The Boy I Love is [Not] in the Gallery – The Alex Salmond Trial Day 4 380


I am reporting today on the Salmond trial over 24 hours delayed. As I am not permitted media access and the public is excluded from the gallery during accusers’ evidence, I need to gather information in order to be able to give a different perspective from the mainstream media. It is very hard to do that in real time.

But when done, it is very interesting indeed. Yesterday, all of the mainstream media portrayed Salmond’s defence, and his defence counsel Gordon Jackson QC, as an appeal to the social attitudes of the 1960’s. This from the BBC is how the episode of an alleged slap on the buttocks of Ms G in a restaurant is universally described in the media:

When it was suggested by Mr Jackson that the smack had been “playful”, the witness said she had considered it to be “extremely inappropriate”.

But this is a quite deliberate misrepresentation – which is peculiarly universal in the BBC, Guardian, the Scotsman, the Times, the Sun and anywhere you care to look. Gordon Jackson was not suggesting an alleged unwanted slap on the buttocks was “playful” in mitigation. Doubtless as intended, the reporting has brought down a social media storm from feminists of all genders accusing Gordon Jackson of ancient chauvinist attitudes and Alex Salmond of appalling abuse.

Those criticisms of Salmond and Jackson would be quite justified if the mainstream media reports of what was said were true.

But in fact it is a completely false distortion of what was said. This is the truth.

It was the woman – Woman G herself – who had described the alleged slap on the buttocks as “playful” in her initial statement to police. Playful was Ms G’s own choice of word. Gordon Jackson was putting her own word to her, and querying how an alleged event which she had initially described as “playful” had now morphed into a serious criminal offence.

It makes rather a difference when you realise that “Playful” was Ms G’s word, not Gordon Jackson’s word, nor Alex Salmond’s word, does it not? Yet you would never know that from all of yesterday’s media reports. That is because the media is very deliberately attempting to frame this story, and frame Alex Salmond’s guilt, in the public mind. That is the real danger when the public are excluded and only state approved “media” are allowed to witness. Thank God for moles.

I also ask you to bear in mind that these are all the prosecution witnesses. The defence witnesses have not yet been called. All of the media are reporting that women were banned from being alone with Alex Salmond in Bute House after 7pm. It is reported as fact. That was however an assertion by one prosecution witness. It is not necessarily true, despite all the media headlining it as fact. Wait until you hear the defence witnesses. It may be true. It may not be true. Wait.

A final thought for today. It is notable that quite a few of these incidents have taken place in public places. Restaurants. Office parties. A car containing also both a driver and the accuser’s husband. In the case of Ms A, numerous unspecified locations. Yet to date, not one single incident has been attested by an independent witness who saw it. Nobody seems to have seen these things that allegedly happened in public. That may change as the prosecution case progresses. But it is an interesting fact at present.

As the prosecution case mounts, it is intended that you should start to lose your critical faculties and conclude there is no smoke without fire. That is how the prosecution are framing this. Hold on, draw no conclusions, and above all do not believe the media. There is a reason independent media witnesses including myself are not allowed into court.

Irrespective of whether the individual accusations are true or false – and the jury are in much the best place to decide that, guided by the judge – one thing is very clear to me. A number of very ambitious people took advantage of Alex Salmond to propel political careers, and then turned upon him after he no longer had power. This happened once it became clear it was the will of the new SNP hierarchy that Alex Salmond be taken out of the political scene for good.

Which makes me feel quite ill.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


380 thoughts on “The Boy I Love is [Not] in the Gallery – The Alex Salmond Trial Day 4

1 2 3
  • remember kronstadt

    The man taking the first step can invite criticism undoubtedly as well as resentment. Josephine Dickson possibly appreciated her husband for inventing Band-Aid as she frequently cut and burnt herself while cooking and became able to dress wounds herself. A (possibly) lazy janitor chap decided that sweeping was boring and time consuming so invented the vacuum cleaner, others the iron, refrigeration and washing machines etc. I only mention these as they relate to the ‘women’s role’ in traditional families who were clearly too busy arranging flowers and crying to come up with practical solutions. Giving birth to a baby is nothing like giving birth to a nation – the essential nurture comes later.

