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:
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.
Rob Pettitt
You mean we have had a test run and possibly got some immunity through being deliberately exposed to this virus before? The guys in yellow simulating pandemic crises that don’t exist to make it appear to other countries we are under siege? Only liberal democrats will be spared?
Supermarkets sold out of tinfoil as well as bog rolls have they?
Hopefully male politicians will heed the lesson. Clearly, I have no clue as to Salmond’s guilt or innocence. But it is now wise for all aspiring male politicians to take precautions. It’s happening in the corporate sector already. If I were an MP, I’d simply not have one on one meetings with women, whether it’s staffers, MSP’s, or civil servants. I’d also not drink at the social gatherings. I suspect this is what’s going to happen now, though male MP’s won’t admit to it.
If Salmond is finally found innocent, I wonder what the repercussions will be to certain people, whom Craig cannot name. There’s already 2 civil servants who should have been fired, but presumably nothing happens to them. I also wonder about Nicola herself, though of course wouldn’t expect Craig to comment. Truly I’ve never had time for Madam Nicola, for reasons I’ve never quite been clear on. A good talker, but no integrity is my best guess.
Thanks Craig.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, when you mention , the taint of no smoke without fire scenario.
The accusers seem to be schooled in coming across as wee whimpy women.
Yet ! From my experience, females in government, civil service and councils are not whimps or shrinking violets by any stretch of the imagination.
A swift knee in the goolies , would stop any randy male.
Females at the centre of power are just the same as males.
Regards
??
Let’s see if I’ve got this right.
This is a conspiracy involving the SNP, the Scottish civil service, the Scottish courts, Westminster and the ‘Brtinat’ MSM with some well schooled ‘crisis actors’ thrown in for good measure aimed at ruining the reputation of man who hasn’t held political office since 2017?
Why?
Why?
Power of course.
Good question.
” 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.”
So if Craig could elaborate on the reason as to why (Politics?) Alex Salmond had to be taken out for good in Scotland.
So how relative to him in political policy/ ideology are the current ” Hierarchy? ”
What was he getting in the way of?
Salmond was/is considered to be Left of Centre politically.
Power. I’d imagine FM Sturgeon’s quest for power.
Her hold on power is more secure if there is not a rival former FM who apparently was unwilling to just cede the field to her.
And there is nothing unique about this as relates to gender. This is always the game at the top, and to get towards the top, and this is the way humans choose leaders. Any politician is always judging potential threats to their power, and they are always working to eliminate them. If they weren’t, they never rose above the local level were probably a failure at the local level.
Johnny Memnonic
It may be worth noting that last year Johanna Cherry SNP MP was cleared of bullying charges towards her staff. Also Angus Robertson Ex deputy leader of the SNP going up against Cherry for the MSP seat in Endinburgh in the 2021 Scot parliament election. Cherry at present is an MP at Westminster and of course the seat of power in the SNP is at the Scottish parliament and only an MSP can become First Minister. I won’t say any more.
Kempe
Perhaps you have missed the conductor of this group – The British Secret Service.
Why! ,its because he was starting to make inroads into the media and becoming a serious threat to their wee lying empire .There was media panic when he was touted as the next editor of the Scotsman and they’ve been trying to silence him ever since his R.T show started.He is getting too close to exposing the grubby poisonous world of the British media, that’s why.
Surely Alex Salmond is not pleading ‘consent’ to sexual infidelity, but consent to touching a woman’s back and kissing her cheeks and lips etc. It would seem to me that he can’t deny he never put his arm around any women he worked with (think of the scenes when the SNP would win elections, with everyone hugging and kissing.)
I can’t help thinking back to when Boris Johnson instinctively attempted to put his hand on Nicola’s back as they walked through the doors of Bute House, and how she needed to brush him away.
Was he charged with an attempted sexual assault by the Scottish Police?
It was interesting that one of the witnesses had been trying to get Alex’s blessing to run as an MSP or MP. She was knowingly entering into the bear-pit of Scottish politics with a lot of media types who are very hostile to the SNP, and who we all know would be quite happy to destroy anyone who showed any signs of weakness, then she would have to be quick witted and strong enough to answer difficult questions without showing weakness.
And yet here we have this woman saying she felt that although she felt strong enough to withstand these battles, she wasn’t strong enough to say something like ‘Alex you are FM during the most important time in the SNP’s history, can you imagine the damage this would do if people found out what you were doing’, I think you need to stop.
Why has the SNP consistently hired emotionally weak women?
I can’t help wondering if AS had already expressed a resistance to the gender identity cult, and needed to be ‘got rid of’ by people who were more supportive of the idea, and this is what led to this trial.
Speaking about Psychology, I noted with interest (I think the first witness) said in her testimony that she did not ‘feel’ she had been encouraged to make these allegations against AS.
People (even liars) don’t like telling lies and so will often use qualifying statements like the ‘I don’t feel I was’ rather than ‘I did not’ so that they can feel that they are not really telling a direct lie.
If you go onto youtube and look at the CIA/FBI type interrogators, they discuss this type of qualifying statement as a very telling indication of dishonesty.
This whole trial stinks to high heaven!
I’m a bit old fashioned but how does one go about getting consent for a spontaneous kiss on the lips?
By being a consenting adult doing something that in the context of the moment is trivial and not to expected to be viewed as sexual.
Hugging after election victories etc.
