Reporting the Alex Salmond Trial 261

 in Uncategorized by

Imagine you had not seen the reporting of the Julian Assange hearing by myself or by any other citizen journalist. Imagine you had only seen the reports of the mainstream media. What impression would you have of that hearing solely from the MSM and how would it differ from the impression you have now?

Every fact I reported from the Assange hearing was just that, a fact. Nobody, anywhere, has made a single claim that anything I reported to have happened, did not happen. Yet the mainstream media simply did not report 99% of the facts of the case which I reported.

Then realise this. For all the key evidential parts of Alex Salmond’s trial, the public and citizen journalists will be excluded and only the MSM will be permitted to be there. How thorough, how accurate and how fair do you think MSM reporting of the case will be? The MSM hate Alex Salmond as a danger to the status quo, just as they hate Julian Assange.

At least for the Assange trial I could queue from 6am and get in with the public. The public will themselves be excluded from the Salmond evidence sessions. I went to the court on Thursday and was told not to queue on Monday as there will be no parts of the trial open to the public that day. I was told to queue from early Tuesday morning with the possibility of a brief admission to the courtroom for the public at some point on that day, by no means guaranteed.

I have therefore applied to be admitted to the trial as a journalist. This is the email I sent to the courts service. I apologise that circumstances compelled me to blow my own trumpet, but the application is quite true if embarrassingly immodest. I am indeed the most widely read journalist resident in Scotland. The fact my journalism does not reach its audience by the medium of dead trees, or by TV news broadcast to an ever-shrinking audience of gullible old people, does not change that.

CRAIG MURRAY
To: [email protected]

Thu, 5 Mar at 16:53

Sirs,

I am arguably the most read journalist resident in Scotland. We have undoubtedly the most popular and most read new media website in Scotland, https://www.craigmurray.org.uk.
Our regular readership is higher than the regular readership of the Scotsman or Herald, and on a good day higher than any Scottish newspaper. I have 75,000 followers on Twitter.

Last week our daily coverage of the Julian Assange hearing reached many millions of readers all around the world.

Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day 1

Many hundreds of thousands followed the hearing on my own website, and in the English language the article was republished on hundreds of websites worldwide, as proven by a google search of an unique exact phrase from the article, which gives 869 returns
.
My Assange hearing articles last week were in addition translated and republished in languages including French, German, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese (Iberian and Brazilian), Norwegian, Japanese and probably several others of which I do not know.

It is not just a question of quantity. This is reporting of the highest quality. My Assange case reporting was commended in the strongest terms by some of the UK’s most famous journalists, including Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger

former Daily Mail chief columnist Peter Oborne

And the legendary investigative journalist John Pilger

I would therefore be grateful if you would organise media accreditation for me to cover the Salmond case. In the modern world, the best journalists and those with the biggest audiences no longer work for the corporate or state media. Plainly, I am a journalist.

Craig Murray

The response to my email was of course to send me a form to fill, and that form made absolutely plain that it expected “journalists” to be from the established corporate and state media. Amusingly it also said the media organisation must have “balanced journalism”. That is of course another lie by the authorities. They have accredited the BBC, Sky and the Daily Telegraph, for example. They have not the slightest interest in balance, merely in excluding non right wing thinkers.

I have not heard back yet on my application. There is an irony that this blog might be regarded as a significant medium of publication for purposes of being threatened with jail for (ridiculous) alleged contempt of court, but not be regarded as a publication for the purposes of attending in court.

I still await a decision. If my accreditation is not accepted, my ability to report proceedings will be severely constrained. My strong suspicion is that being a good and accurate reporter with a wide international readership will appear to the authorities precisely the grounds on which they should try to exclude me. If excluded, I will provide what reporting I can, in any event, and gain entry at least to that part where the public are admitted, while finding ways to report what I cannot directly witness: I already know a great deal more than I am permitted to tell you about the facts of the case.

——————————————

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

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

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

Alternatively:

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

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

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

261 thoughts on “Reporting the Alex Salmond Trial”

1 2 3 4
  • Mary

    Heard on LBC just now.