    • Tatyana

      the “women’s role” in a traditional family often meant having a baby every year. Try the role of a mother of 10-15 children on yourself. Try to find time in this schedule for something other than washing clothes manually, cooking with just a knife and an oven, or perpetual kid’s snot and diarrhea. Don’t forget you’re either pregnant or lactating.
      Thanks to the one who invented modern contraception.

      • Bayard

        “Thanks to the one who invented modern contraception.”

        Indeed, but remember that the domestic idleness of children is a very recent innovation. In the past, as soon as children were physically capable of helping out, they did.

        • Tatyana

          The help of children in the family was essentially aimed at the same biological needs – food, heat, and the creation of resources. Now they have time for personal development, and this is wonderful.
          E.g, my son (14 in a month) plays the guitar, draws and models well, studies Java, and he already beats me in chess, he has time to earn extra pocket money so he hands out flyers on weekends.
          At his age, I was only busy with school, and the rest of the time I cooked for the family, washed dishes, worked in the garden and looked after my grandmother.
          As for idleness, I consider this a pedagogical omission. At all times there were indifferent parents who couldn’t or didn’t want to engage in raising children.

        • nevermind

          You call it helping out Bayard, I call it slave labour, up chimneys and doing work as roofers, carrying fetching, the empire, Johnsons pipe dream, still, was full of emaciated hungry an uneducated children.

          • Bayard

            Perhaps I should have said “helping out around the house ” but I thought that was obvious from the context.

    • Ian

      FFS. With ‘friends’ like this Salmond doesn’t need enemies. Craig has some very strange followers.

      • James

        Craig Murray has some very strange followers, because he takes some very strange positions.

        He is doing great work with the Alex Salmond case. I’m basically a unionist, but I consider having a criminal justice system that is not corrupt and which does not stink to high heaven as more important than the matter of independence. There is something strange and sinister about this whole business and Craig Murray is doing a great job of showing it up for what it is.

        He has done invaluable work with Julian Assange – again showing that the judicial system in England is utterly corrupt and stinks to high heaven.

        Also, his work on the Skripal case, on UK involvement in Syria are excellent; he has the drive and determination and also the contacts to be the top journalist in many ways.

        However, there is a serious down-side. While I appreciate his reasons for wanting Scottish independence (as I understand it, he considers the Foreign Office to be some sort of Leviathan which has to be smashed – and I’d agree with him on that), I can’t see how Scottish independence will help with this one iota. More importantly: some of the things he seems to have been advocating in this regard (simply declaring independence without another referendum, militias, etc …) are poisoned and would inevitably lead to a civil war.

        Also – when commenting on Ireland, he encouraged people to vote for Sinn Fein. I’m strongly in favour of a united Ireland (having lived in Cork for four years) and – at least when I was there – the one thing that put people of the Republic of Ireland off taking back the north was the presence of Sinn Fein and the poisoned sectarian politics up there. The IRA were essentially into ethnic cleansing (as the murder of Douglas Deering showed clearly and plainly).

        So Craig Murray is, in many ways invaluable for us – there isn’t another journalism with such determination, drive, honesty and the contacts necessary, but at the same time there is an uglier side – which explains the very strange followers.

        • Xavi

          “The one thing that put people of the Republic of Ireland off taking back the north was the presence of Sinn Fein”

          Which is why Sinn Fein got the most votes in the election last month….

          • James

            I was there in the early 90’s – when the situation was quite different. I remember Sinn Fein on 2 percent back then.

            Why they have now shot up is a very interesting question, but I don’t believe that the nature of the beast is any different.

            I have to agree, though, that the other parties don’t fill me with any enthusiasm.

          • Xavi

            A large part if it is total contempt for the lies and propaganda of the neoliberal duopoly and their media.

          • Stewart

            Sinn Fein waved the rainbow flag and people too young to remember the troubles and hypnotised by “identity politics” voted for them.
            To see people like Gerry Kelly proclaiming the need for LGBTQ+ rights induces nausea.
            We need a new word for this type of political opportunism – hypocrisy doesn’t even come close.

        • N_

          the one thing that put people of the Republic of Ireland off taking back the north was the presence of Sinn Fein and the poisoned sectarian politics up there.

