A 22 person team from Police Scotland worked for over a year identifying and interviewing almost 400 hoped-for complainants and witnesses against Alex Salmond. This resulted in nil charges and nil witnesses. Nil. The accusations in court were all fabricated and presented on a government platter to the police by a two prong process. The first prong was the civil service witch hunt presided over by Leslie Evans and already condemned by Scotland’s highest civil court as “unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias”. The second prong was the internal SNP process orchestrated by a group at the very top in SNP HQ and the First Minister’s Private Office. A key figure in the latter was directly accused in court by Alex Salmond himself of having encouraged a significant number of the accusers to fabricate incidents.
The only accusations Police Scotland could take forward were given to them by this process. Their long and expensive trawl outside the tiny closed group of accusers revealed nothing. Let me say that again. Police Scotland’s long and expensive trawl outside the tiny closed group of accusers revealed nothing at all.
Let me give you an example. I have personally read an account by a woman who was contacted by the police and asked to give evidence. She was called in for formal interview by the police. The massive police fishing expedition had turned up the fact that, years ago, Alex Salmond had been seen to kiss this woman in the foyer of a theatre. She was asked if she wished to make a complaint of sexual assault against Alex Salmond. The woman was astonished. She told them she remembered the occasion and Alex, who was a friend, had simply kissed her on the cheeks in greeting. No, of course she did not wish to complain. She felt they were trying to push her to do so.
That is typical of hundreds of interviews in the most extensive and expensive fishing expedition in Scottish police history. That turned up nothing. Zilch. Nada.
What the police did get was eye witness evidence that several of the allegations they had been handed by the closed group were fabricated. Two eye witnesses, for example, appeared in court who had been within six feet of the alleged buttock grab during a Stirling Castle photocall. Both had been watching the photo being taken. Both testified nothing had happened. The police had that evidence. But they ignored it. A more startling example is below.
You may be interested to know the police also spent a great deal of time attempting to substantiate the “incident” at Edinburgh airport that has been so frequently recycled by the mainstream media over years. MI5 also hired a London security consultancy to work on this story. The reason so many resouces were expended is that they were desperate to stand up this claim as the only incident from outside the tiny cabal of Scottish government insiders.
They discovered the actual Edinburgh airport “incident” was that Alex Salmond had made a rather excruciating pun about “killer heels” when the footwear of a female member of staff had set off the security scanner gate. This had been reported as a sexist comment in the context of a much wider dispute about staff conditions. That is it. “Killer heels”. A joke. No charge arose from this particular substantial waste of police time, in which the involvement of MI5 is highly noteworthy.
You will probably know that I too faced politically motivated accusations of sexual misconduct from the state, in my case the FCO, when I blew the whistle on British government collusion in torture and extraordinary rendition. I too was eventually cleared of all charges. When you are facing such charges, there comes a moment when you reveal the evidence to those defending you. They, of course, will not necessarily have presumed your innocence. I recount in Murder in Samarkand this moment in my own case, when after going through all the evidence my representative turned to me and said in some astonishment “You really didn’t do any of this, did you?”. He had been disinclined to believe the British government really was trying to fit me up, until he saw the evidence.
In Alex Salmond’s case, after going through all the evidence, his legal team were utterly bemused as to why it was Alex Salmond who was being prosecuted; rather than the members of the WhatsApp group and senders of the other messages, texts and emails being prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. There could not be a plainer conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Not only were members of this very small political grouping orchestrating complaints in the documented communications, they were encouraging their creation.
It is much worse than that. There is plain reference to active and incorrect communication from the SNP hierarchy to Police Scotland and the Crown Office.The reason that Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal’s office prosecuted the victim of the conspiracy rather than the conspirators, is that they had themselves been politically hijacked to be part of the fit-up. I fully realise the implications of that statement and I make it with the greatest care. Let me say it again. The reason that Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal’s office prosecuted the victim of the conspiracy rather than the conspirators, is that they had themselves been politically hijacked to be part of the fit-up. Just how profound are the ramifications of this case for the Scottish establishment has so far been appreciated by very few people.
Alex Salmond’s counsel, in his summing up for the defence, said that the evidence of collusion and conspiracy in the case “stinks”. It certainly does; and the stench goes an awful long way. A new unionist online meme today is to ask why the accusers would put themselves at risk of prosecution for perjury. The answer is that there is no such risk; the police and prosecutors, the Scottish government including, but not only, as represented by the accusers, have all been part of the same joint enterprise to stitch up Alex Salmond. That is why there is still no investigation into perjury or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, despite the evidence not just of the trial but of the documents and texts which the judge prevented from being led as “collateral”.