    ‘Alex Salmond goes on trial today for a string of sexual offences.’

    Guilty as charged LBC before any ‘trial’ takes place?

      • Mary

        Mine? Yes. Born and bred here and I used to be proud of this country. No more..

        You ‘write’ from Holland I believe.

      • Tom Welsh

        You may have misunderstood. Consider the headline as quoted.

        ‘Alex Salmond goes on trial today for a string of sexual offences.’

        That clearly and definitely implies that there were a string of sexual offences.

        The wording might have been changed to comply with law and common decency. E.g. ‘‘Alex Salmond goes on trial today accused of an alleged string of sexual offences.’

        Of course, that lacks punch and wouldn’t earn a bonus from the powers that be.

        • Martinned

          To any normal English reader the former would be understood as meaning the latter, particularly in the context of a newspaper headline, where brevity is king.

          • pretzelattack

            Not normal English readers with a familiarity with how “justice” is currently being dispensed in the u.k. See the Assange trial.

          • Tom Welsh

            As a normal English reader (I am fluent in the language, although I am Scottish), I disagree. In fact, that is why I wrote my comment.

            As for headlines, your mention of brevity is specious. Brevity is no excuse for inaccuracy.

          • andic

            The headline reads as if the trial is a formality and “they got the guilty bastard”. If you read it unguarded and are not aware then the seed is planted in your mind. Its basic NLP and don’t be naïve or disingenuous professional writers understand these ideas.

            But having just read Squeeth’s contribution, I think he understands the nature of this debate better than anyone.

  • Dippy

    The irony is that Salmond is facing trial under the very same laws and procedures that he himself introduced when he was in Government.

        • J

          It would be reasonable to cite specifically which laws and procedures then demonstrate when, where and by whom they were introduced.

      • Martinned

        Indeed. As far as I can tell, the main piece of legislation that Dippy might have had in mind is the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, but that one dates from 2016, well after Salmond left office. (Otherwise there’s the pre-devolution Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.)

  • Mary

    Craig tweeted:

    I had been so pumped to cover the Salmond trial that my brain and body leapt awake at 5.30am ready to go queue. The message that the public are not admitted plainly did not get through to my subconscious.
    6:38 am · 9 Mar 2020·

    I got a threat of jail prosecution for contempt of court for this satire that doesn’t even mention Salmond.
    https://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/yes-minister-fan-fiction/
    Yet he is being utterly demonised all over the MSM – who are the only ones allowed into court for the evidence. The public gallery will be cleared.
    1:46 pm · 8 Mar 2020

    In the mother of ‘democracy’.

    Orwell lives.

    • Hamish McGlumpha

      Indeed. Much of this case will be effectively ‘behind closed doors’; the witnesses will be and will remain ‘anonymous’ and any reportage that emerges will come from people who have already made plain their antipathy to the defendant, and whose raison d’être is to destroy his political movement.

      This is ‘democracy’

      • Martinned

        This is protecting victims of sexual assault, and more generally the privacy of witnesses in criminal cases.

        • Monster

          No, it is to prevent the possibility that conscientious journalists and people like Craig may uncover the bias and misdirection of the laughable Scottish judiciary. Salmond will be found guilty; it just needs a show trial, incommunicado, to gain the administrative seal of approval..

          • Martinned

            It must be nice to rant anonymously on the internet without worrying about the possibility that you might someday have to give evidence as a victim of sexual assault…

          • Tom Welsh

            In the unlikely event that, as a 71-year-old man, I have to appear in court as the victim of a sexual assault, I would not ask for secrecy. I would prefer the maximum of openness so that the truth of the matter could be arrived at.

            Being assulted is bad (potentially very bad indeed). Having people know about it does not seem as bad.

        • Tony

          English clearly isn’t YOUR first language ‘Martinned’, otherwise you would have correctly stated “alleged victims”.