          That’s rather one-sided or in the case of the second item you mention, rather vague. The prospect of the Dail welcoming a large number of Billy Boy TDs from the North singing along to “Simply the Best” and “The Famine is Over” doesn’t go down well with many Irish people living south of the border. The “physical force” loyalists (whom you don’t even mention) would easily have outgunned both the IRA and the armed forces of the Republic. The RoI isn’t ever going to “take back the North” – it’s never had the North. Reunification would be some kind of two-part federation, but in any case it won’t happen so long as there’s an NHS.

          • James

            N_ – you are, of course, correct, but it was Craig Murray’s support for Sinn Fein that I mentioned – and I know that they were not at all popular in the Republic when I was there.

            The problem is (of course) the sectarianism of the North. That is – when I lived and worked in Cork, I was not a Catholic – and this did not cause me any problems at all. I didn’t have to be careful about the neighbourhood I lived in (and I had good, charming, congenial neighbours), I didn’t experience any problems at work – my lack-of-Catholic-affiliation was not a problem in any way; it was simply a private matter for me and me alone.

            I’ve heard that in The North you do have to be careful about such things – it is very much divided along sectarian lines and this affects every aspect of life there. Where people live is divided along sectarian lines, sectarianism becomes an issue in education and at work, in this way it is very ugly. The good people of the Republic don’t like it at all.

            As far as I can see, it has become much worse since the Good Friday Agreement – since the worst of the headbangers have become the main political parties. A very deep friendship developed between the Reverend Iain Paisley and Martin McGuinness, basically because the violent and twisted people on each side found that they had much more in common with each other than with the decent people of the province.

            The GFA seems to be aimed at trying to get the sects to co-habit – and doesn’t seem to be aimed at smashing sectarianism, which is what is needed.

            So – you are (of course) correct; the point remains – I found Craig Murray’s support of Sinn Fein extremely ugly (even though there was absolutely nothing to recommend any of the other parties in the election).

          • Cubby

            Funny how unionists never mention that it was the Union that created the sectarianism. A nice bit of standard divide and conquer colonialism by the British Empire.

            The ugly side of unionism.

    • nevermind

      Not far from it. Kronstadt. Giving birth to a baby is the quintessence of giving birth to a nation, but I prefer the word society.
      Man has done little throughout time to change the slavery and sacrifices women endured, so nations can go to war and grind their offspring into the dust.
      Three cheers to the slow evolution of condoms, from ancient history, to today’s lubricated varieties and. Off course, modern contraception.

    • remember kronstadt

      ‘When assessing the patterns of brain activity in men versus women when engaged in creative conceptual expansion during the alternate uses task compared to the object location task, it was found that both genders preferentially engaged different brain regions within the left hemisphere. Among others, brain areas along the anterior and posterior extents of the inferior frontal gyrus, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and posterior middle/inferior temporal gyrus were more strongly engaged in men compared to women.
      These findings suggest that when expanding boundaries of acquired concepts with the objective of generating novel uses for common objects, men preferentially activated brain networks associated with semantic memory operations (Binder and Desai 2011), rule learning
      (Bunge 2004) and outcome-based decision making (Rudebeck and Murray 2011), more than women.’

      http://www.anna-abraham.com/uploads/2/1/1/2/21121736/2014_abraham_bib_creativity-gender-differences.pdf

  • Wikikettle

    Dear Craig, please be careful with this case. The authorities would like nothing better than seeing you jailed for contempt. Please look after your health as well. I admire and support you in your brave work and I always read Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn in the Independent.
    The Independent would do well having you as another ‘Voice’.

  • Tony M

    Just checking in here, hello people. You’re doing a great job as ever Craig. With the SNP or as seems increasingly likely not, but Independence still. SNP was a busted flush many moons ago, penetrated to the core, Newnew Labour all over again. The state has knives drawn for everyone. Trumped up fanciful charges everywhere. Bodies in the grounds. Never mind Paisley, keep an eye on the Borders.

  • Richard I. Crawford

    There are two types of people in life – the credulous and the sceptical. Feminism seems intent on handing the world to the former.

    • Ian

      And there is only one type of antediluvian man, prone to meaningless generalisations while lecturing us from his bar stool at the golf club. Facepalm.

      • Stonky

        Give it a rest Ian. We understand that for some people, ballsaching political correctitude is an actual factual religion. But it’s witless squawky parrots like you who have a man sitting in the High Court facing the criminal charges of touching a woman on the leg through her clothing, and touching a woman on the arms and hips through her clothing.