I cannot begin to imagine how evil you have to be to attempt falsely to convict someone of that most vicious, most unforgivable of crimes – rape. But it is impossible to have followed the trial, still more impossible to know the evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible as collateral, without forming the view that this was a deliberate, a most wicked, conspiracy to fit him up on these charges. Furthermore it was a conspiracy that incorporated almost the entire Establishment – a conspiracy that included a corrupt Scottish Government, a corrupt Crown Office, a corrupt Scottish Police and an uniformly corrupt media.
Coverage of the trial was a disgrace. The most salacious accusations of the odious prosecutor were selected and magnified into massive headlines. The defence witnesses were almost totally ignored and unreported. The entire stream of evidence from credible witnesses that disproved the prosecution case in its entirety was simply never presented in the papers, still less on radio and TV. A great deal of that evidence proved that prosecution witnesses were not merely mistaken, but had been deliberately and coldly lying.
Let us consider the lead accusation, that of attempted rape. I want you honestly to consider whether or not this should have been brought before the court.
Woman H claimed that Salmond attempted to rape her after a small dinner with Alex Salmond, an actor (the publication of whose name the court banned), and Ms Samantha Barber, a company director. Salmond gave evidence that the entire story was completely untrue and the woman had not even been there that evening. Samantha Barber gave evidence that she knows woman H well, had been a guest at her wedding reception, and that woman H had phoned and asked her to attend the dinner with the specific explanation she could not be there herself. Indeed, affirmed Ms Barber, woman H definitely was not there. She had given that firm evidence to the police.
Against that, there was a vague statement by the actor that he believed a fourth person had been present, but he described her hair colour as different to woman H, described her as wearing jeans when woman H said she was wearing a dress, and did not say the woman had her arm in a sling – which it was established woman H’s arm was at that time. One arm in a sling would be pretty debilitating in eating and the sort of detail about a fellow diner at a very small dinner party you would likely remember.
Given the very firm statement from Samantha Barber, her friend, that woman H was definitely not there, a number of lawyers and police officers with whom I have discussed this have all been perplexed that the charge was brought at all, with such a strong witness to rebut it, given that the police were relying on an extremely tentative identification from the actor (who did not appear in court to be cross-examined). The truth is, as the jury found, that woman H was not physically there when she said the incident took place. Woman H had lied. More importantly, the evidence available to the police and prosecutor fiscal showed that there was never any realistic prospect of conviction.
So why was the charge brought?
You might also wish to consider this. While the jury was considering its verdict, two members of the jury were removed. Here I know more than I can legally say at present. That might be put together with the chance that somebody was tailing Alex Salmond’s defence counsel and video recording his conversation on a train. If you look at the recording, it is obvious that if it were being taken with a mobile phone, that act of recording would have been very plainly visible to Mr Jackson. It appears far more likely this was done with a concealed device, possibly routed through a mobile phone for purposes of metadata.
I only have definite good source information on MI5 involvement in the attempt to dredge up charges at Edinburgh airport. While I have no direct evidence the juror expulsion or the Jackson tape were underlain by security service surveillance, I am very suspicious given the knowledge that MI5 were engaged in the witch-hunt. Which of course also begs the question that if any of the alleged incidents inside Bute House were true, the state would by now have produced the MI5 or GCHQ/NSA recordings to prove it (claiming they were sourced from elsewhere). Salmond has been considered by them a threat to the UK state for decades, and not only over Scottish Independence.
I also ask you to consider who has been, and who has not been, persecuted. Alex Salmond stood in the dock facing total ruin. The conspirators have faced not even questioning about their collusion.
I have published the only detailed account of the defence case. In consequence not only was I slung out of court by the judge on a motion of the prosecution, and threatened with jail by the Crown Office for contempt of court, the judge also made an order making it illegal to publish the fact that I had been barred from the court, in effect a super injunction. Yet the mainstream media, who published ludicrously selective and salacious extracts from the proceedings designed deliberately to make Salmond appear guilty, have received no threats from the Crown Office. They continue to churn out article after article effectively claiming Salmond is guilty and massively distorting the facts of the case.
One consequence of the extreme media bias is that lies which were told by the prosecution are still being repeated as fact. The lie that a policy and/or practice was put into place to prevent women working alone in the evenings with Alex Salmond, was comprehensively demolished by four separate senior civil service witnesses, one of them a prosecution witness. That was never media reported and the lie is still continually repeated.
It is only the person who published the truth, as agreed by the jury, who faces hostile action from the state.
Because the only thing that was not fixed about this entire affair was the jury. And they may well have contrived to nobble even that with jury expulsion.
We should be very grateful to that jury of solid Edinburgh citizens, two thirds of them female. They were diligent, they did their duty, and they thwarted a great injustice in the midst of a media hanging frenzy that has to have impacted upon them, and probably still does.
I would however state that, up until she inexplicably expelled me from the court, I had found Lady Dorrian’s handling of the trial entirely fair and reasonable. Equally it was a judicial decision in the Court of Session that had found the Scottish Government process against Salmond to be “unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias”.