          • jake

            Tony,
            The provision for evidence to be given behind closed doors though isn’t there to protect what you call alleged victims. It’s there to protect actual victims. In precedings though the terms used will be “witness” or “complainant”. Properly the word alleged should be reserved for the matters of which the defendant stands accused. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Tom Welsh

            Logically, Tony, the people described as “victims” are victims only if the alleged crimes took place.

            So if the crimes are only alleged, the victimhood is also alleged – until guilt has been positively established.

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            English is very much his first language.

            There is no unintended omission He has already decided the verdict (and sadly he is not alone in this) I know you know this Tony – but it needs to be said.

            Stalin could learn nothing from the British judicial system (Scottish branch included). The decision has been made.

          • Martinned

            Frankly I’m surprised at the insistence on the “alleged”. That’s not normally a common feature in comment threads on this blog. (Unless KGB spies are accused of something.)

            In any event, you’re forgetting: someone can be an *actual* victim of an *alleged* rapist. The true guilty party might be someone else. Someone who hasn’t been victimised in the first place won’t normally be called to testify.

          • Bayard

            “Someone who hasn’t been victimised in the first place won’t normally be called to testify.”

            If someone was “called to testify” as a victim, then it means that the plaintiff cannot have been the raped person. Even then, there is only the plaintiff’s word that the victim has been raped, so the victim is still an alleged victim until rape is proven.

          • Tony

            The allegations are very specific ‘Martinned’. Your attempt to prevaricate is piss weak.

          • Kaiama

            Precisely. That Martinned cannot see anything wrong with the OP comments is PROOF of either his wilful disregard or ignorance of the correct phaseology.

        • Forthestate

          “This is protecting victims of sexual assault”

          The alleged victims of sexual assault. You seem to have absolutely no regard for the most basic niceties of law.
          For example, you cannot be tried for an offence. To be tried for an offence clearly implies that an offence has been committed, and therefore presumes guilt until proven otherwise. What is on trial is the allegation of an offence. All your language with reference to this trial is based on a presumption of guilt: there can only be victims of sexual assault if the defendant is presumed guilty. If the defendant is presumed innocent, then the sexual assault remains an allegation until proven otherwise. You need to mind your legal ps and qs.

          And an understanding of English which cannot accommodate the obvious innuendo of implied guilt in the legally illiterate statement that “Alex Salmond goes on trial today for a string of sexual offences” is clearly deficient.

      • On the train

        Yes that is how it seems to be. It is in some ways like Julian Assanges trial. It is really a show trial conducted for political reasons in order to achieve political ends. The anonymity offered to the people accusing Alex Salmond seems shocking and on the face of it makes it almost impossible for Alex Salmond to defend himself . It reminds me of the trial in Alice in Wonderland..
        The Queen says…”….Sentence first , verdict afterwards”
        “ Stuff and nonsense,” said Alice loudly, “ The idea of having a sentence first ! “
        “ Hold your tongue ! “ said the. Queen , turning purple
        “I won’t ! “, said Alice
        “Off with her head ! “ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice…..

        • Sally

          “The anonymity offered to the people accusing Alex Salmond seems shocking”: How can you possibly blame the legal system and the media for this? When he was in power he could have changed the law to deny complainers in sexual assault cases the right to anonymity. Salmond and his ‘progressive’ government would have had not truck with such a suggestion. Salmond’s administration changed the law and how the courts operate in numerous ways to make it ‘easier’ to obtain convictions in sexual assault cases. The low point in the Scottish Parliament was when Kenny McAskill tried to sneak in a law to abolish corroboration ostensibly to “bring justice into our communities” but really to make it ‘easier’ to obtain convictions in sexual assault cases. There are also calls to abolish the not proven verdict. Conveniently or not put on hold at the moment. Again this is designed to make it easier to send men assured of sexual offenses to prison for a long time. When Salmond was in office he presented himself as a champion of the complainers (victims) of sexual assault whilst his ‘progressive’ government enacted legislation to that effect. Talk about being hoist by your petard. It is hard to have one ounce of sympathy for Salmond.