        • Ian

          You have extrapolated a load of complete cobblers from a quite justifiable mocking of Richard’s absurd sloganising. I have never advocated what you tritely suggest, but the general attitude here that the Salmond case somehow justifies a pre-60’s view of women and their place in relation to men is quite revealing. That attitude has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the case in question, but desperately exploits it to retain such dinosaur attitudes. And the funniest thing is that people here like to parade their virtue as ‘progressive’ and ‘enlightened’. Quite depressing really, to find such unreconstructed bunk on Craig’s blog, when his thoughts are generally articulate and tolerant.

      • Stonky

        Plus, your effortless resort to trite platitudes involving “golf clubs” and “bar stools” indicates that you’re just as much of a narrow-minded bigot as the most antediluvian of your targets. My uncle was a spark and has lived in a council house in Penicuik all his life. He used to be a member at Rutherford Castle. Whether to spend an afternoon with him and his mates on the bar stools down the golf club, or with you and your condescending middle-class smugturd right-on-jonny pals…

        Decisions… decisions…

      • James

        Ian – ummm – antediluvian is the appropriate term. One of the witnesses explained that after a whole bottle of whisky, Alex Salmond tried to have his way with her. Now – even if he were still on his feet after drinking such copious amounts – how to put it delicately – his uncircumcised member would not be on its feet. He would have to be extremely well hung if he were capable of the sort of encounter she was suggesting.

        Now – it *could* be that some version of the events described really did happen (and the witnesses are simply exaggerating) – in which case I (for one) would agree with you. Such behaviour is unacceptable and the defence that `oh this sort of thing would have been all right in the 1950’s and 60’s’ is truly pathetic – there should be no place for it. But there are sooo many things the witnesses are claiming which clearly could not have happened that I’m coming to the conclusion that none of it can be true – not even slightly – and that the whole thing is a very badly thought out stitch-up. They’re doing it because it can be done and it’s the only way they can think of to `take out’ Alex Salmond.

  • David

    The AS trial judge, Lady Loeena Dorrian, is a sprightly 62 years young. Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond himself is around three years older, therefore the trial can probably meaninglessly go ahead whilst the rest of our society crashes.

    They will not be affected by the Peston leak “Armed Police on the streets, the aged and infirm forcibly locked-down and isolated” Extreme Triage. Panic on the streets of London…. panic on the streets of Carlisle, Dublin, Dundee, Humberside…

    some nice clear data here on coughs & sneezes
    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/12/21172040/coronavirus-covid-19-virus-charts

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      If the trial looks like it’s going South from the Crown’s perspective, someone critical to its continuation will go down with the Pangolin’s revenge for sure.

      • N_

        Just a guess: he’ll walk on the major charges (because the defence seem to be playing [*] this very well) but he’ll be convicted on some of the lesser ones and get sent down for a few months (because a deal whereby he walks and then keeps his trap shut may prove impossible to agree). Can’t say I fancy NS’s chances of staying in office.

        Note
        (*) Sorry if this offends anybody, but a trial is a game.

        • Annie

          But say he was found not guilty on all charges would he just jump in a taxi and scurry away. Just a guess but he would give the most smug speech imaginable outside the court and then fly into full suing the Scottish Government, one and all mode. Speaking personally if I was on a jury I would be tempted to ‘mark his card’ just to spare us from that awful spectacle.

          • Cubby

            Annie

            I think I have marked your card – you would be a dreadfully biased juror who would ignore evidence – hopefully there are not people like you on this jury and hopefully you never get to sit on any other juries in future.

            What a terrible admission you have posted – you should be ashamed of yourself.

          • N_

            @Annie – Yes, I agree – if he defeats all of the charges he won’t go quietly. In reaching their decision I hope no jurors give a thought to what lawful decisions the defendant might take later, either in this or in any other trial. However, that is exactly how the judge and those who “have the judge’s ear” (grasped between their fingers) may think. A judge’s summing up can have a big influence on a jury, as can the way the judge talks to counsel in the presence of the jury during a trial. Peter Cook’s famous comedy skit dressed as a judge after the Jeremy Thorpe trial is bang on. Of course he is exaggerating for comic effect, but judges really do say, for example, “You may think ABC makes it likely that DEF, but of course, members of the jury, that is entirely a matter for yourselves.” (This is textbook “priming”.) And they can be and often are much ruder to one side’s counsel than the other’s.