Alex may not remember the incident these women are talking about (if they did happen) so he might say If these hugs and kisses happened, they were with consent and not as a result of predatory actions, from a man who knew his advances were unwelcome.
I imagine CIA/FBI interrogators would likely be too busy kicking the living shit out of/torturing the suspect to bother with any actual questions these days.
“I can’t help wondering if AS had already expressed a resistance to the gender identity cult, and needed to be ‘got rid of’ by people who were more supportive of the idea, and this is what led to this trial.”
That’s what I think too.
I can’t remember Alex Salmond ever expressing an opinion on gender identity. Folk will need to provides some real quotes or evidence for that.
Mist001
Not everything is about GRA.
That is why the court and the jury expect a reliable denial from the accused “I did not sexually assault Woman H”. Not “I to the utmost refute all allegations of criminality”,
“Speaking about Psychology”
I think you can see it all over the statements.
As a woman myself, I found some comments quite bizarre:
“I thought I could talk him out of it”
???This is odd. You would use those words when you feel your life is in danger and the only way you can escape for that danger is by negotiating with the aggressor. I saw nothing to suggest that this individual was retained against her will. In such situation she had two open alternatives:
1. get up and leave – excuse herself with suddenly feeling sick or having a bad migraine.
2. be forceful and say, “NO.Stop. I don’t want this”.
From what I could read (if Mr Murray had been allowed in the court we would have a much more detailed and precise account), I am not sure she did either. Now, for a woman that is aiming to enter the dirty world of politics, that strikes as odd.
Also, this docility to go into his bedroom completely clashes with her previous comment “It was uncomfortable, I was never comfortable in his private personal space”, yet, she went right onto the most private of his spaces, his bedroom? This is very odd. If it is true that she was that uncomfortable in his private spaces, the expectation of her walking into his bedroom should have meant this person was already in high alert and on fight or flight mode, so it is rather incredible that she actually “froze”.
“scared of making him angry”
In such a situation I would expect it would rather be the other way round. Who had most to lose? a FM accused of attempting rape or a woman that could have moved to the opposition (if she was not already there) and reveal all what she know of the way the SNP was run? I wonder if that comment was only made to create the impression the accused was a violent and unpredictable man.
“he put his arm out and leaned over me. He’s quite a big guy”
???? Mr Salmond’s height is only 1.73 cm.
“He had other women and I didn’t want to be considered as that. I was scared of that.”
??????? I am not sure “scared” is the kind of word you would use here unless you want to portray yourself as a delicate victim, as a wimp. “Embarrassed” or “insulted” is far more appropriate wording in my view and the one I would probably use in that situation. I have noticed an exaggerate use of the word “scared” by this witness.
“the first minister was a very powerful man and I didn’t want to get on the wrong side of him”
A powerful man?? sure, one that had against him the entire English establishment apparatus and he whole press. The only thing one had to do to bring this “powerful man” down is to leak the incident to the press. It seems to me that in that room it was really the woman who held all the power. She had nothing to lose, he, on the other hand, had everything to lose.
“we’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it”
????premeditation?
“I had genuinely thought it could have been a one off”
?????? Yet, we also hear from the same person that the accused had a reputation. It cannot be both.
“I wish on my life it wasn’t true. I wish I wasn’t there….I wish the first minister had been a nicer and better man and I wasn’t here.”
If I am not mistaken this is the response to a direct question “isn’t the truth that you weren’t at that dinner and there was no incident?”
Direct question would require a direct answer, a yes or no would be appropriate. “I wish…” is no direct answer to a direct question, so we really are none the wiser as to what the answer to the question really is. I wonder if the using of “I wish” rather than “yes or no” aims to avoid really answering the question or instead to add some form of emotion to develop sympathy for the witness and give the impression that this individual regrets making the statement against the accuser. If the latter, why bringing it up so late in the day when the man is no longer “powerful”? These statements seem, in my view, rehearsed and the wording very carefully chosen.
And these are only some examples.
I guess as a woman of a certain age and one that did experience the unwanted approaches of a powerful man at one of my places of work in the distant past, I can make this comment: once those unwanted advances happened, I did not walk into the mouth of the wolf the next day or attempted to sweet talk the culprit or gave him another chance to catch me unguarded- I avoided any opportunity of being left along the culprit from then on to the point the message was totally obvious to him. 6 years after, when I had moved on and that was in the past, the last thing in my mind was to bring accusations against the individual and bring back the unpleasant experience. Why? Well simply because I had nothing to win and a lot to lose.
So in view of my own experience, my immediate question is, what do these women have to win out of this?
Maria, on your last two paragraphs, exactly that. I suspect it possible that the women on the jury will be much less sympathetic towards the prosecution witnesses than the men (but of course we won’t ever know). I can only assume the prosecution will bring forward evidence of AS’s alleged bullying and fearful anger that all the statements so far have told us were so influential, maybe it will be more convincing than what we’ve heard. Someone saying ‘I put it behind me’, but then years later deciding someone should go to jail for something they weren’t that bothered about? I think I would at least suggest it had played on my mind and caused me to change my behaviour, or something. (Some have claimed a change in their behaviour to be fair)
What do they have to gain indeed? Is incarceration the correct punishment for an allegedly rotten boss that is no longer in that position,,, (of course, preventing his being in that position again is the most likely purpose). I expected a lot more substance, or some apparent trauma, given the seriousness of the charges brought.
