sure that people would challenge me on some of that thinking.”
This key ITV News article from 2015 was headlined “Sturgeon’s Women Power vs Cameron’s Man Power”
But Ms Sturgeon has also made her mark at the heart of government.
Women now occupy the three most important jobs in Scottish politics.
That’s in marked contrast to the big jobs in Downing Street, all held by men.
As it happens there are also significant educational differences too.
In Scotland the top three women were all state educated.
South of the Border they all went to public (in other words private) schools.
Here’s the roll call:
There’s Ms Sturgeon herself who went to Greenwood Academy in Ayrshire, and on to Glasgow University.
Her chief of staff and senior political adviser, Liz Lloyd, went to Gosforth High School in Newcastle, a state school, and Edinburgh University.
Leslie Evans, newly appointed as the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, the most senior civil servant in Scotland, went to High Storrs school in Sheffield and Liverpool University.
That article was briefed by Sturgeon’s office and Nicola sees Lloyd, Evans and Mackinnon as performing key roles in driving her gender equality policies in Scotland. That is why she leaps to defend them. That is her here and now, and has become more real to her than the time before she was First Minister, campaigning for Independence with Alex. She is emotionally attached to Lloyd, Evans and Mackinnon on that basis, to the extent that she is prepared to defend the indefensible.
Nicola sees the criticism of the attack on Alex, an attack made under her MeToo inspired Former Ministers Procedure, as a slur on the integrity of the gender policies which Nicola sees as cementing her place in history. It is also a direct attack on the female team which she hand-picked to implement those policies. It is not irrelevant to the MeToo context that Alex Salmond has been described frequently as, solely in a political sense, being a father figure to Nicola, and perhaps is thus easily associated in her mind with the abusive patriarchy as characterised by the feminist movement. Despite the obvious fishiness of both the allegations against Alex and the way they were dredged up, they fit Nicola’s most valued agenda. In pursuing that agenda, Nicola has simply lost all sight of the notion of fairness to Alex Salmond.
It should be noted that after Lord Pentland’s ruling, Nicola rightly apologised to the complainants for the mishandling. She remarkably did not apologise to Alex Salmond, who was actually the person Lord Pentland had ruled her Government had treated unfairly. That was not an accidental omission.
If Alex Salmond goes ahead to sue the Scottish Government for damages, which I certainly hope that he does, the Scottish Government cannot oblige him to settle and will find it very difficult to stop both the documents to which I refer, and the key evidence on oath, from coming out in open court. I am very confident that anybody who now scoffs or rails at me will look very stupid when that happens.
In conclusion, a senior judge does not describe the Government’s proceedings as “unlawful”, “unfair” and “tainted by apparent bias” without extreme care. Those words carry full weight. That Nicola Sturgeon has simply sought to ignore them is astonishing.
———————–
*In a previous article I had written that Mackinnon started contact with the complainants in January 2018. It was in fact still earlier, November 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 22 Jan 21:07
I read this with interest earlier.
Clearly Craig has some important contacts and his blog on this matter makes logical sense given the timeline, the timing and the subsequent court ruling regarding Alex Salmond.
He was quite clearly stitched up by at least two of the civil service mentioned and while she may have acted with good intentions, Nicola Sturgeon doesn't come out of this with any glory either.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 23 Jan 14:39
excellent detailed and somewhat disturbing read
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 23 Jan 16:14
A disgrace to the Independence Movement if true imo. She has to go, such a zealot in the position she holds, can only lead to folly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 23 Jan 16:23
RM I think these communities will always go against them no matter what.
There is a unionist forelock touching ingrained attitude established over centuries in these places which tends to lead to voting the way their employer canvasses for.
Just my opinion and I could of course be wrong. Maybe some of the younger folk are not so indoctrinated.
"When Governments pander to the agenda led urban masses without question, in the pursuit of votes, no rural wildlife decisions they make will be sensible."
Well I think the above establishes the SNP have got a leader who already wants to pander to these populist issues like feminism. There are no saints in government it seems although I didn't think Sturgeon would go to such extremes to boost the female vote.