            AS’s problem is that there are a lot of witnesses against him. He can perhaps discredit the evidence of some of them, even perhaps the ones alleging the most serious offences, but I don’t think he can get away with using the coven defence, nor can he realistically argue “X shouldn’t be believed, therefore neither should ANY of the others”.

            This is just a first-order analysis though.

          • Cubby

            N

            “This is a first order analysis” yes but not a first class analysis.

            “There are a lot of witnesses against him” – sorry but very few witnesses have been presented and none so far have validated any offence – only one witness who actually WITNESSED anything and that amounted to a man (civil servant ) confirming AS touching a woman’s hair in a lift – not even an actual offense being tried.

            You seem to be mixing up complainants with witnesses. Despite some of the alleged offences taking place in public no WITNESSES have been presented who say they witnessed the offences taking place.

            Like Annie I hope you will not be on any future juries.

        • Annie

          And another thing too, personally speaking of course, if I was on the jury I would really expect Salmond to give evidence. I would want to see him deny outright, that he assaulted these woman not “refute any criminality”. And I wouldn’t be steered down the ‘not proven’ route either. And I have sat on juries.

          • Cubby

            Annie

            “And I have sat on juries”

            yes and so have I and I have encountered jurors like you who put their prejudices on full display from the first meeting. Like you they are proud of their behaviour.

          • John A

            Annie, If Salmond pleads not guilty, then it is up to the prosecution to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to ‘prove’ his/her innocence. I do not understand what you mean. Surely pleading not guilty means the defendant denies the charge outright. Or am I missing something in your already made your mind up manner?

        • Cubby

          N

          “Just a guess”. – aye right – copy of a satire article by Craig methinks.

  • N_

    Imagine calling a slap on the bum “extremely inappropriate”. Seriously how stuck up can a person be? What an idiotic way to talk. Try “He did it completely without my consent and I hadn’t encouraged him in any way”.

    The only type of man who might feel attracted to a woman who talks that way is the kind of man who thinks any nearby female body except perhaps his mother’s is asking for a grope.

      • James

        Ian – that is (of course) what they’re trying to imply. The trouble with this is that the only witnesses seem to be insiders who have a different political agenda to Alex Salmond.

        The reason why the police parade publicly the names of people suspected of this sort of thing is that if somebody really does think like this, then there should be large numbers of other witnesses coming forward. If such allegations are true, then this is what usually happens.

        In the case of A.S., it would appear that no new witnesses have come forward (or at least the prosecution haven’t wheeled them out yet).

  • Gavin C Barrie

    A question: If someone touched you, a fully clothed adult, on the buttocks, would you testify have that person jailed?

    • Rhys Jaggar

      It all depends on the context, does it not?

      I actually had two young women pinch my ‘buttocks’ as you call them (‘arse’ as I would have described it) as an undergraduate in Cambrdige. they did it in front of their boyfriends, other friends, in the ‘Junior Common Room’ (Cambridge dialect for ‘bar’) of my Cambridge College.

      It was done to embarrass rather than humiliate, but it was blatantly clear that neither were sexually attracted to me in any way.

      I am not sure that ‘humiliating a member of the general public’ was a crime in 1983/4 so I am not sure any case would have been brought to court.

      As in those days, a male policeman would have laughed me out of the station if I had suggested prosecuting two young women for ‘sexual harassment’ involving two pinches of my buttocks each, I did not do that either.

      I just went to lectures the next day well aware that in matters of student sex games, I was profoundly in the audience rather than on stage……and being not of voyeuristic tendencies, it did not give me any particular thrill seeing women ‘the morning after’ with the glow that only repeated sexual ecstasy can induce…….

  • Chris Downie

    Further to my previous comments, I think we can indeed infer from the first witness (non-party-political, but still wanted to pass vetting as an SNP candidate) that the SNP has undeniably been I filtrated by, at best, career politicians and at worst, hangers-on and even some opportunist chancers looking for a lucrative paycheck.

