When They Decide to Get You 484

Alex Salmond’s jeopardy has caused me a dreadful shudder of recognition and empathy. I too was accused of hideous offences under a civil service disciplinary code and barred from taking any action to defend myself. I was not allowed to speak to anybody at all about the charges, and particularly not allowed to know the identity of my accusers, or to organise witnesses in my defence – which appears the exact procedure which Alex Salmond now, with absolute justice, complains of. These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth.

As with Alex Salmond, some of the accusations against me were hideous – offering visas in exchange for sex, for example. They were so hideous that the mental anguish of not being permitted to take any normal steps to defend myself caused me a mental breakdown. I know what Salmond must be feeling. I received psychiatric treatment in St Thomas’ Hospital for a condition called “learnt helplessness” – meaning it was the dreadful experience of having things done to me which I was not permitted to take any normal steps to counter, which caused my clinical depression.

The charges against me were entirely fake and entirely vexatious, even malicious, issued after I had objected to British complicity in torture in the “War on Terror”, which the government denied at the time, calling me a liar, though now admits. The charges were designed to destroy my reputation. You can read the full story in my book “Murder in Samarkand”, widely available in libraries. I believe it conveys the anguish that “learnt helplessness” can cause.

To be plain, I was told not to reveal the existence of the charges to anybody at all and specifically forbidden from contacting witnesses. Nevertheless the charges were such obvious nonsense they eventually collapsed and I was found not guilty of all eighteen charges – but found guilty of breaking the order to keep the charges secret, in organising my defence. Not keeping the charges secret is the only disciplinary offence of which I was ever convicted.

The extreme Kafkaesque nature of this is only increased by the fact that the government themselves had revealed the charges in the widest possible manner, by leaking them to the Daily Mail, in the effort to permanently ruin my reputation. A number of the charges were sexual, such as having a secret flat to entertain prostitutes – again, totally untrue, but great for the tabloids. The use of false sexual allegations to destroy threats to the political elite is routinely deployed – Alex Salmond joins Julian Assange, Tommy Sheridan (whose recent court victories against the Murdoch press went totally unreported), Scott Ritter and myself among recent victims of this tactic.

There is one important difference between Alex Salmond’s case and my own – I requested several times that my case be referred for police investigation but the FCO refused, whereas the Salmond allegations have been referred. The case of Michelle Thomson, the entirely innocent former MP whose career was deliberately destroyed by Police Scotland keeping an investigation open for years into simple matters that could have been cleared up in a week, makes this a limited comfort. I don’t doubt we will see years of this nonsense against Salmond before it is finally dismissed.

“Safe” members of the establishment elite can conduct the most blatant of crimes and never get prosecuted at all. The late Tessa Jowell engaged repeatedly and personally in blatant money laundering of crooked Berlusconi funds that would have had anyone but a senior politician locked up. Amber Rudd was a Director of a share ramping scheme that ripped off hundreds of investors. Michelle Mone is currently engaged in a Ponzi scheme badly disguised as a crypto-currency. None of those will be prosecuted.

I would suggest that the financial affairs of the vast majority of the wealthy and powerful would not stand up to close investigation and scrutiny. But in the normal course of events the powerful are shielded from such scrutiny. Paul Manafort’s financial dealings would have been actionable at any time in the last few decades. It is only when caught in the mass fishing expedition of the Mueller “Russiagate” investigation that he gets convicted – for matters nothing to do with the ostensible reason for the investigation. Which is not to say the convictions are a bad thing, just that if you scratch below the surface of any multi-millionaire or any friend of the powerful, you will be able to convict them. They should all be scratched, not just those whom other wealthy individuals regard as a threat to the political order.

Prosecution is not happening in the Manafort case from motives of preventing financial impropriety of the rich – 99.9% of that is overlooked, all the time. It is happening because for some reason the neo-conservative Establishment in the United States continue to see Donald Trump as a threat. What I do not understand is why they see Trump as a threat to Establishment interests, as he has given no indication he means to follow through on any of his anti-establishment or non-interventionist campaign rhetoric. The Establishment are not those who should feel threatened by Trump.

484 thoughts on “When They Decide to Get You

1 2 3 4 5
  • Nicola

    Hi Craig, as others have said, what happened to you is a total disgrace. You said no this is not acceptable…and I hope however bad things were and are, you were there when it mattered. And you still are here and elsewhere. And it does matter.

  • Dave

    A civil servant wouldn’t instigate an investigation into a politician without being ordered to do so by another politician.

      • Dougie

        No, Nicola Sturgeon has not said she initiated the enquiry. Any such claim is flatly contradicted in her published press statement in which she writes “Although I have been aware for some time of the fact of the investigation – initially from Alex Salmond – I have had no role in the process”.

        • MaryPaul

          I thought she said she had agreed to the enquiry as she felt there was a case to answer when told of the claims, but had played no actual part in the procedures.

          • Dougie

            The BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45294504 states that “the complaints were made in January and were investigated through a process she had agreed to”. This is referring to Sturgeon agreeing to the “process” i.e. the new Scottish Government procedures for dealing with harassment claims. It is a challenge to the fairness and legality of these new procedures – which deny the accused person access to almost all information about the complaints, hence any means of mounting a defence – that Salmond is bringing to the Court of Session.

            This is clearer In the interview video in the same BBC article in which she says “Complaints were received in January from two individuals relating to Alex Salmond. Since then they have been under investigation by the Permanent Secretary, under a procedure which was agreed by me in December of last year”. Similar words are also in the written press statement. She can hardly have agreed to an investigation before the complaints were made.

            It may also be added it is widely reported that Salmond was informed of the complaints against him in March. Since Sturgeon explicitly states that it was Salmond who first told her of the Permanent Secretary’s investigation, the investigation had been going on for some two or three months before either Sturgeon or Salmond knew about it.

            Clearly then, Nicola Sturgeon did not initiate the enquiry. Neither, as far as I am aware, has she gone as far as saying there was “a case to answer”. If she had, it would imply a detailed knowledge of the complaints and, crucially, a judgement on their validity. What she has done in her pronouncements is to defend the new procedures that she instigated and agreed to, and in doing so insisting that complaints “could not be ignored or swept under the carpet”.

    • Ken Kenn


      This wouldn’t be a ruse to protect the right kind of terrorists (i.e the ones the US etc fund) in the
      last battle of the Syrian war in Idlib?

      The ones whose exits were negotiated withe The Russians?

      The White Helmets have been re- distributed so I wonder where the Idlib ISIS and so called Rebel Army are destined for?

      In the next business of taking on Iran these proxy troops will come in very handy.

      Saves American lives so it’s all good.

  • Sharp Ears

    This, by Jonathan Cook, could be a follow up to Craig’s exposure of activities at the Israeli Embassy, Shai Masot, etc.

    Three guesses on the identity of the Cameron minister quoted within? Warsi?

    How Many British MPs are Working for Israel?
    By Jonathan Cook
    Al Jazeera are to be congratulated on an undercover investigation exposing something most of us could probably have guessed: that some Israeli embassy staff in the UK – let’s not pussy around, Mossad agents – are working with senior political activists and politicians in the Conservative and Labour parties to subvert their own parties from within, and skew British foreign policy so that it benefits Israeli, rather than British, interests.