@ You are not sat in the court Contrary. You are not sat in the jury box with an excellent view of these women as they are giving evidence. You know nothing of their demeanor, tone of voice etc.
I assume you are not sat in the jury box, Contrary, and if you are I don’t really think you should be posting on here.
No, and I don’t believe it is be easy for the witnesses either. The comment on jury was just for making a comparison between men and women – we can be a lot more critical of ourselves than men are.
All rape complainers are ‘coached’ if you want to call it that. Organisation such as Rape Crisis do this. They are told what to expect in court, visit the court and courtroom beforehand, speak in court so they are used to the sound of their voice in court, go through ‘mock questioning’, etc. We are told this is to make them ‘more comfortable with the traumatic court process’. No complainer just walks in off the street and gives evidence ‘cold’. The same cannot be said for the accused. Rape accused are generally remanded in custody, isolated from contact with the outside world and unable to properly prepare a case. They will be stuck on the ‘beast’ wing and will live in constant fear of attack. They will be taken to court in a prison van for the trial, kept in a ‘holding cell’ for a large part of the day and return to the prison in the evening.
Jo
Thank you for the information you’ve provided..
In your two previous, shorter comments you sounded as if you were somewhat agitated. If you were, would you mind my asking what caused it? I am genuinely interested and will be grateful if you reply.
“he put his arm out and leaned over me. He’s quite a big guy”
???? Mr Salmond’s height is only 1.73 cm.
Very Wee Eck indeed!
Maria if he is convicted he cannot stand as an MSP and they keep their positions, If he in not convicted and return he will clear the lot of them out. His supporters who are still there will be watching everything. My opinion is this whole affair is that the SNP will be severely damaged. Nicola Sturgeon will stand down in disgrace. The soft independence mob will have done enough damage to put any thought of independence on the back burner for many years.
Thank you, Maria, for this impressive critique. .
My take on this as some have mentioned ‘repition by the accusers’ I’m thinking that they all have had some form of mock trial or trials.
All this has taken quite abit of time to get to were we are there has been more than enough time for this to be done in secret and to perfect. As some have said repition, I’m of the same thinking. What they seem to be saying is the same but not the exact same words. It sounds to me this has been rehearsed many a time hence my thinking of a mock trial or trials. Its been done in secrecy somewhere at some point in time free from prying eye’s and ears. Anyways that’s my take so far and for me it seems to have some kind of seamstress goings on, if you know what I mean!.
Pretty much standard for any force in court with the power and money to do it. You bring your witnesses in for “witness prep”. They go over what to say, and what to avoid saying. People also work with them about the appearance they want to present, and other details like what they do with their hands while they speak. They’ll stop and correct and teach a witness that perhaps it would be better if they worded something differently. This can be done with specialists, but it is also highly likely that a prosecutor has worked directly with a witness. Sometimes this is put together into a mock trial, where it is tested how witnesses and strategies work with mock juries. Also, potential defense strategies are considered and the whole thing is gamed out and practiced in advance.
Your public defender will not have the resources to do this. But all states do, and all oligarchs and corporations in a court case will do this as well.
It’s not “pretty much standard”. Witness rehearsing or practice or coaching is likely to amount to professional misconduct and be grounds for appeal.
I have no idea about this case as I have not been following it closely. I am just reading Craig’s posts out of interest and from a belief that justice requires not just a good appeal system but a reliable independent press. Independent press and a good appeal system keeps a court on its toes.
Fw, the undisputed fact that something is wrong doesn’t mean that it isn’t standard practice.
A friend of mine was convicted under Moorov when three ex family members accused him and the Moorov doctrine was applied. It was a fine example of no justice at all. I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t been in the court. Allegations from two other family members were thrown out for inconsistency but the jury were never told that- or numerous other things.
I am sure that Amb. Murray understands that a “social media storm” that amplifies propaganda can of course be manufactured and manipulated. Get a crew of people in a center, all with access to a database of valid logins. They post messages amplifying the propaganda. Add in some bots. Its not a unique technology that you have to be Russian to understand. By this point, the useful idiots out there are retweeting and forwarding the posts they are receiving and this all spreads and grows. This can be monitored as it goes, so the crew of people and the bots can all be reprogrammed if the response to the propaganda is not as desired and a new angle is needed or spotted to be successful. An organization like a people’s political movement can do the same thing by organizing larger crews of people. Techniques can be used together. You can organize volunteers from the useful idiots and tell them that its their duty to the cause to be ready to send out tweets when the evil, awful man is on trial. One big advantage oligarchs and pro-state actors have is that companies like Twitter and Google will be less likely to interfere with the operation. Such an operation will not find its Twitter accounts shut down, its videos blocked, or its Facebook posts de-prioritized the way the opponents to the oligarchs would be.
Meanwhile Johnson’s Government will be banning all mass gatherings including Demonstrations next week.
He’ s following instructions from his master in the White House.
You have to ensure that there are only 499 people attending an Independence protest outside the court room, Los. ….?
Within the context of what can happen to men if sexual allegations are raised, there now has to be a question as to how men can protect themselves.
Women in politics, women in power, women in work can be every bit as cunning, as manipulative as men. That after all is what equality tells us
But as a man, as soon as an allegation of a sexual nature is raised the whole judicial process is weighted against men.