Which brings me on to the role of the Head of the Scottish Civil Service, Leslie Evans. “We may have lost a battle, but we will win the war”. That is how, in January 2019, Leslie Evans had messaged a colleague the day they lost in the Court of Session. It is an interesting glimpse into the lifestyle of these people that the colleague she messaged was in the Maldives at the time.
It is incredible that after a process Evans claimed in court to have “established” was described as unlawful and unfair by a very senior judge, her first thought was on “winning the war”. That message alone is sufficient to sack Leslie Evans. Is shows that rather than being a civil servant engaged in an effort to administer justly, she was engaged as parti pris in a bitter battle to take down Alex Salmond. She would not even accept the verdict of the Court of Session. It astonishes me, as a former member for six years of the senior civil service myself, that any civil servant could commit themselves in that way to try ruthlessly to take down a former First Minister, with no heed whatsoever either to fair process or to the decision of the courts.
It is quite simply astonishing that Ms Evans has not been sacked.
Well, Leslie Evans did carry on her war. At the cost of many millions to the Scottish taxpayer, she has now lost the battle in both Scotland’s highest civil court and in Scotland’s highest criminal court. The campaign to destroy Salmond has been trounced in both the Court of Session and the High Court. That Leslie Evans is still in post is a national scandal. That Nicola Sturgeon a few weeks ago extended Evans’ tenure by a further two years is an appalling misjudgment.
Evans has a particularly unionist outlook and regards her role as head of the Scottish civil service as equivalent to a departmental permanent secretary of the United Kingdom. Evans spends a great deal of time in London. Unlike her predecessor, who regarded Scotland as separate, Evans regularly attends the weekly “Wednesday Morning Colleagues” (WMC) meeting of Whitehall permanent secretaries, chaired by the Westminster Cabinet Secretary. She much values her position in the UK establishment. What kind of Head of the Scottish Civil Service spends the middle of the week in London?
Rather than any action being taken against the perpetrators of this disgraceful attempt to pervert the course of justice, even after their plot has been roundly rejected in the High Court, the Scottish Government appears to be doubling down in its accusations against Alex Salmond through the medium of the state and corporate media, which is acting in complete unison. It has now been widely briefed against Salmond that Police Scotland has passed a dossier to the Metropolitan Police on four other accusations, set at Westminster.
What the media has not told you is that these accusations are from exactly the same group of conspirators; indeed from some of the actual same accusers. They also do not tell you that these accusations are even weaker than those pursued in Scotland.
In the massive effort to prove “pattern of behaviour” in Alex Salmond’s recent trial, incidents which happened outwith Scottish jurisdiction could be presented as evidence in a separate “docket”. Thus the defence heard evidence from the “Chinese docket” of Salmond “attempting to touch” a colleague’s hair in a hotel lift in China. Well, the London “docket” was considered even weaker than that, so it was not led in the Edinburgh trial. The idea that Leslie Evans’ “war” against Salmond will be won in an English court, having failed in both the civil and criminal Scottish courts, is just black propaganda.
As is the continued campaign to claim that Salmond is really guilty, carried on by Rape Crisis Scotland. They yesterday published a statement by the nine anonymous accusers attacking Salmond further, and rather amusingly the nine wrote together to deny they were associated with each other. It seems to me entirely illegitimate for this group to be able to conduct a continued campaign of political harassment of Alex Salmond from behind the cloak of state-enforced anonymity, after he has been acquitted of all charges. I understand the reasoning behind anonymity for accusers in sex allegations. But surely state backed anonymity should not be used to enable the continued repetition of false accusations without fear of defamation law, after the jury has acquitted? That is perverse.
It is also a fact that Rape Crisis Scotland is just another instrument of the Scottish government, being almost entirely funded by the Scottish government. There is a very serious infringement of public conduct here. One of the nine conspirators, whose statement is being amplified by Rape Crisis Scotland, is personally very directly involved in the channeling of government money to Rape Crisis Scotland. That is a gross abuse of office and conflict of interest and should be a resignation matter. Here again, direct wrongdoing is being carried out from behind the screen of state-backed anonymity.
Let me give you this thought. Alex Salmond having been acquitted, you would think that the unionist media would seek to capitalise by training its guns on those at the head of the SNP who sought to frame him, who after all are still in power. But instead, the unionist media is entirely committed to attacking Salmond, in defiance of all the facts of the case. That shows you who it is the British establishment are really afraid of. It also confirms what I have been saying for years, that the SNP careerist establishment have no genuine interest in Scottish Independence and are not perceived by Whitehall as a threat to the union. And in that judgement at least, Whitehall is right.