    Undated?? The AJ investigation referred to took place in January 2017. I assume the above has the same date.

  • James Chater

    Craig, why do you think the establishment would be trying to stitch up Salmond now?

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      Because support for independence is growing – and Brexit may well be last straw. The UK establishment was utterly freaked by the result of the 1st Scottish referendum – as evidenced by the panic when YES exceeded 50% shortly before the vote. There had hitherto been an insouciant Etonian assumption that NO would win easily.

      The result (which many of us think was tampered with – particularly the postals) produced an overwhelming “Phew!” – followed by a “never again” by whatever means – in the BritNat establishment.

      Those of us living in Scotland are all too well aware of the measures now being taken to subvert the will of the Scottish people (not to be confused by the will of people living in Scotland) – a clear majority of native Scots living in Scotland favour independence.

      Salmond scares the shit out of them. So he will be taken down – by whatever means. Simple

      • Ishmael

        What your saying, true or false, …Well I don’t see the relevance of it to your final sentence.

        & the campaign itself led by such people was weak as anything, & I think this idea it will be some automatic fix for brexit is the same kind of fuzzy nationalist nonsense.

        • Jo

          The campaign for independence certainly wasn’t weak. It was actually very powerful as Clark from this blog will confirm. I accept that YES didn’t win the day but it hasn’t killed the debate.

          The weekend before the vote YES went ahead in the polls which led to senior politicians going into meltdown and rushing out “The Vow” in order to placate people about the need to cling on to the Union. Weak campaigns don’t create that level of panic in the Establishment!

          • Ishmael

            I disagree. As iv said to ROS, over & over iv tried to get what the plan was/is. & It was to keep the pound, just what kind of “indy” is that? Do they take the Scots for fools? And even “full indy” …still totally unclear.

            I don’t mean all the flags & shouting. I mean making the case.

            I think the whole thing is confused, as the post war CONSENSUS was just that, and they think they can somehow do it without now?? It’s fantasy, with “own” currency or not.

          • N_

            I accept that YES didn’t win the day but it hasn’t killed the debate.

            Because defeating someone doesn’t remove the chip from their shoulder.

            I know, because I’ve got a chip on my shoulder, although it’s not of a nationalist or racist kind.

          • ADHD


            You can’t lose on this point!

            If the campaign for independence was weak then the desire for Scottish independence must be very strong.

            However, I think the next independence ballot (actually Union with Eire) will likely be in Northern Ireland. Scotland should wait and see for now, but they should aim to go to the ballot boxes together.

        • Hamish McGlumpha

          I don’t think you understand what I said – and I can’t be bothered explaining it to you.

          Unless you live and vote in Scotland, your views are irrelevant – and like most folks further of Scotland,they are filtered through a biased media, and hence count for nothing.

          The YES campaign was superb – especially at grass roots level and the Radical Independence Movement activity, that mobilised working class and dispossessed Scots in poor areas to see independence, and the destruction of the evil British state, as in their class interests – which is why Labour’s Red Tories were subsequently routed.

          “Fuzzy nationalist nonsense”? Why are only the Scots “nationalist”. Why can’t you see the bourgeois British Nationalist, imperialist state as “nationalist”?

          Most of us seeking independence are NOT nationalist in that atavistic sense. We just see no prospect of a progressive, fair, society being established whilst Scotland remains part of the UK. Scotland leaves – the British state is no more.

          That is so clearly a good thing, that it needs no further explanation.

          • Ishmael

            “Unless you live and vote in Scotland, your views are irrelevant”

            Jeez.. Err ok.

            “and the destruction of the evil British state”

            …The baddies. Well that sure is a view to be taken seriously. ‘cough’

            “Fuzzy nationalist nonsense”? Why are only the Scots “nationalist”. Why can’t you see the bourgeois British Nationalist, imperialist state as “nationalist”?”

            …Did I imply they are not? I see little difference

            “Most of us seeking independence —–(bla bla bla) —- Scotland leaves – the British state is no more”.

            But as i said, this is all idealogical nonsense, & none seem to have the brain capacity to articulate the nuts & bolts. It’s just going to be better because we say so.

            Just saying “clearly a good thing” says nothing. & IMO “needs no explanation” is just why you lost.

            But you go on a play the blame game all you like. Makes no odds to me.

          • Goodwin

            “The YES campaign was superb”. Does that include the threats, intimidation and abuse of those who deigned to have pro-Union views – or was that just a bonus?

          • Ishmael

            Well I agreed with Tariq Ali. The case was weak as to what it would actually look like. Full of contradictions and yes…Nationalist Nonsense.

          • JOML

            Ishmael, you mentioned above “It’s just going to be better because we say so.” I’ve not heard anyone in the independence movement say that. However, I do know that this union is absolutely disaster for Scotland, so the likelihood is that we would be better off, and certainly happier, to be out of it. What’s so good about the union that makes you defend it and readily dismiss those who want to leave it?

          • LJ

            Ishmael, the Better Together case was weak as to what staying in the union would look like.

            And, none of what they said would happen with a No vote HAS happened. Now that really is weak!

            You clearly don’t understand dissolution fo unions very well if you (wrongly) believe that most questions can be answered before the process of the dissolution begins, they cannot be. Most questions can only be answered during the negotiations between the two sides. Intelligent people understand that, it is shown throughout history (read up on Norway if you need one example). The SNP understood this and that is why they asked for pre-negotiations with Westminster, they wanted voters to be given as much information as possible. Westminster knew that having as little information as possible would leave some voters scared to vote Yes so they refused the sensible request to help ensure voters have as much information as possible. So your gripe should factually be with Westminster, NOT the SNP.

            As for currency surely you realise you can have temporary measures. Like Ireland Scotland could have retained the pound for a time, it doesn’t mean it would be forever.

            This is the weird thing about anti-democracy people like you. Countries don’t stay the same, they change. Scotland’s position at the point of dissolution wouldn’t be it’s position in a years’ time never mind in decades to come.

            Sadly some people are too dim to understand that, they have no ability to consider situations different to the status quo. All that ignorance and fear encouraged a No vote among non-Scots in Scotland. The thing with independence is that you can then work to make your country how you want it to be, you can never do that in a fake union. You can open up financial opportunities that Westminster have prevented you having in the past (as they have certain industries).

            With independence you can actually work to make a country a success, that means there is a chance of success. Staying in the union there is no chance of success as all the focus is on SE England. And since Scotland has a wealth of natural resources and great minds (we have always been a country of great scientists and engineers) we have as much chance as any other country in the world of making a success of independence. Only one country in the world has gained independence and had its economy go backwards and that is Madagascar and the reasons for that can’t happen in Scotland due to Scottish Law that has been in place for centuries.

            That anyone honestly believes Scots and Scotland are inferior to EVERY other country in the world is disgusting. But if you vote No that is what you are saying, you are saying that you believe every other nationality of person can make a success of a country except Scots. I would love to see the evidence that my people are inferior, please do provide it.

        • Jo1

          You may disagree. I’m telling you that the campaign was not weak. I’m telling you that we saw a level of engagement that was unprecedented and which involved real people. I’m able to tell you this because I was here in among it and personally experienced it.