Post Edited (Wed 23 Jan 16:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Wed 23 Jan 20:37
Im surprised that the farming communities continue to vote Tory, especially after the UK Government took the £190,000,000 EU Convergence Uplift Payments meant for Scottish farmers and distributed it throughout the UK, handing back only £30,000,000 to Scotland. Better Together eh. I would imagine they will use Scottish Fishing rights as their Brexit bargaining chip as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Thu 24 Jan 09:33
Has been arrested this morning...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 24 Jan 09:47
Must be unrelated to the sexual harassment charges then as you don’t often get arrested for something “trivial”.
Contempt of court I am hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 24 Jan 09:49
If he is guilty of anything then he deserves the appropriate punishment. Time will tell.
Call me a cynic but the timing of all of this leads me to think that it is a stitch up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Thu 24 Jan 10:00
"Call me a cynic but the timing of all of this leads me to think that it is a stitch up."
Yip, probably all part of some mass unionist/MSM agenda to derail the Indyref2 momentum...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 24 Jan 10:25
Reuters reporting Contempt of Court. Strange how that is omitted feom the BBC and Guardian. Interesting...
Post Edited (Thu 24 Jan 10:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 24 Jan 12:52
Reuters are reporting that "Proceedings are live under the Contempt of Court Act".
That means the case is now sub judice , not that the charges will necessarily relate to that Act.
The Procurator Fiscal Service is also tweeting a reminder.
It might be sensible for Admin to lock this thread.
Post Edited (Thu 24 Jan 12:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Thu 24 Jan 13:12
Just be careful so there's no need to close it. How's that?
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 24 Jan 14:20
Yes best be careful with wild speculation as it is a criminal act in Scottish Law on a live case.
I have to ask though, is it normal for someone to be charged and for no reasons to be released by the police?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Thu 24 Jan 14:27
I'm assuming nobody has crossed the line on this thread so far (I've not checked yet), so just keep it factual and play the game and it'll be ok I think.
If you do know of a post on this thread that crosses some kind of legal line... either edit it (if you posted it) or inform us and we will remove it.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Thu 24 Jan 15:08
Charges are now in the public domain.
Two charges of attempted rape and nine of sexual assault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 24 Jan 15:08
Well not quite contempt of court eh ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 24 Jan 15:10
Talk about throwing the book at someone. 14 charges. Including 2 of attempted rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 24 Jan 19:00
This has all the signs of a Tory conspiracy to block a potential Indyref 2 he was urging Sturgeon to call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 24 Jan 19:36
Pretty sure if this was a Tory facing these charges, the resident Nats on this forum would already have them hung, drawn and quartered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 24 Jan 20:02
No point speculating on this one. Will need to just wait for the trial and then judge. Not sure where as an SNP supporter I stand with these allegations. Serious charges which are hopefully fully and openly investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Thu 24 Jan 20:09
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Thu 24 Jan 19:36
Pretty sure if this was a Tory facing these charges, the resident Nats on this forum would already have them hung, drawn and quartered.
Can you name without googling the latest Tory caught sharing child rape videos?
You'd think the MSM would be all over that if honest.
I'll say again....child RAPE videos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 24 Jan 21:10
Quote:
Rastapari, Thu 24 Jan 20:09
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Thu 24 Jan 19:36
Pretty sure if this was a Tory facing these charges, the resident Nats on this forum would already have them hung, drawn and quartered.
Can you name without googling the latest Tory caught sharing child rape videos?
You'd think the MSM would be all over that if honest.
I'll say again....child RAPE videos.
Strangely buried in the news today ;)
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Thu 24 Jan 22:50
Quote:
Rastapari, Thu 24 Jan 20:09
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Thu 24 Jan 19:36
Pretty sure if this was a Tory facing these charges, the resident Nats on this forum would already have them hung, drawn and quartered.
Can you name without googling the latest Tory caught sharing child rape videos?
You'd think the MSM would be all over that if honest.
I'll say again....child RAPE videos.
Can't see anything about this on the news, didn't fancy googling those particular words as christ knows what it would bring up. Who is the Tory in question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 25 Jan 06:36
If Salmond has committed the offences then he has to face the punishment set out by the legal system - simple as that. Definitely interested to see what develops here. If found not guilty then there likely will be a rather large Defamation case.