I should state that in this article I have, absolutely against my own instincts, deferred to Alex Salmond’s noble but in my view over-generous wish to wait until the Covid-19 virus has passed before giving all the names of those involved and presenting the supporting documents. I have therefore removed several names from this article. Alex Salmond believes that it is wrong to move on this at a time when many people are suffering and grieving, and he has stated that it would indeed be narcissistic to think of his own troubles at this time of wider calamity. I find this extremely upsetting when his enemies are showing absolutely no respect nor restraint whatsoever and are engaged in full-on attack on his reputation. I can assure you this is even more frustrating for me than for you. But while the mills of God grind slowly, they grind exceedingly small.
Those who do not know Scotland are astonished that the Alex Salmond trial and its fallout have not damaged support in the polls for Independence nor even for the SNP. I am not in the least surprised – the reawakening of the national consciousness of the Scottish people is an unstoppable process. If you want to see it, look not at any single politician but at the mass enthusiasm of one of the great, self-organised AUOB marches. The spirit of Independence rides the SNP as the available vehicle to achieve its ends. It is no longer primarily inspired nor controlled by the SNP – indeed the SNP leadership is blatantly trying to dampen it down, with only marginal success. This great movement of a nation is not to be disturbed by fleeting events.
That is not to underplay the importance of events for those caught up in them. As Alex Salmond stood in the dock, he was very probably staring at the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison, of never being with his wife Moira again, and of having his reputation as Scotland’s greatest national leader for centuries erased. The party hierarchy had already overseen the Stalinesque scrubbing of his image and name from all online content under the SNP’s control. The future now looks very different, and I am cheered by the brighter horizon.
Let me finish this article by observing that the British state continues to keep the unconvicted Julian Assange in conditions of appalling detention and receiving brutal personal treatment reserved normally for the most dangerous terrorists. The British state has refused to let Assange out of jail to avert the danger of Covid-19. By contrast the government of Iran has allowed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe out of prison to reduce her danger from the epidemic. Which of these governments is portrayed as evil by the state and corporate media?
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.
——————————————
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.
I
Craig,
” The accusations in court were all fabricated and presented on a government platter to the police by a two prong process”
Those engaged in such a process might be called ‘desk killers’. A name applied to folks, such as those behind Hitler, who did not do any direct killing but operated as technocrats ( behind the desk) planning and/or facilitating all the killing.
In Salmond’s case the death ( planned death) was not an actual physical death – but – more one of a planned death of his character.
Thankfully – the plan failed.
Powerful Stuff Craig. Much thanks for your telling and incisive analysis. It Must not be left at this.
I take issue with you on one point, Craig. Don’t use the term “corrupt media”. It’s a tautology.
I concur with you on this Athanasius…..I’m just off the ‘dog n’ bone’ having had a chinwag with a journalist chum of mine.He respects Craig’s reportage but disagrees on the point of journalistic corruption.
Tam, journalists would say that wouldn’t they. If you look through the UK press, they are rabid over Alex proving his case AND found not guilty because of that. So they are saying sneaky things so that some muck will stick. Sorry I have no belief that the UK press and wider media deserve any support in what they are now doing.
I make exceptions for the very rare reporters who had the guts to say it as it is. I hope your friend was one of them, but will not hold my breath.
Thanks for this Craig.
My country’s government is corrupt – rotten to the core. How utterly depressing and sad.
Looking forward to Alex Salmond, Stuart Campbell and yourself telling us everything you know about this sick, disgraceful stitch up in due course.
This is John Stuart Parnell all over again. The British State is still the stinking corrupt disgrace that it always was. We must resolve even more firmly to be free of it.
I hadn’t thought of that until now, but yes, the parallels with John Stuart Parnell are very interesting.
That should have been Charles Stewart Parnell, of course. Saor Alba!
Or did you mean Charles Stuart Mill??
The truly sad thing though is that it seems this SNP government is corrupt as well as Craig points out.
I will give a further example, in her campaign to pass the GRA legislation Sturgeon has met with Trans Rights Activists on more than a dozen occasions. Despite this issue bearing on the rights of women she has denied access to all and any women’s groups who are opposed to GRA or have concerns about it. IOW she is not open to ANY other views on the subject which means the consultation is an absolute sham. I responded to it myself and fully expect to be completely and utterly ignored. I did so under my professional qualifications as well (I’m BSc, PhD). I found the things we were allowed to comment on highly restrictive and tendentious. Which furthers my conclusion that it is and was a sham.
IF GRA passes I will never vote SNP or Green again. I cannot vote to reward those who threw the rights of my wife, daughters, sisters, cousins, aunts, nieces rights under the bus. Absent any other options, such as a Wings party I shall spoil my ballots by writing No To GRA on them. Such are read to the candidates so they know why people did so. If more of us did this then they would realise the public opposition to this measure.