          • Ishmael

            & I saw what you consider strength. But the question remains engaged in what? Little different than what Brexit was …

          • N_

            In many areas the YeSNP campaign had about 5 times the visibility of the No campaign and got less votes. It was almost as if everyone with a Yes poster up voted Yes and everyone else voted No. YeSNP was good at getting posters up but crap at winning votes. They simply did not understand how to push their support higher than it was, against the majority who resented being told by manipulative politicians who were leading an army of callow youths and patriotic chauvinists that thinking Scotland would be better inside Britain meant they had the hand of Tory Eton up their bottoms. Most people knew the SNP were a bunch of creeps trying to trick people and didn’t fall for the sales patter to tick here for everlasting sunshine.

            This is also why the SNP’s Brexit scam won’t work. People will realise that if an independent Scotland manages to join the EU while rUK is outside, it will be f***ed. Meditate on the concept “hard border”. You can shout “Project Fear” as loud as you like, as if you’re highly knowledgeable about psychological warfare, but “external EU border” isn’t too hard a concept for people to understand.

            As for the “UK”, fine, let’s talk about the monarchy. The SNP proposed to keep the monarchy. They were proposing a UC – a Union of the Crowns, with certain British bodies still operating in Scotland, such as the BBC.

          • Robert Graham

            Jo1 – Dont waste your time it looks like you are arguing with a paid employee of Scotland in union funded by ? yep who knows where the cash comes from because Ruth has never been asked ,The sidekick “N” are you two a double act ? oh come on boys you can do better than this surely,The both of you are so transparent is starting to become funny .

          • ian r

            I too voted in the referendum and voted yes

            what you say about the SNP utterly missing the need for inner unity …blew the campaign with just this sort of gunghoism and remarks about non scots, as hominem attacks such as anti democratic ..just as here. The SnP Re offerring dependence on Brussels money and saying its better than London money…thats not independence and isnt inspiring

            Refusing to admit this was Pointless and the all inclusive unjustified moral rectitude is why they lost in my opinion.. the parliament in Edinburgh still feels like a toon cooncil most of the time,

      • N_

        Those of us living in Scotland are all too well aware of the measures now being taken to subvert the will of the Scottish people (not to be confused by the will of people living in Scotland) – a clear majority of native Scots living in Scotland favour independence.

        Do you think British people living in Scotland who are not Scottish should be deprived of the vote in another independence referendum? And if so, do you think they should have to be pay tax? Perhaps they should be branded with “E” on the foreheads, for “Etonian”?

        • Hamish McGlumpha

          Dear N-,

          The issue in independence is Self-Determination. In this case ‘SELF’ means someone born in Scotland or identifying as ‘Scots’ – these latter – like Craig – needn’t have been born here – there are many English Scots like Craig living in Scotland. There are also may Asian, Irish, and other European Scots living in Scotland. Unfortunately, we also have those who simply occupy our country.

          Logically, self determination cannot be carried out other than by SELF. Those identifying as OTHER – cannot exercise SELF determination on behalf of Scots. This is a simple matter of logic, and is beyond dispute.

          The problem for Scotland and referenda, is that a very high proportion of the electorate identify as OTHER. In terms of the United Nations definition as “under occupation” by a foreign power – as the recent Supreme Court judgement made clear, Scotland meets all the criteria of that condition.

          Rather than rehearse that argumentt length here, I refer you to a superb essay by Professor Alf Baird, which you can read here.


          The situation in Scotland conforms by all criteria to on of occupation – we are indeed a colony of a foreign power.

          Fortunately, as Prof Baird proposes, we have a parliamentary route (rather than a plebiscite route ) out of our predicament.

          I commend his essay to you.

          • MaryPaul

            My sister in law is Scottish born and bred but does not think Scottish independence within the EU is a practical proposition. Where does she stand in your world view. Is she a traitor?

          • JOML

            MaryPaul, the primary option is whether Scotland should be independent or not. Thereafter, they can decide whether to apply to be in the EU or not, continue to have a relationship with the absurdity that it the Royal family or not, etc. There’s no reason for your sister-in-law to muddle up matters by trying to squeeze two questions into one – they are not linked and the Unionist press deliberately do this to mislead and cause confusion.

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            Mary Paul,

            “My sister in law is Scottish born and bred but does not think Scottish independence within the EU is a practical proposition.”

            Fine, that’s her right. As a Scot she has an absolute right to have a view on Scottish self-determination.

            Her view on independence within EU is not entirely shared by the likes of Prof George Kerevan – a distinguished economist


            – although he would likely agree that we should not go into the Euro – which could prevent EU membership. But he clearly also believes we could go it alone – and so do most of us.

            Nor is her view shared by Prof Richard Murphy, of City University


            To name but two.

            “Where does she stand in your world view. Is she a traitor?”

            Please don’t be facetious.

            As a Scot she has a right to a view – and a say if she still lives in Scotland.

            Our issue is with people who are not Scots – indeed many with antipathy to Scotland – having a say in Scottish ‘self’- determination.

          • N_

            The issue in independence is Self-Determination. In this case ‘SELF’ means someone born in Scotland or identifying as ‘Scots’ – these latter – like Craig – needn’t have been born here – there are many English Scots like Craig living in Scotland. There are also may Asian, Irish, and other European Scots living in Scotland. Unfortunately, we also have those who simply occupy our country.

            Do you have Scottish family or friends who have lived in England, @Hamish? I’ll assume that if you do and they have two Scottish parents then they don’t consider themselves English. How would they feel about getting disenfranchised in the country they live in?

            Logically, self determination cannot be carried out other than by SELF. Those identifying as OTHER – cannot exercise SELF determination on behalf of Scots. This is a simple matter of logic, and is beyond dispute.

            You want what you want. It’s not to do with the definition of words or logic.

            The situation in Scotland conforms by all criteria to on of occupation – we are indeed a colony of a foreign power.

            How about the criterion that a “colony” is governed by settler officials appointed by the said foreign country? And what about the criterion for “occupation” that the country was invaded or at least moved in on by a foreign army which controls the local civil administration?

            It’s noticeable that those SNPers who wish to be viewed as non-rabid welcome support from those who hold such views as yours.

            The truth is that Scottish identity is rammed down the throats of people living in Scotland far more than English identity is in England, and yet you still seem to want more of it.

            You just can’t seem to stop blaming foreigners. Strange, isn’t it, that many successful and ambitious Scots leave the country?

            PS How do your criteria apply to Shetland, where the vast majority of the indigenous population don’t view themselves as Scottish?

          • Hamish McGlumpha


            “How about the criterion that a “colony” is governed by settler officials appointed by the said foreign country? And what about the criterion for “occupation” that the country was invaded or at least moved in on by a foreign army which controls the local civil administration?”

            You should read Alf Baird’s essay – it’s all in there. But of course you didn’t red it. You already know all you need to know.

            “Do you have Scottish family or friends who have lived in England, @Hamish? I’ll assume that if you do and they have two Scottish parents then they don’t consider themselves English. How would they feel about getting disenfranchised in the country they live in?”

            But that’s exactly our position in Scotland. We haven’t voted Tory for nearly 60 years – but Tory Govts are what we get – courtesy of England. Even when we get a Labour Gov – it’s Tory govt (Bliar et al). We get what England votes for – how we vote is irrelevant.