          • Hamish McGlumpha

            Which makes the charges seem even more absurd. Why would a man who changed the law “to make it ‘easier’ to obtain convictions in sexual assault cases” be so stupid as to place himself in danger of its use. Irony of Ironies.

            The British Establishment, nothing if not ‘witty’, loves its little jokes

        • Tom Welsh

          Many of us have been showing signs of shocked surprise at the discovery that British “justice” is unjust, and indeed deliberately skewed in favour of the powers that be. (Not always the prosecution: if a leading politician is caught bang to rights committing a crime, it may be the defence that is allowed to trample justice underfoot).

          But this is all of a piece with the shocking discovery that British (and American) “democracy” is nothing of the kind. It is just a sophisticated masquerade carefully designed to give enough of the superficial appearance of democracy to allow the broad masses to accept it as such without too much wear and tear to their tender pink consciences.

      • N_

        Alex Salmond’s supporters should be happy, then, because from their point of view surely the appeal will be a walk in the park: there has been terrible judicial misconduct (not allowing public access, allowing LBC – based in the Antichrist’s main centre, London! – to commit contempt of court and wield an evil influence over the jury), and no doubt an overwhelming quantity of fresh evidence will be produced showing that all the women making the allegations were part of a “British nationalist” plot to besmirch the name of the almost-Liberator of his country, the man who threatened to boycott his own referendum if it wasn’t held in 2014, 700 years after the freemasons’ favourite mediaeval battle.

        For some people, everything’s a football match. Perhaps even some of the jurors voted with the majority in the indyref! What a disgrace! A party member should only be tried by a party court!

        Clue: the JURY will try this case ON THE EVIDENCE.

  • Marmite

    “balanced journalism”

    yuck – I’d want to stay as far away from the reek of this as possible.

    if ever there was a euphemism for the most insidious filth ever printed, that would have to be it.

    journalism that is worthy of the name (rather than disingenuous, groveling and snot-nosed) should not be tippy-toeing around the murderous crimes of state and market, but putting power’s back up against the wall every single time there is a reason to do that.

    that’s why we come here and spit on the grovelers at The Guardian.

    • Martinned

      Yeah, I don’t think Craig has to worry about anyone thinking he’s doing balanced journalism. Whether that’s a good thing or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

      • Tony

        Craig reports ALL the facts, and frames them in opinion pieces. As opposed to the msm, who either ignore these stories completely or omit facts or plain lie. People such as Alan Rusbridger think the option provided by Craig is a good thing. I think it’s infinitely better than the alternatives. Maybe you prefer the silence/BS provided by the msm?

      • Anthony

        The idea of balanced journalism is one of the great conditioning myths we’re inculcated with from any early age.

        • Tom Welsh

          I think “balanced journalism” in that sense is closely related to the Overton Window. (According to Wikipedia, “…the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time”).

          Noam Chomsky explained it a little more exactly: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate”.

      • J

        Perhaps you can elucidate why you feel qualified to judge between balanced journalism or anything else.

    • Tom Welsh

      It really is strange that, more than 50 years after my friends and I used to mock the self-righteous idiots who read the Grauniad and believed what they read, some people somewhere appear to be still actually paying for it.

      There’s nowt so queer as folks.

    • N_

      What are your favourite instances of true journalism? Thalidomide? Deep Throat? Fear and Loathing in LA? Jeremy Paxman? Emile Zola? Or are you appealing to some ideal notion of journalism? Everybody who has ever come near any journalists knows they are a bunch of cynical, bitchy, gullible, blockheaded, superficial and often drug-addled jokers.

    • Tom Welsh

      Thanks for that link, Mary. I had completely forgotten Cook’s fantastic tour de force.

      Now THAT was a satirist.

    • Borncynical

      Regarding your comment on Westminster, very disturbing brief summary on the BBC red button. The chap was waving two knives at approaching armed police and was duly tasered AND shot. Was tasering him really not sufficient? No suggestion of the old excuse of an explosive vest but presumably that will emerge as the explanation. I shall await details with interest.