I fear the only way this will end is in absolute scandal after male after male is found to have assaulted, abused or exposed themselves to women in changing rooms, toilets, rape crisis centres and prisons. We already have examples but they have been brushed under the carpet.
Craig, as a human rights activist, will do well to stay WELL CLEAR of the faction who’ve jumped on GRA reform as a way to sow further division in Scottish society. History will show you to be nothing but a foul bigot. Which isn’t to say I don’t agree that Alex Salmond (whom I admire) has been royally stitched up; he clearly has been.
Hmmm
Had a discussion with the females in my family over gra. They were united in the opinion that while would be comfortable sharing a toilet or changing area with a fully transitioned male to female…would certainly not expected to be forced to share self same area with someone saying they felt female…but were still clearly male,with male hormones and sexual organs. I’m sorry but that is not “foul bigotry”. In fact i would say it is those females having their human rights trampled all over. Works both ways.
Excuse me for saying, but this is pure transphobia. There are few cases of males putting on dresses and raping women in female toilets. Any woman with even normal antennae will see it coming from a mile off. Such a man, rolling in testosterone enough to want to rape a woman, is going to have difficulty to present as a woman, even if he’s put on a dress.
Muscley guys like to say what their women do. The one time I tried to insist that my daughter depart on a post-school trip to south-east Asia with a companion, my female colleague advised me that it was better to let her go alone. My colleague was right, she did the trip on her own, at the age of 18, lost her passport and got a dose of typhoid (though vaccinated), and had a great learning experience.
That said, I do think that transsexuals should have certification. Changing gender is not a light thing, and self-declaration is not enough.
Hamish, how many of the people who apparently conspired falsely to accuse Mr Salmond were Scottish?
How many were English?
Oh just stop it Tom.I am half English and I’m an SNP member and have many friends who are English and support Scottish independence.Your comments aren’t helpful to say the least!
Craig has detailed the complete and utter shambles of this ‘investigation’ and then the trial. Whoever is in overall charge of the Scottish Police and of the Scottish legal system should pack up and go, without their fat pensions of course. The head of the CPS and Sturgeon too.
Apart from the injustice it must have cost the Scottish taxpayers £millions.
Where are Emile Zola and Harold Pinter when you need them?
Fortunately, Zola and Pinter have been replaced by Murray. And Craig’s title for this piece is more than a hint that he sees himself standing where Zola stood. Bravo, Craig.
The one thing that’s on my mind Craig, is did the Scottish government (the heirarchy) act alone in this, what I mean was, is, this a power struggle, for the heart of the SNP, (Salmond was making a comeback) or are they working for, with, the British state, to stop Scottish independence altogether?
Even if it is the former then it still such a severe threat to the optics for the indy movement that no supporter of the movement would ever countenance engaging in.
Actually I’m of a mind its the latter, especially with MI5 getting involved to try and dig up non existent dirt on Salmond.
Republic of Scotland:
Both those things could be true at the same time.
Republicofscotland
That is the 64, 000$ question, let us hope in coming times after the virus, it is blown wide open. But some of the shadower ones will have already cleaned their path. Remember who we are dealing with.
As Kipling observed, the female of the species is more deadlier than the male. To which one could add the observation made by Dr Starkey that the scales of justice seem to have a large female paw resting on one side.
Please do not mistake these observations for any form of misogyny, its rather that allegations regarding sexual misconduct have always had the effect of being rather sticky even despite acquittals, and such allegations have become some sort of modus operandi in the very rough game of politics and the efforts to knock competitors down its greasy pole.
The apparent request to police and security organs to ‘Find’ something raises further worries. One must wonder if the hand of Perfidious Albion has been at work here, as the coming dissection of the case against Mr Salmond will no doubt reflect badly on both the current leadership of the SNP, and provide ammunition to cast doubt should Mr Salmond wish to re enter the top level of Scottish political life.
Remarkable also the urge of the BBC to project its post modern credentials with what amounts to an assertion that the jury in the case against Mr Salmond made the wrong decision. So much for the Golden Thread of British justice.
As described in this article, “female of the species” that were rather randomly selected to serve in the jury differed quite a bit from the females that conducted the witch hunt. Moreover, the hunters “trawled” through hundreds of regular women. Thus this article gives no basis for a sweeping generalization.
However, women may be a bit more group oriented than men, and some groups are more attractive to sociopathic personalities, notably on higher levels of hierarchies where it helps to form cliques that use “all means necessary” to keep undesired ones down. Excessive compassion and other stereotypically female traits are deselected, and the pro-group orientation does the rest (becoming pro-clique orientation). In other words, sisterhoods of Valkyrias is quite different from the women in general. Hojoho ho! Hojoho ho! Heiaha!
“MI5 also hired a London security consultancy to work on this story.”
Which one?
A security consultancy that works on a story sounds very niche.
Presumably if it’s a “London” company it isn’t Kroll.