            And when we finally get an Independence referendum – we get a ‘No’ vote courtesy of the million+ rUK incomers who have colonised Scotland (read Alf Baird).

            And the reason so many of our people are forced to go to live in a foreign country (England) is that the UK has so mis-ruled Scotland for so long – they are economic exiles.

            So yes, N we know all about “getting disenfranchised in the the country (we) live in” – our own country, Scotland.

            The British Empire started with Ireland and Scotland (Wales was incorporated 1000 years ago and is lost).

            Ireland is nearly free (the 6 counties will follow Scotland out of the UK -whether the planters like it or not).

            And little Brexit England can grovel and cap-tip under Old Etonians and with its Imperialist fantasies in tact, in splendid isolation. It will then confront the reality of its position. It has lived on the backs of others – let’s see how it fares under WTO rules.

        • LJ

          He never said any of that, you’re trying to put words in his mouth.

          His point stands. If you are actually Scottish and were raised in Scotland (especially if your parents and grandparents were also raised in Scotland) you saw and heard stuff that only some people that moved to Scotland will have heard and seen. You had not only your personal experience of how Westminster have damaged your country but also that of your parents, grandparents, even great-grandparents etc. That is a benefit when it comes to understanding your country.

          For people born and raised in England with British (i.e. English) view of Scotland’s history it is hard to shake those lies even when they do move to Scotland. Of course some people manage it, but not all do, some move to Scotland and vote as if they still live in SE England. It’s impossible to get through to some of them that now they live in Scotland they are as unimportant to Westminster as Scots are, but that is a sad fact.

          You shouldn’t underestimate the amount of brainwashing that occurs through the media and education system and how it affects young mind. The thing is for my generation growing up in Scotland we had the same brainwashing from the media and education system (we were taught a very British and false view of Scotland’s history too) but you were also living in Scotland with generation after generation of Scots who had lived through it to correct the lies.

          • N_

            For people born and raised in England with British (i.e. English) view of Scotland’s history it is hard to shake those lies even when they do move to Scotland.

            “British” does not mean “English”, and it is an insult to many Scots to say so.

            Most people born and raised in England hardly have any view of Scotland’s history. They may know about (the Norman-descended) Robert the Bruce and the spider in the cave, Mary Queen of Scots being kept prisoner and having her head chopped off at the Tower of London, and James VI of Scotland becoming James I of England, and that’s about it.

          • LJ

            I did not equate British with English, I equated the British view of Scotland’s history with the English view of Scotland’s history because that’s what it is, it was written by English people.

            And I agree few growing up in England know about Scotland’s history, yet many there perpetuate the myth that England funds Scotland which could be seen as something they have learned in history lessons (they are taught lies about the money paid to Scotland at the time of the union, it wasn’t a bail out in any way, shape or form).

        • Jo1

          They’re going for Nicola Sturgeon too in different ways Claire. She’s now under pressure from the media to suspend Salmond from the Party.
          Before that they were saying splits were developing in the Party and if NS didn’t call Indyref2 she’d be toast!

  • Ishmael

    August 25, 2018 at 01:08

    Yea. I see what your saying, but maybe both things are true. But being of the left (& I don’t mean the democrats) & following people with a modicum of inteligence the critique was always there. Even expressed by people like Matt Damon. Many get the game is fixed.

    I don’t think many ordinary people did respect him because they are the ones really feeling it. That respect was more among some for his style, not content.

    • Cesca

      Nothing left about the Dems, or post-Foot Labour for that matter, ‘cept for the John Smith brief leadership, til JC took over Ishmael. JC is a reformer but he’s a pretty mild Social Democrat, nowhere nr far left.

      Could have been clearer myself about Obama, i was hopeful about him on his 1st campaign, seriously believable dude but it quickly became obvious he was the Power Elite’s choice, they’d won again. And yes, i did mean the respect other Govts had for him, not ordinary ppl, a lot of Americans still think he rocked tho. Jesus, we even had John Kerry admitting the admin was funding Isis, they were droning the Yemenis for the Saudis etc, they did what their bosses told them to.

      • Ishmael

        Agree. All the panic about JC is absurd.

        & yea, he was/would have been my clear choice. Guess at least good that a hurdle was overcome, symbolically & least. Dark skinned. ..& intelligent.

        • Cesca

          Call me naive Ishmael but i still feel there is real goodness in Obama, that he wanted to be the sort of President he promised in his 1st campaign but was corrupted. He showed such love and feeling in some of this eulogy for Senator Clementa Pinckney, i’ve retained a li’l faith in him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9IGyidtfGI

    • LJ

      Actually Salmond was respected for his content not his style, a lot of people dislike his style but like what he says.

      After all, he actually has worked at a high level in some of the industries that are important to Scotland so knows those industries better than many that oppose his views on them. Also he is a highly intelligent man whether you like him or not. People should not be stupid enough to mix up their personal view of a person with that person’s message.

  • Michael Cassidy

    I think this letter should be printed on the front page of the National newspaper as it will go a long way in explaining the situation to the general public, and it is just another assault on our democracy by trying to destroy one of our most respected politicians of our time .

    M Cassidy

    • N_

      You mean that monarchist who used to be the chief oil economist at MI6’s favourite bank?

      Monarchist banker becomes monarchist politician draped in the national flag. Lovely.

      That guy who couldn’t unite the top group in his party, had to resign, went to London, then got asked back because nobody else was well known enough or could do the smarm?

      What I do give him credit for is opposing the Iraq war and calling for the impeachment of Tony Blair.

  • MaryPaul

    Clearly the activities of Harvey Weinstein and his ilk are totally unacceptable. But what constitutes sexual harrassment? The MeToo movement seems to have generated a lot of complaints about things an adult woman should be able to shrug off while putting the man in his place. Sadly, as commented earlier here, some sisters seem determined to join in by casting themselves as victims.

    I understand the need to stand up against sexual harrassment but surely it should be about empowering women to be strong not turning all women into victims and poisoning day to day interchanges between the sexes. A mildly salacious remark by a work colleague is not the same as a starlet locked in his hotel room being propositioned by a partly dressed Harvey Weinstein. Not to me anyway. It seems to some women it is, which as an old style feminist I find depressing. Feminism to me is being empowered as a strong woman.

    We should not confuse what can happen in specialist sectors like the entertainment sector in the USA with mainstream jobs where there are formal interview procedures. I worked for many years in a male dominated sector of industry, and had my share of looks when younger , but I was never once asked for sexual favours or sexualky propositioned to get a job.

    Of course if Alex Salmond is guilty of clear sexual harrassment, he would be accountable for it. But it must be by a fair process. The problem we face in today’s febrile environment is that everything and anything goes to underlie such a claim and sexual harassment seems to exist in the ear of the listener.

    • Andyoldlabour

      I think what Weinstein did was pretty terrible, but was it typical of what went on in Hollywood – the “casting couch”, and was it accepted by many women at the time as the way to stardom? If it was, and they wittingly and willingly took part in this behaviour, then that would indicate it was consensual.
      Back in the mid seventies when I started work, I remember my first office Christmas party, where I was grabbed and groped by several inebriated, pretty young women and one older woman. I didn’t exactly fight them off though, because I enjoyed it at the time. I used to watch a programme at the time called “Mork and Mindy” with Robin Williams as the main actor. There have been recent revalations about his behaviour on set with his co actor Pam Dawber, but far from complain and try to sully his name, she states that it was part of his character and that she enjoyed every minute of it.