  • Anne Johnston

    Reminds me of a quote from Pinter in his Nobel speech from 2008.,

    ‘..even when it was happening, it wasn’t happening..
    come and see, come and see the blood on the streets.’

    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

      Regarding that last line: “Come and see the blood in the streets” …

      Pinter himself can only have been quoting from the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda’s unforgettable Spanish Civil War poem “EXPLICO ALGUNAS COSAS”. The poem’s final heartrending line, thrice repeated, is: “Venid a ver la sangre por las calles.”

      Neruda can be heard reading his poem here:

      https://youtu.be/TfYu0wBCd-U

      The text of the original Spanish, with English and Scottish Gaelic translations, can be found (down page) here:

      https://gobha-uisge.blogspot.com/2015/08/rip-in-reality-franco-seeps-through.html

      • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

        No doubt of further interest to readers will be that Neruda (Chilean diplomat as well as poet) was perhaps assassinated 12 days after Pinochet took over, and the day before the poet was due to leave Chile for exile in Mexico. Article by Ramona Wadi here (written 2019) –

        WAS PABLO NERUDA MURDERED?
        “Less than two weeks after the Salvador Allende-led Chilean government was overthrown in a violent coup d’etat, Pablo Neruda, Allende’s friend and comrade, died on September 23, 1973. Ramona Wadi investigates doubts about his death.”

        https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/06/12/was-pablo-neruda-murdered/

  • Julian

    “… being a good and accurate reporter with a wide international readership will appear to the authorities precisely the grounds on which they should try to exclude me.”

    Exactly! Bigging up your — excellent — Assange coverage might not have been a winning strategy 😉

  • Cubby

    The concept of innocent until proven guilty seems to be totally lost on the Brutish Nationalist media and of course some of the posters above. The concept of justice being seen to be done is also lost on the same people.

    What great jurors they would make in a witch trial in previous centuries. They would also make a great baying mob shouting “burn the witch burn the witch”.

    Sadly some people have clearly not progressed from these dark historical times and are happy to put on display their lynch mob mentality for people they dislike.

    Humanity progresses very slowly.

    • Contrary

      Funny you should mention witches, Cubby, I was just reading this:

      https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/qc-launches-justice-campaign-for-scotlands-witches/

      The first few paragraphs:

      “A campaign seeking justice for thousands of people in Scotland who were convicted of witchcraft in past centuries and executed, has been launched by a senior advocate to mark International Women’s Day.

      Claire Mitchell QC wants a legal pardon to be given to those, predominantly women, who were condemned under the Witchcraft Act 1563, and a national monument in their memory. She is appealing to the public to support her “Witches of Scotland” campaign, and to help bring about an apology like that given to the victims of the trials in the 1690s in Salem, Massachusetts.

      The Witchcraft Act remained in force until 1736, and an estimated 3,837 people – about 84% of them women – were accused of witchcraft, a capital crime. Around 2,600 people are thought to have been executed, by being strangled and then burned at the stake, so as to leave no body for burial. People were locked up awaiting trial and tortured, often in public, to confess.

      Public feeling was heightened by King James VI of Scotland, who was obsessed with witchcraft and attended witch trials. “

      It doesn’t, of course, take away from your analogy of the baying mob, and when it takes centuries for justice to prevail,,, well, it’s not a particularly good deterrent either. The article doesn’t actually say if all the cases are going to be reinvestigated either (I’m joking there).

      • Cubby

        Contrary

        An interesting read.

        I would just add the controversial (?) point that this was all done with the agreements ( blessings?) of the churches/religion of the day. So even religions and gods work can be improved.

        • Giyane

          Cubby

          Totalitarianism may have been eliminated in Christianity, but it is burgeoning in Hinduism and Islam. Our own darling NATO has found religious totalitarianism conducted by fake imams is a better tool for staving off the flourishing of non European countries than tin pot dictators. Fake wars between totalitarian mullahs and totalitarian dictators is the ultimate dream of Empire2 divide and rule.