Is it the SQR Group?
N_
There a developed industry of conspiracy planners to choose from.
The control by MI5/MI6 over trials that are politically motivated or could expose the security services in running state crime is all encompassing. In many of the latter it isn’t just the prosecution and witnesses that are corrupt, it could also be the defence lawyers, judges and jury. The defendant doesn’t have a chance and so MI5/MI6’s involvement in organised crime remains hidden.
Ruth,
Relative to what you said you may want to research the ‘Matrix/Churchill’ case.
That was the case in which the company Matrix -Churchill was prosecuted for selling arms to Iraq after the Iraq war had begun. When the defence cut deeply into the facts, it became evident what the British state was doing and so then PM Tony Blair stopped the case in the ‘national interest’. I believe then that it really was the prosecution which was the corrupt party from onset.
How ironic that it was Blair stopping the trial in the ‘national interest’ when contrary to the ‘national interest’ it was he who centrally helped to do that which was manifestly not in the ‘national interest’.
Thanks. I know about this case and there are a lot more.
Phew!That was a breathtaking reading experience.You deserve our thanks.Your service is indispensable to right minded people interested in justice and genuine political representation. I wonder if some of your comments are so devastating for some complainants that it surely leaves it impossible for them not to take some action.
I hope you have a trusty ally with full information and copious notes, in the event that you find it difficult to follow this article up.You must surely be a marked man. Stay safe.Beware of (coughing) strangers.
My advice to Alex Salmond is to strike while the iron is hot.
By the time any court case comes around, things will have moved along significantly where CoVid19 is concerned. Indeed, unless we have a very different strain emerging in the UK than the Wuhan one subdued in China ,we should be getting back to normal by early to mid July.
Unlikely that any court case would be before the autumn, by the time all the evidence has been collated, rap sheets drawn up, witnessed contacted and signed up etc etc. Not to mention getting in the queue for whatever Court of Law would be used for such a case.
“indeed the SNP leadership is blatantly trying to dampen it down, ”
That’s very true, as former AUOB Manny Singh is to be sentenced on Wednesday for starting the Glasgow march at 1.30pm instead of an early time set out by the GCC.
Friends of Manny told the National newspaper that the SNP ran Glasgow city council are going to make an example of him.
“So why was the charge brought?”
Just what I was wondering – the obviously conclusion would be collusion and corruption, but I didn’t want it to be so. But, that’s how the world works I suppose. By you stating this boldly, Craig, can I assume that Alex Salmond will not be stopping at just naming the accusers and presenting evidence, but will be pursuing reparation from all those parts of the justice system that have been found wanting?
Prosecuting authorities in both England and Scotland are wary of any cases that centre on ‘Hot Button’ issues of the day, and would rather punt them out to a jury than risk being accused of being insensitive to topical concerns.
As for Mr Salmond’s options, I wonder if pursuing the matter further will not be a hiding to nothing because he will be portrayed as hounding victims, rather than seeking to expose the use of the justice system for political ends. So much is clear from the opening shots of the ‘Woke’ BBC who seem to be moving at speed to pre-empt the issue.
When the women’s lies are properly exposed then there is no way even our media can portray the harridans involved as victims. Real women have fathers, husbands, brothers and sons and know just how evil the alphabet women are. There is an undeniable case for naming them to protect the public.
CasualObserver
Then you suggest Alex Salmond should just let all this go. I think he has every right to take action on accusers that compiled these actions along with those ( whoever they are} who orchestrated them to do all of this. They are the ones who are guilty here, they tried to do something very illegal in order to damage an innocent man, and should get all they deserve no matter who they are.
I think I’ve just read by a Scottish country mile the most important article on my country’s destiny and suspect it will be quoted regularly in years to come.
It is both depressing and uplifting.
I want independence for my country because it creates the best chance of re-balancing power between citizen and State. I have supported the SNP in the belief that they share that aspiration. Craig Murray has now given me serious room for doubt – that’s the depressing bit.
It’s uplifting though because here is but one individual who has the power of expression and is able to communicate his thoughts and ideas and thereby give the rest of us the power to think and form our own views and not simply rely on views thrust upon us. It is that ability which gives me hope.
Thank you Craig – I was beginning to despair of journalism as represented by every newspaper in Scotland , not to mention the BBBC and their smirking innuendo!
Extremely incendiary stuff, CM: pure white phosphorus.
As the old British Council library stamp had it: THE TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH
Fullest possible marks for perhaps your most viscerally honest blog post since your blog’s inception. High praise from me.
Provided of course that truth is allowed to participate in the competition. Whereas it is obvious from Mr Murray’s account that truth, in this matter, is shackled and imprisoned as thoroughly as Julian Assange – her faithful servant.