Or are we to accept that there is no such thing as a malicious vicious women and girls only the fairer sex with the finest of motives
.
The Salmond trial stinks..
“Equality tells us …..”. Did n’t also Shakespeare with Lady Macbeth? Or King Lear and his disloyal daughters?
That’s why this trial is important to more than just SNP politics.
Salmond panicked and quit after he lost Scotchit1.0.
Big mistake, to throw himself to ScotNat feminazi wolves.
Did he think he was in a civilised country like England?
Stuart Power
Not exactly civilised treatment of Julian Assange is it. Is he in Barlinnie – no Its Belmarch prison isn’t it – last time I looked Belmarch prison was in England.
Actually, it’s “Stewart Power” so this poster is an imposter.
One might think if a newspaper published a headline stating something as if it is a fact. When it is clearly an opinion. That a complaint to Ofcom would be upheld. But this is not so. I complained to Ofcom about such a headline but my complaint was rejected.
The reason given why my complaint was rejected was one of the words in the headline was highlighted ‘thus’ .
According to Ofcom this made it a quote. If the newspaper is allegedly quoting someone making a statement stating something as a fact. Even if it is not a fact then that is allowed. The newspaper does not have to identify who made the alleged quote or when or under what circumstances. I guess if the person writing the article makes the quote then that would comply. Using this ruse a newspaper can print any lie they wish. It is a quote so only an opinion.
Just as all the armed police and ceremonious searches are not security but security theatre, Ofcom and other such bodies are not regulation but regulation theatre. Among other useful roles, they allow the authorities to deny any requests for more accountability of public bodies. “We don’t need that,” they can say. “We already have Ofcom [or quango of your choice]”.
The police are not police but police theatre, and actually most of government is just government theatre.
Why actually deliver a service when you can get richly paid for pretending to do so?
“We don’t need that,” they can say. “We already have Ofcom [or quango of your choice]”.
Yes. From bitter experience I learned that the purpose of Ofcom [or quango of your choice] is not to make large corporations answerable to the public, but to protect them from the public . Their tools are bureaucracy. delay, and trivial compensation.
Commercial media and the telecommunications industry pay Ofcom’s wages, literally. They will not bite the hand that feeds them. Rather they protect their gravy train at all cost.
The terminology used at times by witnesses in their evidence appears to be very similar to me. In your opinion is this just coincidence or do I have it wrong?
We know that some if not all met with each other via social media to discuss the alleged events prior to police involvement and sought to encourage each other to come forward. We also know from the Court of Session case into the civil service complaints process that there was, at the very least, inappropriate contact/behaviour/relationship between the complainers and those responsible for dealing with the complaint. Whether there was further contact between various individuals is yet to be established.
I admire your posts Margaret. Very clear in its writing, and bang on the button on whats happening. Keep up the great work.
Thinking of Julian in his hellhole. His safety and his survival.
‘Coranavirus: Emergency plan for prisons in England and Wales
9 hours ago
The government is drawing up emergency plans to avoid disruption in England’s prisons, with unions saying prison officers face “unprecedented” challenges.
Prison staff will be offered bonuses to cover shortages – and staff could be redeployed to cover front-line services.
A number of inmates died during unrest at several Italian prisons last week after visits were suspended.
The Prison Officers Association has compared conditions in England’s prisons to those found on cruise ships and the Prison Governors Association has said cases of the virus are inevitable.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51879952
There is a sequence of events that I thought odd. In 2017 Alex Salmond said when the Indy Ref campaign was declared he would be out there, full on in support. The new disciplinary rules which included former Ministers were brought in shortly after, and then, it seemed to me, he was accused of two assaults. It seemed strangely convenient.
But the other side of this, my impression of the present FM is that she is very direct personally and in politics. I’ve seen her in action, heard her speak, met her at a social function. That doesn’t fit with suggestions of Machiavellian behaviour from her.
Brian Powell
Do you accept that you might change your mind if you had more evidence available to you eg who are the complainants?
Interesting. Timeline important here. Was this when he was still the MP for Gordon? He lost his seat in June 2017. May announced the election on April 18. And around that time she said ‘Now is not the time’ for indyref2. So the indyref2 campaign was already spoken of before GE 2017.
Woman H had wanted to be a candidate sometime in 2017 and was seeking Salmond’s endorsement. But withdrew from vetting. It was later on in 2017 that she approached ways to investigate misconduct with an SNP official.
After GE 2017.
After Salmond had lost Gordon.
The charade masquerading as a genuine judicial undertaking is on for one single reason, the man dared join the RT, he had to be punished for it to warn others.
He was, still is a well known and charismatic politician, has a massive following, can persuade people. How could he be allowed to work for a TV outfit of a country that the British governing elite regards as the top enemy, a country that poisons innocent burghers with polonium, Novichok, sanctions downing of commercial airlines, backs sickening dictators e.g Assad in Syria …….
Baron,
re: commercial airlines.
in February, Ukraine reformed its system due to corruption. 710 prosecutors were suspended from work. This includes 6 prosecutors who investigated the case of MH-17, and those two of them, who were members of the Joint Investigation Team.
Hardly this was reported by BBC.
But, there’s report in the Netherlands
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/02/16/niemand-kent-het-dossier-dat-wij-in-vijf-jaar-hebben-opgebouwd-a3990649
Tatyana
Very interesting info. Thanks for posting it.