          Power fosters ignorance, and when we vote fo against the ignorance, they rig our elections to stay in power.

  • Mary

    Justice in Great Britain March 9th 2020:

    ‘Craig Murray
    @CraigMurrayOrg
    ·
    2m
    Still waiting to hear whether I shall be admitted as media to the Alex Salmond trial, largely closed to the public. Am now referred to a 3rd email address, “judicial communications”, who act on behalf of the judge.
    Maybe they are asking her. Maybe they are eating sandwiches.;

  • Blair Paterson

    In the name of justice we should be outside the court all the time photographing everyone going in and out so that we can identify who they are over tlme these heroes who are to remain anonymous even if their accusations are proved false can then be exposed and moral justice will be done

    • Cubby

      The British Nationalist media know who they are already. Others do as well.

      If their accusations are proved to be false I would suggest that their motivation for doing so would be very interesting to find out.

      • N_

        How left wing is it to ignore Scottish corruption while voting to keep the nationalist government in office and ranting on instead about foreigners and those who aren’t of the favoured ethnicity?

        • Cubby

          N

          Dearie me old chap. Kindly do me the favour of not commenting on my posts with totally irrelevant comments to my original post.

          Your cooperation would be much appreciated.

          Note to moderators. This is an example of how I now respond to nonsensical and irrelevant posts. Hope it meets with your approval.

  • Paul Brown

    Craig, I know you prefer a monthly contribution but as I have been diagnosed with terminal cancer that won’t bring you much income! So I have bunged you £50.
    Keep up the good work.

  • N_

    “I went to the court on Thursday and was told not to queue on Monday as there will be no parts of the trial open to the public that day.”

    My experience with the Scottish legal system is that those who wield weight in it are an openly dirty bunch of motherf***ers, accustomed to lying and cheating and not used to having anybody stand in their way. I could list a number of instances of obviously injudicial actions in Scotland, amounting basically to “We don’t need no stinking badges”. Instances include unlawful actions by Scottish executive officials that other officials don’t even deny are unlawful but arrogantly declare they are going to ignore (so much for the “rule of law”!) and blatant cases of falsifying figures and arranging procedures in order to thieve.

    It is a disgrace that so many parts of Alex Salmond’s trial are closed except to the MSM.

    But … is the SNP going to do anything about it? They’ve never challenged any other aspects of power relationships in Scotland, have they? Maybe the fact that they are part of the stinking crock of corruption might have something to do with that.

    Nobody can say the Scottish legal system is dominated by “Westminster”. It clearly isn’t. That whole discourse is a deliberate distraction from the coruption, and builds support for the Scotttish government among the gullible and least intelligent.

    The question is this: which step will rock the boat of corruption least – acquitting Salmond or locking him up? It could possibly be the first, so long as he can be prevailed upon to keep his trap shut afterwards. Or it could be the second. We’ll find out.

    • U Watt

      Even if by some miracle he’s acquitted the stain will stick. It’s assured already he won’t be able to rally people in the event of IndyRef2.

      • N_

        Only a very brave person would predict the verdict with such confidence as to say that the result that they believe to be less probable would be a “miracle”.

        Generally speaking in criminal trials no old hand would suggest it was more than 80-20. They’d get far too much egg on their faces.

        That said, what if the verdict is returned over Easter? Failed nationalist politician comes back from the dead? Steve Bell, where are you?

    • Cubby

      Not to forget that the Daily Redcoat published all the solacious details from the leaked witness statements. The names of the accusers were not leaked, funny that.

      I am not aware that there ever was an investigation into who leaked all this confidential information to the Daily Redcoat.

      The “journalist”who broke the story as they say was Clegg who has subsequently left the Redcoat to join the much smaller P&J paper in NE Scotland. Mind you all these British Nationalist papers circulation in Scotland are much smaller nowadays. Strange move after Clegg’s major scoop”. Clegg is also known to have a long term friend in the Scottish government despite him being a rabid British Nationalist from N. Ireland.