“And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…”
– John Milton, “Areopagitica”
Excellent article. Many thanks for this. I look forward to the details of the conspirators being revealed soon. As for the involvement of MI5 (or their siblings and offspring), the recording of a QC on a train during the trial bears all the hallmarks of a security operation. I hope your contacts can unearth who is responsible.
Someone has to lodge a complaint before the police will investigate. Alex Salmond and Gordon Jackson are the obvious people to do so. Perhaps other people will also be ale to do so, after AS has had a spell of R & R.
“Someone has to lodge a complaint before the police will investigate”.
Really? Can that possibly be the case? That in the UK, people can commit blatant perjury without any employee of the “justice system” taking the slightest notice?
In better constructed legal systems, such as the Code Napoleon, it is the bounden duty of all public servants to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute the perpetrators of any crime that comes to their attention.
And to do so immediately, as a matter of urgency.
Thank you very much for your ever-valuable insight Craig. In light of The National’s disgraceful header, I now intend to shun them for good and will subscribe to you via standing order.
While I eagerly await your subsequent filling in the blanks in good time, I am mindful of the universally established fact that the Irish independence movement (from the pro-devolution Parliamentary Party, to the hard-line PIRA) was infiltrated by the British state apparatus, all the way to the very top. It is foolish to think the SNP are not likewise compromised and therefore to my great disappointment that many in the YES movement, even now, refuse to confront this fact head-on.
Even at this stage in proceedings, it is my unequivocal belief that the Sturgeon and Murrell cabal’s involvement is sufficient that their position is well and truly untenable, with no way back for them. Is this a fair conclusion?
I also note the new Panelbase poll results with interest and while never treating any such poll as gospel, does this offer hope for our future direction?
I’m in Dundee RIC and sitting in meetings playing ‘who is reporting to MI5’ can be kind of fun. I will add that I bet I am suspected by others. Such is the nature of such things. To think a radical left wing grouping dedicated against the British state and located in the most traditionally radical and most Yes City in Scotland would not be kept an eye on by the spooks would invite an offer to be sold a bridge.
After a Yes vote I intend to ask for a copy or sight of my file. I have other reason to think I am being surveilled electronically, or was.
The account of the Salmond case is fascinating. The stuff about Scottish national consciousness at the end is mere rubbish. Any party that plans to be subservient to Brussels is not arguing for independence.
Agreed !
Meanwhile, did or did not Salmond’s QC, Gordon Jackson, talk openly on a train about his client’s high-profile court case, calling the former First Minister a “sex pest”, “inappropriate”, “an arse hole”, “a bully” and “stupid” ?
No he did not. The Times interpretation of the recording is somewhat creative. I suspect substantial damages are coming Mr Salmond’s way in due course.
I am sure that those responsible will be untroubled, no matter how much of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money has to be paid in damages.
You misunderstand. The number and extent of powers we will recover from Westminster are of orders of magnitude greater than those we must SHARE with our European partners when we have full membership with all the voting rights which come with that and the opportunity to form alliances to change things. iScotland’s membership will be very different from Westminster’s. The whole ultra merchantilist stance of the EU is very much London’s creation and there are lots of people in the EU building to reverse it now London is gone. Europe itself will be different and better from Scottish Independence.
I might hope our post independence media might break the British mould and report fairly about the EU. You must accept that your views on the issue might have been coloured by the British press which has presented a distorted parody of the EU with Boris Johnson a prime culprit. That you agree with Boris Johnson is condemnation enough. J’Accuse.
i will further note that in chapping doors campaigning for Independence Eurosceptics have universally been manifestly ignorant about the EU. The number of times I’ve had it put to me that we get Nothing back from the EU is significant. One from a guy very close to council houses being improved using EU monies.
Post Independence the remoteness, low population and transport difficulties of the Highlands and Islands will become more stark in not being subsumed within developed England. So we will qualify for structural funds. This promises to transform the Highlands and Islands, the SW and perhaps elsewhere.
With the most unequal land ownership in the world, second only to Brazil, the only thing that will transform the Highlands, Perthshire and Aberdeenshire, is Land Value Tax, and a complete stop to ‘grouse moor subsidies’.
Hidden away, and not reported, is the Clearances, part 2. the turning of estate cottages, into airbnb / holiday rental homes, leaving nowhere for folk to live. Land that costs a couple of £ hundred an acre when an estate is bought, is sold for £75,000 a half acre with planning permission, easily granted by forelock tugging planning departments.
Land reform, and wildlife crime seems to be permanently stuck in committee ?
Obviously a clear contradiction in terms.
Only when you think of the intentions behind the rhetoric of our highly travelled FM, do you get the gist. Her sights have always been set on the higher echelons of Brussels.
Yes, Mr and Mrs Murrell have bought into a blue skies lifestyle with all the trappings, and with Andrew Wilson of the CSP buying their tickets.