    For the first category, I think of Alyn Smith who, for all his vocal histrionics in the Euro parliament, ultimately meekly accepted our Brexit fate and without a blink, safely parachuted into a WM seat. For the second, think of former Labour types like Tommy Shepherd, who urges us to return to gradualism, while insisting the party and YES movement espouse “progressive” politics above prioritising independence. For the latter category, we have the foul-mouthed NED Black, who thinks it necessary to openly insult women as she pushes increasingly divisive gender politics and have sexually explicit drag queens infiltrate primary schools.

    I would proffer that we also have the Pete Wishart and Angus Robertson types, who exhibit traits from a combination of the above categories and manage to insult the grassroots YES movement for daring to suggest they are just a little too relaxed on achieving their supposed MO.

  • Cubby

    What are the odds that just as the prosecution finishes presenting its case the trial is postponed because of the coronavirus.

    • nevermind

      I agree Mary, it will be hard to swallow for many, especially Craig, Jamie and Stuart.
      It would be a hard job to send people back home with a raised temperature at the gate, with the possible arguments and argy bargy that usually comes with it.

      One wonders how the 600 odd Mps will all sit when they are asking us to not assemble more than 500, without loosinhg massive trust with the public. I.e. setting examples over and above their conflicting messages might make a change, rather than ‘ do as youre told’.

      • Mary

        I agree Nevermind. Let alone the 814 occupants of the red benches (average age 101! only joking) in their subsidized restaurants and bars.

        ‘In 2017/18, gross expenditure on both Houses of Parliament (Commons and Lords) totalled £550.8m – roughly equivalent to the administration budget of one mid-sized government department. Calls to reduce the cost of politics tend to focus on reducing numbers of Members of Parliament (MPs) and peers, but the salaries and expenses of parliamentarians make up less than half the total expenditure on both Houses of Parliament. But there are broader costs associated with the running of Westminster’s parliamentary democracy, including the organisations who supervise elections, standards and constituency boundaries. in total, and net of the income all these bodies generated (for example, through retail activities or rentals), the UK Parliament and supporting organisations cost a combined £552m in 2017/18.’

        Too many of them in both places imho. 650 MPs and 800 Lords! wtf?

        They’re off soon. Same dates for both lots.

        Easter 31 March 2020 – 21 April 2020
        May Day 6 May 2020 – 11 May 2020
        Whitsun 21 May 2020- 2 June 2020
        Summer 21 July 2020- 8 September 2020
        Conference 17 September 2020 – 13 October 2020

      • N_

        The House of Commons can only seat a little over 400 MPs. If they all turned up, they wouldn’t fit.

    • Magic Robot

      “a massive overreaction by our masters.” Maybe in your head they are your ‘masters’ and you believe all they tell you via the MSM (that you usually do not give credence to).

      Me, I stopped believing in the dragon at the bottom of the garden (the one the older boy next door told me was there) when I was five.

  • Stonky

    What’s going on? Day 6 is under way. This thread is tumbleweed. And there isn’t a word from Craig to let us know if he’s got into Court or not…

  • Cubby

    The prosecution has rested its case and the trial was adjourned at lunchtime until tomorrow.

    One of the charges has been dropped by the prosecution – the silly shoe removal and foot kiss alleged offence. Did an accuser get cold feet? Pun intended.

    This mornings complainants testimony seems to have centred around an official Xmas card to be sent by AS of a couple dancing and AS deciding to have a spontaneous dance with the woman.

    If I have got anything wrong in the above sentences apologises – not there in person obviously. Perhaps Craig will provide a far better update in due course,

    • Stonky

      That official Christmas Card!

      The witness was traumatised by the fact that it was a Vettriano painting, featuring… a scantily-clad woman!

      And she fell into a swoon when she saw the uncovered piano legs in the Bute House drawing room…

      By the time she managed to find her smelling salts, AS was leaning over her, twirling his mustaches in a very… forceful way…

      • Merkin Scot

        “By the time she managed to find her smelling salts, AS was leaning over her, twirling his mustaches in a very… forceful way…”
        .
        Brill!
        I didn’t know whether to swoon or whether to clutch my pearls.

  • Republicofscotland

    Radio news Alex Salmond found not guilty with regards to one woman.

    Thirteen charges by the other nine women still remain.

  • Bridget

    What has happened to Craig? Where has he disappeared to. It’s a bit worrying….

1 2 3

Comments are closed.