      • Republicofscotland

        The Herald newspaper took it in the neck yesterday over a very distasteful article using images of murderers and a whole host of infamous characters, along with the picture of murdered tot Jamie Bulger, there was innuendo alluding to AS within the piece.

        The Herald called for the round up, and seeking out of those that escaped after the Radical war of 1820, where Scottish patriots Andrew Hardie and John Baird, betrayed by spies, were hung and beheaded their bodies were not allowed to be interred in a public graveyard, incase homage to them fanned the flames of independence once more.

        I think we can safely say where the Heralds loyalties lie.

        • N_

          Where is the innuendo about AS in Neil Mackay’s long and boring piece mostly written from clips? The article careers from the Moors Murderers to Nuremburg to Dreyfus. The guy has clearly asked a US advertising company to give him some copy relevant to the notion of “trial of the century”. What was the Jimmy Savile “case” again? How did that go in court?

          • N_

            What are you talking about, Cubby? @Republicofscotland mentioned “an innuendo alluding to AS” in an article in the Herald, and I asked him what the innuendo was. I then scoffed at the quality of the Herald writer’s “journalism”. I genuinely would be interested to know what the innuendo was, or if for some reason it can’t be indicated openly then at least which paragraph it was in.

          • Cubby

            N

            You are correct it made no sense what I posted. Now you know what it feels like reading a lot of your posts?????

  • Republicofscotland

    Media news Lady Dorrian is the AS judge.

    Interestingly.

    She was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1981 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1994. Lady Dorrian became a full-time high court judge in 2005. She was appointed to the bench after Alex Salmond’s predecessor as first minister, Jack McConnell, recommended her to the Queen.

    We all know where McConnell stands on Scottish independence.

    • craig Post author

      What I have managed to glean about Lady Dorrian this last few months has generally tended to her credit.

          • N_

            Yeah. Witnesses saying “I wish I’d decked him” and that he appeared “half-cut” – their vocabulary clearly indicates preparation by RADA. Stop the trial at half-time and investigate all of the women for perjury. If the jurors think differently they must be a bunch of NO-voting foreigners or race traitors.

          • N_

            @Martinmed – The witness in Edinburgh is part of an orchestrated conspiracy. Every word of her delivery was rehearsed countless times under the guidance of top trainers from RADA. The trainers report directly to the Marshall Wade Unit at “Westminster”.

            Meanwhile, “Alex and Rus” are a couple who take romantic breaks away in foreign countries, who enjoy nothing better than admiring famous clocks.

  • Sackerson

    I thought trials were conducted in public. Is there some State secret involved here?

  • Brian Powell

    Was the National allowed in? Might get a bit more accuracy from them. Or NewsNet?

  • Mary

    The reports from the court on the new channels are as lurid and as graphic as possible. They are revelling in it.

  • Edith

    Alex Salmond’s views on rape:

    “The Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, has criticised Bill Aitken, the Scottish Conservative MSP who suggested that a woman who was gang-raped in Glasgow might have been a prostitute.

    During a live webchat on the Mumsnet forum, he said:

    I deprecate Bill Aitkens’ reported comments, which were rightly greeted with outrage from both general public and across the political spectrum. I don’t think they really represented his views, and in fairness, he did apologise later. However, it does illustrate two dangers.

    Firstly, the implicit assumptions betrayed a dreadful attitude to the serious crime of rape, which is abhorrent for any person. Secondly, the temptation of politicians to occasionally shoot first and think later. It can cause deep hurt and upset.

    As for the repercussions, it seems to be the best thing is don’t vote Tory.