Nice.
Dearieme
Get aff yer high horse and realise two things. First is that Scotland voted to remain and second, is it will be our decision.
That High Horse is all Dearime’s got, I believe.
Scotland also voted to remain part of the U.K. but you conveniently forget that.
Once again, many thanks for the time and effort you have put into this. I have said elsewhere that you are a star and you’re certainly one of my heroes.
Clearly this whole thing is a calamitous defeat for the Scottish Govnt, the Police, Crown Office and the media. Once they had heard the evidence that was allowed to be presented the jury didn’t buy the prosecution case. The bigger issue seems to be one of civil and criminal processes being used as the means of persecuting and neutralising a political campaigner. That should be the public’s concern. However on a lesser issue I am left wondering that if the criminal case was full of massive holes/weaknesses how serious was the case preparation done by COPFS before this got to trial? Did they obtain the disclosure schedule of all relevant material including disclosure of exculpatory information as the Police are, by law, required to provide? Was the Defence ever given sight of these at any stage and were the exculpatory aspects (that are now known) previously known by the Crown and disclosed to the Defence pre-trial?
Full disclosure would indeed be the norm. The whole point of the prosecution was to use Moorov to imply a pattern of behaviour and convict on that basis. The defence addressed that issue but could really only bring evidence rebutting each individual complaint and hope that knocked enough out to derail the prosecution argument whilst the prosecution would hope it would stay intact.
BTW that the verdicts were by majority does not ipso facto mean ANYONE in the jury room thought AS was guilty. That Not Proven won in one charge might suggest that instead it was a contest between Not Guilty and Not Proven. I have experience that this happens which all I can say.
So the conspirators should not take heart from the majority rather than unanimous nature of the verdicts. That is a wrinkle of the three verdicts possible in Scotland.
Further to Courtenay Barnett’s comment relating to the murder of a person’s character, a poignant speech by Catherine Brown (@NeoLawrencian) came to mind, from “Imperialism on Trial” – 11 June 2019. [Here https://youtu.be/fgPeHyJiGrQ ]
In this very thoughtful speech she noted that: “WikiLeaks, for example, does not assassinate characters. What it does is reveal evidence that certain powerful people’s characters are in a critical condition … What it does is (as it were) leak their MORAL medical records which, given the power that those people have, it is emphatically in the public interest to do.”
I strongly recommend that people watch this speech in full.
It seems you are playing the “WikiLeaks role” here, re the reputational attacks on Alex Salmond,
Bravo. (And thanks for reminding people about the shocking farce still playing out in the US extradition case against Julian Assange.)
NOTE: All of the speeches from the “Imperialism on Trial” events can be access from this Twitter Moment: https://twitter.com/i/events/1152567140643430400
The transcript from that speech is here: https://catherinebrown.org/the-character-assassination-of-julian-assange-imperialism-on-trial-free-julian-assange-june-2019/
A forceful presentation of logic. Why indeed would the anti-independence media still be going hell for leather after the acquitted Salmond rather than the humiliated leadership of the independence movement?
Tells us everything we need to know about how serious a threat the current SNP leadership is believed to be by the British establishment.
This is nuclear. When I saw SNP MPs voting to go forward with trying to extradite Julian Assange, and the rise of toxic identity politics I felt something was off with the SNP. But I had no idea it was this bad.
This puts the SNP in its very own, ship of Theseus moment. Is it worth saving or is a new vehicle for independence required? Alex would make an excellent figurehead for a Holyrood list party, but why stop at the lists? Why not go up against the SNP in the constituencies, head to head, FPTP?
Because that could split the vote sufficient to hand the seat to a Unionist is why.
No, we have to reclaim OUR party from those whose face is set against independence. I trust many more will come to that revelation sooner rather than later.
That is a brilliant and brave piece Craig well done, 2 quid a month is not enough. The more of this that comes out the worse it gets. Leslie Evans is the most disgusting individual alive, he utter contempt for the people of Scotland and her desire to further the colonial imprisonment of Scotland is disgusting. What a selfish utterly evil individual. Nicola you and the SNP hierarchy are a disgrace.
The British as usual are making the same mistakes they made in Ireland they shot the leaders of the uprising and thus tuned the people who were origanly against the rebellion to join it THIER arrogance is beyond belief but I as a citizen demand that police Scotland take action on these people who lied in court no more Ruth Davidson cover ups for gods sake surely there must be some of you willing to honour your oath to uphold honour and justice ???
Good point. Imperial Britain kept making this mistake of making martyrs. It imprisoned Gandhi remember. Being imprisoned by Britain is a badge of honour for the leaders of many of the former Imperial possessions. Look at what Apartheid SA did when it imprisoned the ANC leadership. They emerged from Robben Island to lead the country.
Great article Craig
Fitting the Crime to make the Punishment ?