Thanks, Tatyana, that’s interesting, Baron watches Anatolij Sharij often, follows his take on what’s going on in Ukraine, if Tolya covered it, it was missed. What you reckon about the new Ukrainian administration then, better than the one before?
You understand Baron’s description of Russia was meant in jest, but the reason for the Salmond’s trial stands, it’s the governing elites’ payback for his joining the RT network, Baron said it on a number of blogs immediately the news about his joining the Russian broadcaster broke, the MSM poodles went berserk about it. It’s pure politics that drives the prosecution, nothing else.
The new Ukrainian administration has not yet done anything worthy of attention. Ukrainian politics flows along the same lines. The war in Donbass continues, the Minsk agreements are not respected, Russophobia is flourishing. This confirms my conviction that Zelensky was put in the position by the same people who had put Poroshenko there.
One good piece of news said that perhaps Alexander Vindman will lose his place. This person is responsible for shaping the US policy towards Ukraine. Well, we understand that the person does not bear the name ‘Smith’ or ‘Melnichenko’, but Windman. This explains both the appointment of Waltsman and the appointment of Zelensky, and the returning of Kolomoisky. Diaspora, their internal affairs, IMHO.
—-
Why do you talk like Jaqen H’ghar? 🙂
Tatyana @ 16:31
Many thanks, Tatyana. Didn’t Vindman get into trouble with the Donald also? It’s amazing how such a lowly ranked official could mess things up, but if you think the policy of Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia will change, you’re wrong. The Donbas conundrum suits the Americans and in a sense it suits Putin, too. It’s not the Donald, but the Deep State that runs American foreign policy, and these guys will never allow Russia and Ukraine to settle to friendly cohabitation, Baron reckons.
Who or what is Jaqen H’ghar?
Baron,
frendly cohabitation is what we had before Maidan affair. I miss that time. A lot of fellow artisans from Ukraine shared their beautiful ideas. It’s not the same any longer.
Jaqen H’ghar
https://youtu.be/Y31RoHC15pM
Baron @18:00
“and these guys will never allow Russia and Ukraine to settle to friendly cohabitation, Baron reckons”
Allow? Baron recons… In jest?
Tatyana @ 18:29
Спасибо, a stay away from Wuhan.
Anatoly Shariy: scandalous jester and loser in the service of the Kremlin
https://politeka.net/person/693774-anatolij-sharij-skandalnyj-shut-i-neudachnik-na-sluzhbe-kremlja
True or false?
Pooh @ 17:39
Have you listened to any of his videos, Pooh? If you did you wouldn’t ask, you would know he’s one of the few journalists one can trust for telling the truth even if one would disagree with his take on the truth.
One of his hobby horses is arguing Crimea is Ukraine’s, the Russians should return the peninsula, no compromise possible. This doesn’t suggest he’s a Kremlin’s lapdog, does it? He’s of course wrong, the Russians will lose Crimea only if they lose their own sovereignty. To surrender the place would be the end of Russia, the Sevastopol port facilities are the only ones this side of the Urals that are deep enough to accommodate military boats, and also don’t freeze in the Winter.
Baron @18:23
Your guess is good: I’ve never heard of the guy, Respect. I’ll have a look in due course.
The rest of your comment is fine by me. Actually, very well put, imo.
Thank you
Baron
Following the logic of your comment I guess we can expect to see George Galloway being held to account in the near future.
No, not at all, Cubby, Alex has many friends, some as powerful as those who want to destroy him because of his job move.
Craig’s doing a fantastic job, (say) his revelation about the MSM poodles lying about the testimony of the female G must have convinced many that it’s a charade rather than a proper court case. If it were the latter why would they exclude the public, or someone like him?
I imagine these kind of operations aren’t cheap – perhaps Mr Galloway’s relatively lower level of influence wouldn’t justify the expenditure?
Cubby
Indeed.
Baron? Baron Hardup? Which pantomime was that?
Que?
Baron, I do not think Mr.Assad is a sickening dictator, he was a London eye surgeon untill
his dad died and he was called up to run Syria, for the Syrians.
You’ve got it all wrong.
It was meant in jest, michael, don’t you get irony?
Once again, Michael, you explain what had seemed a complex “shades of grey” situation as a simple matter after all. I have three exiled Syrian friends, (one half French, one half Armenian) who all support His Excellency Dr Bashar Al-Assad implicitly as the only credible guarantee of a multicultural Syria. They all agree that to maintain power in the face of nine years of opposition he is obliged to exercise very robust, even brutal methods. They are baffled and insulted when deluded Westerners present him as a harmless Walter Softy.
This may well be lost on your correspondent, but rest assured there are those of us that appreciate it.
How do you account for George Galloway then? Not only does he have a show on RT but also on the Tehran-based Press TV. Why have the British State not brought down Galloway?
Who did Galloway support when the chips were down?
He was a high profile activist for the Westminster Elite during the Indy Campaign.
High profile supporter of Bozo’s Brexiit deal too and personal friend of numerous elite Tories.
George G is to Alex Salmond what tap water is to Chateau Petrus, Jo.
Alex was, still is a formidable political figure, he has a strong and loyal following, it may well be that if he wins the case, he’ll come back to Scottish politics again. For RT to get him has been their best coup ever, they are unlikely to repeat it, others may be tempted, but seeing what’s hit Alex will very likely think it isn’t worth it.