      How many other incidents where people were happy at the time, have now resulted in “hindsight behaviour” cases, where people are forcing themselves to rethink situations in order to reach a different conclusion?

      • lysias

        When the media, starting with the New Yorker, went after Weinstein after decades of silence about such behavior from Weinstein and countless others, I immediately suspected it was part of their Trump Derangement Syndrome, that they saw it as a possible way to bring Trump down.

    • LJ

      I agree in part, but actually the debate is encouraging people to think about what is acceptable (men and women) and that is good.

      What it comes down to is that we do still live in a world where men treat women differently to other men. That’s fine if you’re in a romantic relationship but if there is no romance between you then there should be no treatment different to that of how they would treat the other gender.

      For example, I was seriously sexually harassed recently by a boss and left my job because of it. However, it got people talking about how even when he isn’t necessarily sexually harassing other female employees the boss DOES treat them very differently to the men. For instance he often puts his hand on a woman’s shoulder to get their attention or when saying something nice to them. That is fine you might think, it’s not sexual harassment. However, the fact that he DOESN’T ever do it to any of the men does suggest something is up. Either he is patronising them, he gets some enjoyment just from touching a young, pretty female, or he is trying to subconsciously flirt with them. He always talks to a women’s chest (not just glances at, actually talks TO the chest area). Again this could be a nervous not looking in the eyes thing, but with men he DOES look them in the eyes so actually while talking to a female employee he is thinking about their breasts. ALL of those acts suggest he is seeing them as females rather than as employees equal to the men, and that is very, very wrong and a clear sign that he is not capable of being a boss. Because any indication that he views females differently to men means that one of those genders will also be being favoured by him in terms of career progression (indeed that man has found dodgy ways to justify holding back women in their careers).

      So while we should be very careful about what does and doesn’t justify harassment, in terms of the workplace we need to develop a clear stance that in most jobs there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to physically touch any employee in any way and so there should be no touching. Nor should eyes be spending time focusing on women’s chests. There should be no terms of endearment either, we all have names, use them.

      Sadly this is actually what it will take to get through to some men that women are actually equal, because if there’s one thing the MeToo debate really has highlighted it’s that a lot of men who claim women are truly equal do not actually believe it and still subconsciously see women as even just slightly less than men, especially in the workplace.

      If a boss treats one gender in any way (no matter how small) different to the other then there is an issue that needs to be addressed as their underlying opinion of the genders is wrong.

      • MaryPaul

        LJ : Your experience of the workplace has been different from mine. I have never been sexually harassed by any of my bosses, not in ways I would interpret as that. Yes one of my recent bosses did put his hand on my shoulder, but he did that to male colleagues as well. He was that sort of guy. No one talked to my chest but then I am quite petite and have other better features.Sone men also even now, just feel more comfortable interacting with other men at work.

        I am happy to work with either sex although my career has been as a woman leading male teams in a male donated sector. I still enjoyed male and female differences without being a girly girl or feeling this affected our working relationship. I enjoy looking at a handsome man at any time. I think in a civilied workplace men and women can enjoy their differences without being sexually compromised. I remember going to a supplier meeting with a male member of my team and being very struck by the supplier’s representative . As I remarked to my team member afterwards. Neither of us found anything off in this remark.

        I am sorry your personal experiences have been bad. I am not saying I have never been propositioned or had salacious remarks made in a work context, but nothing I could not handle. But I have always had a highly developed sense of humour and my ability to see the ridiculous side of things has often carried me through awkward situations.

        One one occasion I was complaining at a meeting that I had travelled there in a colleague’s car in which the heating was broken down and it was so cold ( it was winter) that we had to share the blanket he kept in the boot. We all found this hilarious.

        I hope you have better experiences at your work in future.

        • LJ

          Hi Mary,

          Thanks for that. I have worked in the shipping industry in a team as the only female among 16 men (Russian, Indian and lots of other cultures). I was also around the music industry for years as well as most of my friends being male (cause I love football and cars), studied Maths when there were few women in the year and am now again working in a male-dominated field. So don’t get me wrong I can very much hold my own. No issue with rude jokes, the odd comment etc. The problem with this fellow was that he actually had sway over my career and was intentionally holding me back because I’m female. In no way was he holding any of the men back, but he was mildly holding back other females too. So it wasn’t the acts themselves, rather that the acts were indicative of the fact that he considered women inferior. He was promoting men over more qualified and experienced women. Hence I had no option but to report him.

          I have no issue with a man who puts a hand on a shoulder of women if he ALSO does it with men (although ideally no-one should do this as some people genuinely don’t like being touched even in that way) but this man only did it with the women, so again it was indicative of a problematic attitude. On office days out he was always a bit too keen for it to involve swimming but only asked the young women if they were bringing their swimming costumes. Basically he is a classic perv and shouldn’t be in any position of power until he learns that all humans are equal.

          As it turns out he’s proven to be a complete narcissist on top of all that (think the way Trump behaves and talks, and sadly I’m not joking!!!!!) When I reported him he actually asked for a formal investigation to “prove she’s lying”, needless to say I wasn’t and others had witnessed stuff. What a numptie he is.

          Sadly these men do exist, hopefully they are a dying breed 🙂

        • LJ

          Oh, nearly forgot, when I was actually sexually assaulted on a business trip by a colleague from another country I told my boss about it immediately and his actual comment was one of being jealous that I had been “hit on” when no-one was hitting on him, oh but he “used to always get hit on at these kinds of things”! I guess you’re getting an idea of how dumb this guy is now 😀

          I don’t see secretly following someone into the women’s toilets in a hotel late at night (knowing there is probably only me in there) then grabbing me and kissing me when I come out of the cubicle as being “hit on”. All I was thinking was “This guy is strong is he going to try and rape me? I need to get out of here somehow.” And I did get out of there using brains rather than muscle but my boss’s reaction was incredibly unprofessional.

      • Jo1

        In my time I worked with female bosses who behaved just like the men you describe. Also the worst bullies I encountered in the workplace were all female.
        The other thing I have a real issue with is when claims of harassment emerge years later. I’m sorry but my position on allegations like that would be to tell the person bringing the allegations that it’s too darn late, that they should have raised it at the time and that it simply isn’t possible to investigate so many years later.
        It is simply too easy for women to make claims like this. It really is. There was uproar in the last couple of years when a police official reassured victims that, “You will be believed.” That’s ludicrous. Someone could be lying. It happens.
        Cases like the one Salmond is facing give us a clear example of a man up against allegations from two women from five years ago! One of the women said it happened when she was alone with him. So how do we address that? She’s not identified, he is and his reputation takes the hit immediately! I just think I’d be asking her why she waited five years! I think cases like this should be thrown out.
        If we want a code and a process to work we need to also make it clear that people cannot wait a number of years before making a complaint.

        • LJ

          Totally agree with you on all the points. And yes, women can be just as bad, it’s just that men are an easier target for allegations.

  • Mark

    Why Salmond? On the face of it he’s hardly an obvious threat to anyone.

    But look again. He’s an articulate outsider, who has the +potential+ to disrupt elite plans. And they never forgave him for joining RT.