That said, I do think there is something "convenient" about the timing of this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 25 Jan 07:11
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Thu 24 Jan 19:36
Pretty sure if this was a Tory facing these charges, the resident Nats on this forum would already have them hung, drawn and quartered.
The Tories tend to hide it away until after the funeral remember Sir Jimmy Savile? Thatcher knew but ignored warnings and still gave him his toy town title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 25 Jan 09:22
I find the breach of the peace charge a strange one.
This would have happened in a public place, police get called and you are normally arrested and charged the same day. How this was kept quiet for so long and charges only being brought now is strange.
Considering AS was the most prominent politician in the UK possibly in the world for a couple of years I can’t fathom why this did not come to light at the time.
AS would have had a lot less time to commit offences than Joe Bloggs it is fair to say. A hectic life with security following him everywhere. Not 2/3 charges but 14.
His secretary would have kept a diary. It will examined for sure.
Attempted rape? Physical struggle for sure. Can’t fathom why the alleged victims would not have come forward before, but it is has been known in high profile cases.
Fighting the biggest political battle of his life unable to go anywhere without being followed by media and finding time to commit all these offenses ...allegedly..knowing that one word would blow him and the independence movement out of the water at one of the most important times constitutionally in his countries history, seems utterly bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 25 Jan 09:50
We don't know when the offences are alleged to have taken place do we?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 25 Jan 10:29
2013 I believe.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 25 Jan 11:10
Well the first two that we heard about were 2013. I am making an assumption that the rest were around the same time but fair point we don’t know yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 25 Jan 11:16
Yes. It could be the case all the charges relate to the two women especially as the police charge was based on the Scots government investigation and not the women themselves who've not went to the police with a complaint.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 25 Jan 11:43
Isn't that just speculation at this point Aaps? I cant seem to find wee much concrete facts surrounding the actual charges.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Fri 25 Jan 13:26
I think the women would have had to be the complainants.
As I understood the above info the "Scottish Gov/Civil Servants just "coached" them into making the complaints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: da_no_1
Date: Fri 25 Jan 16:25
Quote:
Bertiesback, Fri 25 Jan 13:26
I think the women would have had to be the complainants.
As I understood the above info the "Scottish Gov/Civil Servants just "coached" them into making the complaints.
So are we to believe the women were reluctant to make a formal complaint until the Government encouraged them to do so?
Sorry but I'm finding that one hard to believe.
"Some days will stay a 1000 years, some pass like the flash of a spark"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 25 Jan 16:31
RM wrote:
“Are you genuinely believing what you just wrote in relation to the charges he is faced with?”
I guess you don’t get irony. 😧
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 25 Jan 16:40
It should not be hard to believe considering the change in the law that was pushed through by Evans and McKinnon in December 2017 then the first allegations brought against AS in Jan 2018. How convenient eh ?
It is recorded that McKinnon had met with the two women, breaking all protocol prior to the first charges being brought. Read Craig Murray’s comments above in my previous post. Something stinks.
If it was not coaching what was it then ? She should never have been in the same room as the two complainants.
What NS knew or did not know when she sanctioned the new law/rule change is unknown but will no doubt come out in the months ahead.
Post Edited (Fri 25 Jan 16:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 25 Jan 16:51
Yes read that recently. The British state will do what is necessary to smear opponents. Nothing will be ruled out.
I have no idea if AS is guilty or not obviously but there is something rather convenient for WM by the timing of it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 25 Jan 19:12
We have a government whose austerity policies have caused the deaths of over 100 000 people in this country, and not a single prosecution. A government who have overseen the rise in England and Wales of serious crime , knife crime, seen the murder rate rise by a huge amount. And not a single prosecution, not to mention the Tory whips threatening to expose sexual deviants in WM unless they vote with the government. The loss of the dossier on paedophiles.
As long as we wrap ourselves in a Union Jack and declare our Britishness unequivocally then everything in the garden is rosy eh?
What ever happened to the dark money that the Tories refuse to answer any questions on? That the media fail to push the Tories on - to answer, to doorstep them the way they doorstep NS.
Brexit will cost Scotland’s economy billions. How can we draw the public’s attention away from it? .....There is another story in town now......conveniently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