Do you think the UK security services restrict themselves only to the infiltration of domestic news media?
Galloway is no real threat as he has never led a national party. He is a maverick, a confrontational campaigner, but he cannot build a national movement of 20 million people.
I’m confident the purpose of this trial is twofold: bring down Alex and divide the YES movement. From the comments I’ve read it looks like they’re going to be successful in the latter. You’re all falling for it.
I’m not!
If they wanted to ‘bring down Alex’ they would have done it after he lost the referendum, Isabel, that was when he was most vulnerable both a a politician, and probably as a human being, it must have hurt that he lost, it was his poll tax moment, he shouldn’t have pushed for the count, the timing was wrong.
In was in the 80s when Scotland should have de-coupled, the North Sea oil would have made the land of haggis and whisky prosperous with few quid tucked away in a sovereign fund à la Norway. The time is to wait now, look for natural deposits of a valuable commodity, lithium would help, massive demand for it for batteries, our bright future (or so we are told).
The Scottish unwashed are a frugal lot, they know the country would not be better off within the EU than it is coupled to Westminster.
Baron
“The Scottish unwashed” Plenty of nice clean water in Scotland. We have so much we can use it to make a lot of lovely whisky and unlike our neighbours down south we do not have to wash in recycled pish.
“Coupled to Westminster” – chained to Westminster more like.
Unlike the UK the EU will not blatantly steal our resources. So I guess that makes you a robber Baron.
Baron
All the above was just meant in jest of course. Just as I am sure your original comments were meant in jest.????????
And we are all very well scrubbed squeaky clean at the mo too, judging by the lack of soap for sale in the shops. I have never seen the like. Have most scots only just discovered hand washing?! Maybe this break from great unwashed-ness will see us to independence 😉
I’m confident the purpose of this trial is twofold: 1 Bring down Alex, 2 Divide the YES movement. By the comments I’ve read on here looks like the unionists will be successful in the second category. I despair.
Isabel Cooney
I do not see the Yes movement being divided. Parts of the SNP – perhaps – it seems the division is there already. Please do not despair.
Agreed Cubby the Yes movement is fine, its the SNP that are split.
The Yes movement is becoming more co-ordinated even as it becomes more diverse.
Alex Salmond is the only one whose led us to a indyref, for some that can never be allowed to happen again. Salmond must be discredited and not allowed to return to politics, for the fear is that he may lead us to full independence.
I’d say that the hierarchy bar a few, are fine with this, as the status quo suits them.
Agree. But they haven’t reckoned with their unpopularity and his support.
He is a bit like Nigel Farage, obviously with a totally different cause. But Farage was sidelined after the Referendum and people would happily nobble him if they could…….
Going by comments across various internet platforms, it’s clear that while there are fellow SNP/YES supporters leaning towards him being innocent, there are Unionists for whom the accusations are the evidence, for which they will happily have him hung, drawn and quartered. I am only interested in the truth, but am sympathetic to the view that false accusations of sexual assaults should carry the same punishment as those who perpetrate such awful crimes.
I felt before this trial that his successor’s days as FM should be numbered, as her position is untenable. Not only did the Sturgeon and Murrell cabal waste perhaps the greatest opportunity ever to push for independence, they spent every opportunity from 2016 to December 2019’s election both blabbering on about a “People’s Vote” and trying to “stop Brexit” at a UK level, thus arguing Scotland was “being taken out against our will”, while campaigning to keep England and Wales in against their will. It should be obvious that those are precedents (i.e. the UK establishment not letting us leave without a deal and/or a UK-wide vote) that can and perhaps will be used against us by Unionists, in the event of a future YES victory.
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………… well der. That is how the narcissistical sociopathic political class operate. As Alan Clark once said ” There are no true friends in politics, we are all sharks circling & waiting for traces of blood to appear in the water”.
The scribblers’ fixation with the word ‘buttocks’ seems to have changed to ‘bottom’ and ‘backside’. Are they using a thesaurus?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18304533.alex-salmond-tried-kiss-woman-zombie-walk-jury-told/
The Herald is part of the Newsquest outfit. Anything known?
https://www.newsquest.co.uk/leadership
Their ‘parent’ is Gannett. They have hundreds of titles, are involved in cable TV and have a gross revenue of $3.15billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett
One individual doesn’t stand a chance against their talons.
Have a wry smile at the comments section on this Herald offering. Most have been deleted!
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18304575.scottish-independence-coronavirus-blow-indyref2-changes-scottish-political-landscape/
Craig had linked to the piece on his Twitter. https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1238751854428860417?s=20
So much for freedom of speech.
Miss Brodie writes: Indeed, such vulgarity. It will be bum next, or even airse, no doubt (or dowp). What is wrong with “sit-upon” one asks? Why must they scrape the fundament of the English language?
I draw the line at “bahooky”.
You have to wonder what’s really going on here. The accusations levelled against Alex Salmond are hardly more serious than the kind of stuff you see treated as a joke in old Carry On films. Meantime infinitely more sinister political and royal figures remain at large, absolutely untouchable.
Some are actually venerated figures among MeToo activists. This one, for example …
The Clinton Double Standard
There’s little in the Weinstein story that doesnt apply to Bill Clinton
https://jacobinmag.com/2017/10/bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault
The eighth in line, and former frequenter of the Woking branch of Pizza Express, is reported to be assisting the US authorities in their inquiries into Epstein.