    Even if these charges are dropped, there will be plenty of people who will say “there’s no smoke without fire”. And the legacy media will be able to say: “Alex Salmond, who was accused of sexual misconduct X years ago…”

    You can see the same techniques being used against Trump and Corbyn.

    Whatever you may think of their policies – I don’t like them – again these men are +outsiders+ who have the +potential+ to disrupt the elite narrative. They are wasting their time trying to fight the detailed allegations: if these are disproved, more will appear in due course.

    • Andyoldlabour

      ” And they never forgave him for joining RT.”

      I think it is exactly that Mark, and they will do it to other people who appear on RT – Galloway, Opik, Pilger, Fisk, they will try to rubbish and destroy them in public, because they represent an alternative viewpoint – one which is unacceptable to the Western MSM.

    • Jo1

      “They are wasting their time trying to fight the allegations…”
      I disagree. Salmond will relish the fight. He intends to take them on. And he’s just the very man to do it.

      • Jo1

        My late mother had a saying. “You only get one character to last you a lifetime. Never allow anyone to take it from you.”

      • Mark

        I refer here to Trump and Corbyn, not Salmond.

        He will be able to refute these charges eventually, if they are false, but he will be damaged. Just think about how much of his time will now be wasted, whatever happens.

        In the case of the Russia and AS charges that Trump and Corbyn respectively face, these are obvious nonsense, but they are concocted by people who know exactly what they are doing.

    • N_

      Salmond is no threat to anyone, agreed. The SNP has no leader who doesn’t disgust the majority of the population and Sturgeon too makes a lot of people want to slap her. The position may be similar to in the 1970s when MI5 undermined both Labour and the Liberal party – although at that time it built up the SNP to take votes from Labour. My feeling is there is likely to be a general election within a year. If anyone disagrees, please can say what they kind of settlement in Ireland will keep the DUP propping up this minority government. The Tories are aiming for a landslide, perhaps after a populist recomposition of their ideology.

      • LJ

        Only people with irrational hatred want to slap Sturgeon.

        I mean seriously, what nasty individual would want to slap an intelligent, compassionate leader? Maybe some men who are (deep down) still sexist and don’t like there being a woman at the top.

        No-one I know that has met or knows Sturgeon considers her anything other than a good person though, even those who disagree with her politics.

        But then irrational hate is the way of many unionists. They hate people they don’t even know. Thankfully lots of people hate them for destroying Scotland.

        • N_

          My Gaelic-speaking neighbour who is in her 80s and voted Leave says that every time she sees Sturgeon on the television she wants to slap her.

          Imagine an SNPer talking about irrational hatred. That’s what the party runs on.

          • LJ

            😀 What nonsense. The party is nothing to do with hatred, anyone with a brain knows that, it’s about Scotland having what every other country takes for granted! That anyone would deny democracy to Scotland is really scummy. It’s a shame you’re so uneducated. What has your neighbour speaking Gaelic got to do with anything? Weird bit of information to give.

            Take your hatred elsewhere mate, it isn’t wanted here.

  • Observer

    Trump desperately needs to score a winner at this time.

    Could this be the moment where with the help of best friends Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan that the US could finally produce a solution for Palestine?

    The Chinese are playing it smart, as usual. They have stated no further trade talks until after the November elections, so that means N Korea is on hold.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      Disagree. Think it makes a pre-empyitive strike to denuclearize North Korea now in the works, starting with stopping Pompeo from going there to negotiate the process,

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Posters interested in Britain’s covert state should read Part 1 of Secret Bases on John Youmg’s cryptome.org. especially the bit about Alex Younger having provided too much personal information on his internet site that fake news had to be added to when he was MI6’s Durector, and given a new identity, Alex Allan, for the security foul-up. Makes him sound more like another of George Younger’s offspring.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      The comments to Part 2 just shows what one is up against when one tries to educate the ignorant Anglo-American public – e.g.complaints to provide other links for these highest secret ones, identity photos, why not spend your time identifying Chiniese, Russian and Iranian secret bases,some of the basses no longer are active or do not do what is claimed, do not deal with texts provided, etc., ad nauseam.

      Just let the public rot!

  • MaryPaul

    Wow just seen the allegations against Salmond in today’s papers. Await developments with interest

    • Jo1

      More evidence that the media is being fed details from a source inside the investigation.

      • Robert Graham

        Agreed and the BBC are updating it on the hour , very disappointed with Nicolas reply to the question of Alex Salmond’s continuing membership of the party when there actually has been no trial or verdict , Guilty until proven innocent was what i gathered from her statement, Shades of Michelle Thomson being thrown to the wolves and distanced by the SNP , most SNP members i am sure will support Alex Salmond why are the leadership keeping quiet , Does loyalty and friendship not count anymore , what about Alex’s family are they not allowed any support by the Party he once headed , this leaves a very sour taste in the mouth .

        • Jo1

          It’s a difficult one for Sturgeon, Robert. She said yesterday suspension wasn’t required because he isn’t subject to a Party investigation. He’s also not even a serving politician.
          Her problem is she backed this new process at Holyrood despite it failing to protect both parties in a complaint situation. In the ordinary Civil Service such claims are dealt with behind the scenes and no one, including witnesses, can speak about them. In Salmond’s case the woman leading the investigation made her conclusions public but also launched a public attack on Salmond when he tried to delay her announcement because he had been denied full details of the case against him. That this senior Civil Servant called a legitimate legal move an attempt to “gag” her is evidence of her own hostility towards him and her failure to remain professional or impartial.

  • Sharp Ears

    Couldn’t believe that the tub of lard Brian Taylor is still at BBC Scotland and was deputed to talk to Salmond.

    He gets a couple of mentions here from Craig. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/euro-values/

    No info on Taylor’s salary. He is classed as Political Editor BBC Scotland. The BBC Scotland website is both precious and mealy-mouthed.
    ‘How can I become a presenter?
    Many people wish to become television presenters and unfortunately there is no straightforward advice available. Most (although not all) of our television presenters have had previous experience in radio or in journalism, either at local or national level. Others now appearing on national television have started in regional television or working for one of the independent television companies. Many do not start out as presenters, but in other jobs for the company concerned before moving into presentation.

    Presentation is a very difficult field to break into but it might be worth making some enquiries about job opportunities with local radio stations in your area. There is no particular journal which gives details of auditions for new presenters, but if any of the television companies are looking for a fresh face in connection with a particular programme it is often given some publicity in the press.

    How do I apply for a job within BBC Scotland?
    All BBC vacancies are advertised on the BBC Jobs website.’


    I am sure it’s a ‘very difficult field to break into’ Have to rugby tackle Taylor first and that needs a bulldozer!

    This is McQuarrie’s Annual Review 2015/6. One for 2016/7 does not appear to be available but as it’s only late August, 2018, no problem.

    This is the BBC Annual Report and Accounts 2016/7. See the salaries for the Board directors, in £thousands remember – page 75/208

    It’s a strangely titled URL having Wales within. Is that so it will be difficult to find?

    James Purnell (ex BLiar cabinet) and James Harding (ex Murdoch) are there. Featured in:

    • Jo1

      I think it’s safe to say that no woman who looked remotely like Brian Taylor would be allowed anywhere near BBC Scotland! A desk job, maybe, but in front of a camera? Never!