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/prince-andrew-reportedly-now-cooperating-with-jeffrey-epstein-investigators/news-story/9a5be3199775caf3cb09c1b6421b47e3
I would have a big problem if I were part of the jury as I find it diffucult to consider any of these ‘sexual assaults’ as crimes.
Pothead Bill Clinton does make for strange figure head of the #metoo movement. Expelled from Oxford University for raping a fellow student.
Jo (15.54): can you provide a source for that statement?
It is always worth noting that after the independence referendum in 2014 the law was changed in 2015 to make it legal for the security/secret services to spy on members of the devolved parliaments and the UK MEPs. So it is possible, some may say, that the spooks know exactly what has been going on in Edinburgh as WhatsApp discussions have been taking place and probably tel calls.
Westminster MPs in law remained beyond the security services – assuming that they adhere to the law.
Brit government can always receive information acquired by American NSA. I wonder if that is what Anne Sacoolas was in the UK for, and why she was extracted.
The BBC spy on people too: they plant malware on people’s ICT devices so that they get to read everything people write.
Utterly unprincipled, but they will justify 20 years of it saying that ‘they believe that a crime might have been committed’ and that is all they need to say to bug someone for life.
Keep up the good work Craig, you’re the last hope I have of retaining any respect I have for a man I’ve admired and looked up to all my life, I’ve been keeping up with the transcripts by Phillip Sim and its painful to read.
So far Alex is coming across a man who cannot keep his hands off women and even though there is little or no hard evidence supporting these accusations they all sadly sound plausible to me and his only defence I see so far is “didn’t happen”
oddly the worst for me is the incident in the lift, which is in itself fairly innocuous but paints a damning picture particularly considering it took a man who was present to brush his hand away and tell him to behave himself.
This is breaking my heart but your blogs are keeping alive that somehow his reputation may yet be salvaged
Graeme
Alex Salmond did say he was not an angel but he had done nothing criminal. Worth remembering, I think.
Why do some Independence supporters still trust what the BBC say.
Was that no quite a weird thing for the man to do?
Who was the man and why did he do that?
How do you know he (AS) wasn’t going to brush away a spider that was about to run down the woman’s neck? Nobody does. Or even if the man was telling the truth. We know all the other witnesses have lied.
This is the same witness who said he had never heard of any order, schemes, procedure, instruction, plan, note, guideline or rule restricting civil servant’s working hours with AS. The one who stated in court that the alphabet woman was telling lies and yet has been totally ignored by every single report in the msm. I wonder what his life expectancy will be given his failure to follow the script?
Penguin
Good post.
I think the witness (the male civil servant just told the truth) it is the disgusting media that don’t tell the truth.
It doesn’t make sense to me that AS, a politician for 30 years, had zero dirt dug up on him in his time in office given he was probably public enemy no.1 to the Establishment. Yet he leaves office and is now facing criminal charges.
We all know the Establishment and its far reaching tentacles – he would most definitely have been monitored for anything that could be used against him. Why were they unable to dish any dirt during his tenure? This is the massive elephant in the room question.
If there were question marks about his behaviour, there is no way the Establishment wouldn’t have leaked that to the MSM at some point. Where were the ‘whsipers’ and ‘rumours’ about his behaviour around women over the years?
I think this case needs to be considered in the context of neutering a political figure and preventing any come-back into politics. And the SNP are looking more corrupt by the day!
Is it not just in the last couple of years that putting your hand on someone’s knee has become a crime?
I posted the first part of this earlier:
‘I wouldn’t be bothered about someone having their hand on my knee especially if I had on my coat which on a February night in Scotland I certainly would.
It would be a different story if:
‘Under the table I feel Johnson’s hand on my thigh. He gives it a squeeze.
‘His hand is high up my leg and he has enough inner flesh beneath his fingers to make me sit suddenly upright.’
The above quote is from an article entitled ‘No 10 denies Boris Johnson ‘thigh squeeze’ claim’ where Charlotte Edwardes describes an incident that happen when Boris Johnson was editor of ‘The Spectator’
After typing the above I thought that quote could have been taken from a romance novel (which are very popular amongst women). It wouldn’t be describing a sexual assault it would be describing foreplay.
Same applies to all the ‘sexual assaults’ described by the complainants in the AS trial. They could all be scenes from a romance novel well at least the less raunchy ones.
I would advise men not to read these women’s romance novels because they could get the wrong impression and end up in court.
They might get the impression that women love spontaneity and fantasise about the boss tossing her on the desk and ravishing her or slowly running his hand up her bare thigh until she ‘suddenly sits upright’
As yet I haven’t read any where the boss puts his hand on her knee during a 5 min car ride that might be because I don’t read Victorian romance novels.
Is the difference between sexual assault & foreplay dependent on whether or not you fancy the person?
Like the Scum newspaper back in the day of page 3 would talk about women and their “bedroom eyes” 😀 Talk about getting men into trouble. Then the same trash rag would scream “BEAST!!”
“Alex Salmond did say he was not an angel but he had done nothing criminal. Worth remembering, I think.
Why do some Independence supporters still trust what the BBC say.”
I never said I thought Alex was an angel, nor did I say he’s done anything criminal, that is yet to be established, nor did I say I trust the BBC, please don’t distort what I said
Graeme
I never said you said Alex Salmond was a criminal please do not distort what I said.