      • JOML

        Jo1, do think that looks should determine whether someone is suitable to be in front of the cameras? SE mentions a “tub of lard” but would they use the same terminology to describe a female? Disappointing.

  • Sharp Ears

    Leo Varadkar did not hold back when speaking at Dublin Castle just now, welcoming the Pope.

    Wounds are still open & there is much to be done to bring about justice &truth &healing for victims & survivors. Today I asked the Pope to use his office & influence to ensure this is done here in Ireland and across the World. Above all, I asked him to listen to victims. pic.twitter.com/YnnITpL…
    10 mins ago · Twitter

    Varadkar has an Indian father, also a doctor like himself, and an Irish mother. He was raised as a Catholic.

    The BBC were unable to provide a translator for the Pope’s speech in Italian until several minutes in. Sky News did manage it though!

    • Jo1

      The BBC claimed a translator would be in place quite a few minutes before Francis spoke. In the end, they really screwed up.
      Varadkar’s speech was measured. I heard all of it. He began by acknowledging the positive work being done throughout the world by the Catholic Church, including in Ireland. He moved on to other issues later. I think it was very balanced.

  • Republicofscotland

    Meanwhile Rees-Mogg’s equally deluded Brexiteer in arms thinks:

    “Nigel Farage has claimed that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, “would like the IRA to become active again”.

    “The former Ukip leader also accuses the former French foreign minister of “almost encouraging Republican terrorism”

    Alas the rest is paywalled/or you can register, to read it, but I’m sure you get the jist.


    • N_

      The full article is here.

      I doubt the sequence of events will run 1) Theresa May’s government asks to extend the two-year A50 period, followed by 2) the far right mobilises on the streets. But what with the saturation coverage of stabbings and shootings, and the cacophony of racist and xenophobic dogwhistles (Windrush, postboxes, and why not a touch of the tarbrush, towelheads, and caught too much of the sun?), it’s possible.

      More likely I think is a referendum and election, both won by the far right (Anna Soubry need not apply), but in what order? The Sweden Democrats have been topping the polls with YouGov. (Election 9 September.)

  • TonyF12

    Jonathan Cook writes well on Israel’s interference in UK politics
    For all the hype about Russian interference in UK and US politics, it hardly registers a twitch on the Richter Scale in comparison with Israel’s.

    Israel’s efforts to gain unconditional universal immunity from criticism by branding any and all criticism as anti-semitic is ridiculous, and transparently so. The world watches the injustices imposed on Palestinians, Druze and other non-Jews in Israel, but many in the US and UK seem to ignore the blatantly obvious parallels to Apartheid, and to ethnic cleansing. I suppose it is a convenient diversion not only away from acknowledging Israel’s Apartheid, but from US and UK murderous involvement in the Yemen War.

  • Ishmael

    August 25, 2018 at 13:36
    “What’s so good about the union that makes you defend it and readily dismiss those who want to leave it?”

    A real misrepresentation of my position. I’m not a “unionist” and I don’t defend it. I think we need serious reform that encompasses all local ares, including Europe.

    I guess the same could be asked on the Scottish position on the EU.

    & I don’t just dismiss it. I question it & nobody as of yet has given me a good response.

    • Ishmael

      My own focus is bringing about “Anarchist Communism”. So please don’t call me a unionist. I don’t care for managerial capitalist states of any form, though at least labour under JC entertains the notion of worker control, it’s not state “movements” that interest me at all really. Least of all those who wish to placate & ameliorate the relation between employer and workers.

      • PhilM

        So you’re going to waste your life completely then?
        Anarchist Communism must be one of the most stupid ideologies that ever existed.
        I’d quite like to do what I want when I want…are we all agreed? Silence.
        Meeting breaks up 10 hours later…everyone hates each other but the co-op’s Bakunin nettle soup was a success.
        I hope you realise that there is no way that any Corbyn govt. will be anything other than a govt. of a managerial capitalist state.

        • Ishmael

          “one of the most stupid ideologies that ever existed”

          I disagree, & being as the current effective slave or die system is destroying the possibility for human existence. It’s as stupid as generally offensive & inhuman way to organise society.

          The current system can only exist on GUARANTEED destruction of our environment. If you think that sensible (and iv heard no other ACTUAL alternative) your on another planet. And that’s just what it needs, several in-fact for 3% compound growth etc.

          Perhaps you have another to move to?

      • N_

        My own focus is bringing about “Anarchist Communism”.

        I didn’t know. ? ? ?

        Like me, then, as an anti-monarchist you will dislike being told you’re pro-UK 🙂

        • Ishmael

          Yea, King & queens, it’s all rather odd.

          “Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government”.

        • JOML

          N_, you dislike being told your pro-UK? That’s surprising, given you appear to be very against Scotland leaving the union.

  • Sarge

    “The Scotsman newspaper reports that Salmond asked this woman to get into bed with him before lying on top of her, kissing her and touching her bottom and breasts through her clothes.”

    Any suggestion as to how he can disprove this allegation if it’s just his word against hers?

    • MaryPaul

      Well I have to ask what was she doing in his bedroom? I am not trying to take sides but would want to know how she got onto that situation?

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Mary Paul,

        The second question is, “Did she like it?”, and if not, why is she complaining about it now, rather than when it supposedly happenned 5 years ago.

        • LJ

          Yep, we need a statute of limitations to prevent people being used to make vexatious complaints for political gain when the time suits. Especially as it will be impossible to prove or disprove (which is obviously the point of the complaint and naming him!) In a situation like this where the complainant has apparently had no issue for 5 years the complainant should be named IF the accused is being named.

          I wouldn’t have a statute of limitations for serious complaints like rape as that can traumatise and lead people unable to come forward for some time, but I fail to see how the complaint referred to in this story would have left someone too traumatised to come forward.

          • Kempe

            Right; and deny justice to hundreds, possibly thousands, of child victims intimidated into silence just because you think malicious allegations have been made against one of your favourite politicians. In accordance with British law the complainant will not be (legally) named as in all cases involving sexual abuse or rape.

            Any form of sexual abuse can traumatise.

          • N_

            @LJ – What are you proposing that a law might prevent? If someone can’t be charged with something, that doesn’t stop someone accusing them of having done it. Or do you propose that nobody can issue or publish an accusation that an assault occurred more than x years ago? So charge the accuser and then lock them up without consideration of the truth or otherwise of their allegation?

            I have no idea whether Alex Salmond is innocent or guilty, but a victim of what would widely be regarded as a less serious attack than rape when committed by a person who is in such a position can be terrified into silence, and many have been. Welcome to politics.

          • LJ

            Kempe, why do you assume he’s one of my ‘favourite politicians’? Can I suggest you learn critical reasoning before reading comments from strangers.

            Also, what has this to do with child victims? The allegations here are not from children, nor are they of assault, rather sexual harassment.

            Like a lot of people you fail to bother to read and understand, instead attaching your own irrational thoughts to the words of a stranger.

            Please don’t comment on any of my comments until you have bothered to read them factually. Thank you.

          • LJ

            N_ and while it is a sad fact that people can be intimidated it does not change the fact that the onus is on the alleged victim to report it. And I have been a ‘victim’ of such crimes and I did report it despite intimidation.

            Statues of limitations can be removed in cases where intimidation can be proven so if we have a proper SoL system we have nothing to worry about in that regard. Also, as I stated, the claims are harassment not assault.

            I do believe no-one should ‘publish’ an accusation though. Alleged perpetrators deserve as much protection as alleged victims, their lives can be ruined after all.

            I say that as someone who had a friend falsely accused of rape. The girl even eventually admitted to the police the she had lied but that didn’t change the fact that my friend’s life was destroyed. Now false accusations are in the minority thankfully, but they are not in the minority when it comes to the dodgy world of politics sadly.

            For me it’s not about whether I like a person or not, I believe strongly that no alleged perpetrator should be named without either numerous accusations from completely unrelated people (as was the case with Savile) or without strong evidence that the crime took place. With our current laws ALL men are sitting ducks for false accusations and that is wrong. Few men are actually out there attacking women, it IS a minority of men, most are decent human beings. I now advise all male friends never to be alone in a room with any female that they do not know and trust implicitly. Any man who does that is now putting himself at risk of a false accusation. It shouldn’t be like that but it is because we have trial by media where the accused are (wrongfully) named from the outset.

            Maybe if it happens to you one day you will feel differently about it.

          • LJ

            Indeed Jo1,

            It’s interesting seeing the anti-independence people on here desperately trying to drop other, far more serious, crimes into the conversation obviously in the knowledge that it’s easy to start such rumours. They should be ashamed of themselves. I’m glad to be someone who truly believes in innocent until proven guilty, I have no time for the idiot masses that do the trial by media nonsense and get sucked into the pathetic rumours. Such people are to blame for the many men that have committed suicide over false allegations, their blood is on the hands of all the people on here assuming guilt or trying to spread even worse rumours. I would like to be vengeful enough to hope that some day someone falsely accuses them of a terrible crime and it ruins their lives, but having seen what it did to a friend I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

      • Andyoldlabour

        He had obviously forgotten to get her to sign the “pre intimate relations” contract prior to all the grabbing and groping.
        I wonder if it is too late for me to pursue allegations of sexual abuse towards myself 40 years ago? Mind you, I would have to tell some real porkies to prove that I wasn’t having a whale of a time.
        The original Assange case in Sweden was an attempted sting to try to get him sat on a rendition flight to the USA.

    • LJ

      Which is assault not harassment. Given that the official statement only mentions harassment I would seriously doubt the validity of this story.

    • Jo1

      My goodness the leaks from this confidential investigation are fair flowing! I wonder who is Chief in Control of Leaks.

  • nevermind

    Yawn another knowing Salmond to the slaughter, distraction from the issue of Independence, which should now be revving up as we are tumbling towards the wrecksit sinkhole. As for the left not highlighting the Idf excesses and pre_disposed racismn towards Palestinians who have their land stolen and their olive groves torn up and burned.

    Shame on you zionist Haderlumps, may you burn in the hell you have created for yourself.

  • J Galt

    So Nicola Sturgeon is maneuvered by the civil service into agreeing a complaints investigation procedure in December and up pop two complainants in January.

    What a coincidence.

    • Squeeth

      At least Salmond has the sense to make himself a moving target rather than a sitting duck.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    The weird thing about this post which on first sight looks like it has been written by a madman, is that much of the content is true, but it is not the current Russian Government responsible for this lunacy, but the Trotskyites, rebranded neocons, many of who’s origins are Russian. Some of the comments are better than the article.

    How anyone could take the contents of this seriously, would be beyond me, except I am currently reading a book “Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control” by Kathleen Taylor. Maybe I should read Mein Kampf too.

    I am beginning to agree with Caitlin Johnstone “Society Is Made Of Narrative. Realizing This Is Awakening From The Matrix.”

    “CIA’s Kremlin Spies Suddenly Go Dark”



  • Peter Adams

    ” What I do not understand is why they see Trump as a threat to Establishment interests, as he has given no indication he means to follow through on any of his anti-establishment or non-interventionist campaign rhetoric. The Establishment are not those who should feel threatened by Trump.”

    Amen to that. Trump is not a threat to the Establishment. That’s a ruse to keep the Qanon crowd believing their hero will lock up the paedos. And the mainstream attacks on Trump from MSNBC and CNN are equally fake. If they really wanted to ruin Trump they would dig around into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They would also ask why Henry Kissinger has met with Putin two dozens times over the years. Seeing as anyone who speaks to Russia is some kind of “traitor”

    Now I wonder why they don’t do that ?

  • Rick Fearn

    I’ve often wondered why positions of power corrupt so many. Yet some have an inner compass with integrity. Is this due to parenting?

    Thank you Craig for you wisdom and inner compass.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      Don’t see how anyone can be said to be following a moral compass, even me, when we only have shadows, like Socrates and Plato, about what is really going on in today’s world. I still regret having voted for Hillary over tTrump in the presidential election, though I would still vote for her if I had to do it agiain, though I am hopingl to seeing that Craig’s biggest employer, Mad Maggie, got rid of poor Willie, the guy who most reminds me of Salmond’s problems.

  • Nick

    We all know about fake news. It’s an established meme. I wonder if fake justice will become equally mainstream

  • Sharp Ears

    How does a French Rugby League team, based in Perpignan in France, have the name Catalans Dragons?

    They won the Rugby League Challenge Cup today playing Warrington Wolves 20 -14.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    See that I apparently got The Guardian through my posts on the internet to post an article about John Lennon’s assassin, Mark David Chapman, being denied parol for the 10th time. The Board told him to wait another two years before trying again, it seems, successfully. It is hoping that John Hinckley, Jr, who almost killed Reagan and others is again locked up during the same time so that he cannot kill others connected to Pappy Bush,, like he apparently did recently to that cardiologist in Houston.

    America’s nut house continues to function, and the internet can be used to rebut fake news.

  • Sharp Ears

    Interesting and informative graphics within.

    The annual assault of antisemitism [PART 1]
    What role has the press played in Labour’s seasonal saga?

    On 12th August 2015, The Jewish Chronicle ran a front page editorial alleging of Jeremy Corbyn that, “there is overwhelming evidence of his association with, support for — and even in one case, alleged funding of — Holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites.”¹

    The following day an article in The Guardian ran with the headline, “Jewish Chronicle accuses Corbyn of associating with Holocaust deniers.”² It was the first story ever to be published in a UK national newspaper with the words ‘Corbyn’ and ‘antisemitism’ in the same sentence.

    The voting process of the Labour leadership election began a day later, on 14th August 2015, and since then a further 1,426 such articles have been published. This number climbs to 2,087 for those with ‘Labour’ and ‘antisemitism’ in the same sentence.³


    I don’t know how he withstands it day on day.

    • ADHD

      Yes, there is a huge psychological attack (on Corbyn) aspect of all this.

      The truth is I couldn’t stand it and very few others could either.

      The only thing that might make a difference is that Corbyn has over 40 years experience of being attacked, unsupported and being defeated on practically everything he ever campaigned on and just getting up the next day and carrying on. Possible, if you were used to winning and expected to win and for everyone to love you then you would be much more vulnerable.

      Maybe if the secret state sabotaged Corbyn’s allotment they might have more success. I can see that Corbyn might be a bit upset if his tomato crop failed.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.