I never said you trusted the BBC and I never said you said that in your post so please do not distort what I said.
You Graeme have placed your own interpretation on my words.
“You Graeme have placed your own interpretation on my words.”
Maybe I have.
If i have I apologise , but i can’t think of a lower time to be a believer in Scottish independence than right now, even though we’re being told we’ve never been closer so lets not fight amongst ourselves, we believe in the same things right ?
Graeme
I was not attacking you in the first place so I apologise for any ambiguity in my words.
However, In this instance let me be clear I do not share your opinion that it is the lowest time to be a believer in Scottish independence. That would be IMO when the polls were way down in the 20% or less. Again that is not an attack on you – we see things differently. It is an SNP problem this trial, not a Scottish independence problem.
All the parties to this trial are or were SNP so far ( one admitting to be soft independence and non political but wanted to be an SNP MP) this may change of course in the rest of the trial but I doubt it.
In summary, we both want the same – independence. Divide and conquer is the go to Britnat strategy through the centuries of the British Empire. Let’s not go there.
Judges Guidance on the Moorov doctrine
It is doubtful if it is helpful to a jury to read them lengthy extracts from law reports that they do
not have in front of them. They might find it difficult to put in context what is being read to
them.
All that the trial judge is required to do in such [Moorov] cases is to give a concise
definition of the Moorov principle and some general guidance as to how it might be applied by the
jury to the evidence in the case.
Where a charge is divided into sub-heads, each libelling conduct occurring at a specified place, it
falls to be regarded as a single charge libelling a course of indecent conduct, and each element
does not require corroboration. It is the course of conduct that requires corroboration.
POSSIBLE FORM OF DIRECTION ON THE MOOROV DOCTRINE
“Sometimes crimes are committed, and for various reasons there’s little or no eye- witness evidence. In such cases a special rule can apply.
It can apply where: an accused is charged with a series of similar crimes; there’s a different person in each crime; the commission of each crime is spoken to by one credible and reliable witness; andthe accused is identified as the person who committed each crime.
The rule is this: If you are satisfied that the crimes charged are so closely linked by:
(1) their character,
(2) the circumstances of their commission, and
(3) the time of commission
as to bind them together as parts of a single course of criminal conduct systematically pursued by the accused, then, the evidence of one witness about the commission of one crime is sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of one witness about the commission of each of the other crimes. In looking at the charges, it is the underlying similarity of the conduct which is described by the witnesses which you have to consider in deciding whether the doctrine applies. (Where appropriate) It does not matter that the charges have different names or are more or less serious.
(Where appropriate) in circumstances in which there is a significant gap in time between the incidents which form the subject matter of the charges, a direction to the jury is required that they be satisfied that there exists some special feature of the behaviour complained rendering the similarities compelling notwithstanding the substantial gap in time. For it to apply, you have to accept each of the witnesses who speak to the individual charges as credible and reliable. If you don’t, there can be no corroboration. So if you believe the complainer in any particular charge then you would have to find corroboration from a credible witness who
speaks to any of the other charges. If you do believe that witness you then have to decide if by reason of the character, circumstance, place of commission and time of each charge, the crimes are so closely linked that you can infer that the accused was pursuing a single course of crime. It’s not enough if all that’s shown is that he had a general disposition to commit this kind of offence.
You have to apply this rule with caution.
The Crown says that rule can be applied in this case. It relies on these points of similarity ….. The
defence says it shouldn’t be applied. It relies on these points of dissimilarity……
OR
The defence don’t suggest that the circumstances of each incident are so dissimilar that the rule can’t be applied.
It is for you to decide whether the crimes alleged are sufficiently close in time, character, and circumstance for the rule to apply. But you have to decide:
(1) if that evidence is credible and reliable
(2) if the necessary link in time, character and circumstances has been established, and
(3) if the rule should be applied. If you do apply it, then you could convict the accused of both/each of these charges.”
“Where a charge is divided into sub-heads, each libelling conduct occurring at a specified place, it falls to be regarded as a single charge libelling a course of indecent conduct, and each element does not require corroboration. It is the course of conduct that requires corroboration.”
That’s an important point because we do not know exactly how Salmond’s indictment is set out, where the commas, and semi-commas are. For instance an accused could be charged with committing a breach of the peace (an unusual charge for the High Court but nevertheless carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the High Court) by doing a,b,c,x,y and z and thus committing a breach of the breach. Even if the jury delete all but one of the charges the accused will be guilty of a breach of the peace. It also increases the odds of leaving court with a conviction which is the whole point of the process – to get a conviction. That is why the Crown will through all the mud at the wall it can get it’s hands on hoping at least one dollop will stick. And also why the conviction rate is almost 100%
Good point about where those semi-commas are. Not sure we’d recognise them when they show up, mind.
Mr Murray
Any chance you can get onto Question Time to put an independent view about a variety of things?
It is so boring listening to Establishment-speak, staged vox-pop witterings etc etc.
An authoritative independent mind is exactly what is required. Not everyone will agree with everything you say.
But any sane person will at least be grateful for someone speaking fearlessly their truth, even if some of it is disagreeable to those of differing outlooks.
Wouldn’t that be great Rhys…
But sadly, the chances are Zero methinks… A better bet would be getting an RT show ..like Mr Galloway, and Alex