    This follows criticism from the Labour deputy leader, Johann Lamont, who said: “No woman is ever to blame for rape and we need to challenge these attitudes by turning the focus on the male perpetrators.” “

    newstatesman blog the-staggers 2011 02 rape-street-lane-aitken

  • Phyllis

    You gotta laugh (although you shouldn’t) at the pictures the media show of the QCs involved in this trial. Alex Prentice QC, prosecuting, is always shown in a dignified posed photograph. Gordon Jackson QC, defending, is always pictured having a fag break and looking right shifty as if he has been caught doing something he shouldn’t.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    I know almost nothing about Alex Salmond, as I have very little interest in Scottish politics. However, I did read the allegations against him, in The Daily Mail.

    There were no allegations of violence. There were no allegations of inappropriate behaviour with children.

    Almost all the allegations, were about touching fully clothed adult women, and one of a kiss on the mouth.

    In the real world, well before Twist and Shout by The Beatles where we were all conditioned to dance alone, and just look, such behaviour would be considered completely normal. Check out some 1950’s Rock’n’Roll.

    In the real world now, if a female Millenial, considers some old perv, just a little bit too friendly, whilst dancing, and God forbid, he touches her bum, or even waist, she will very soon by her gestures, advise him to desist, and if he doesn’t she will tell him to stop – very bluntly.

    If said girl is at a conference, sitting on his bed, in his hotel bedroom, well why tf is she sitting on his bed in his bedroom? Why not just say No instead, and go straight to her own room, with a cheerie Goodnight – see you in the morning?

    The world has gone mad.

    Tony

    • Linzi Beech

      Jeez! Life on Mars or what!!

      Can you hear yourself ‘Tony’?? You almost finished off your spiel with she was begging for it”. YOU are of that generation that thinks a woman who doesn’t dress like your Granny is a pri*k teaser no doubt??

      It is frightening to think that there are such uneducated men such as yourself still let out without a tag.

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Linzi Beech,

        I don’t watch TV, but your timing is about right. Never met my Granny, but my Mum was highly refined, and I was always and still am a Gentleman.

        Tony

      • bevin

        ” You almost finished off your spiel with she was begging for it”. ‘

        Whilst you almost finished of your spiel by calling for Tony’s preventative detention. Like a Victorian you would obviously prefer people to keep their thoughts to themselves.
        Surely it is better that people speak, and think freely; and examine each others thoughts and ideas charitably? And honestly.
        Because to be honest Tony suggested nothing that ought to be of concern to anyone, except that times have changed, mores evolved and, while we have become infinitely more tolerant of many behaviours previously viewed as deviant, we have become appallingly narrow minded and suspicious in our assessment of the possible significance of gestures which, quite possibly signify nothing more than a stranger’s warmth of heart.

      • Squeeth

        Is it not sexist to assume that the perpetrator must be a man and the victim a woman? A bit Neanderthal??

        • Iain Stewart

          For the last time, just leave us Neanderthals out of it, ya Cromagnon suprematist.

  • Linzi Beech

    I truly have no decided opinion (at this time) as to whether Alex Salmond is innocent or guilty and that will be my mind set until the trial closes and I may be throwing a boulder into a calm sea here but I had the most strange encounter with a rather loud, unkempt Australian women on a train recently, whilst travelling from Glasgow through to Edinburgh.

    I was the ‘lucky’ person who she decided to sit next to. The lady in question must have been mid to late 60s and for the major part of the journey she ripped Scotland apart (verbally), after listening to this guff for long enough, I turned and asked why she had bothered to come if she disliked it so much.

    Because I was born here she stated, in Linlithgow. She then went on to say that she planned on visiting AS as he had been her (recently deceased) brother’s best friend.

    Flippantly, I said”If you can hang about for a few weeks you can see him everyday for at least a fortnight at the High Court. When I told her why, her response unnerved me, when she said “Is he still up to that, he’s never changed then. You learned never to be in a room on your own with him”.

    I was horrified that my flippancy had gained such a response. I am unsure if her is like of Scotland had provoked her to say such a shocking thing but it was her reticense at being told of the charges being brought that unnerved me greatly.

    • Linzi Beech

      Apologies, the lady was travelling to Linlithgow, she said she was born in Aberdeen.

      • bevin

        You ought really to be apologising for contempt of court in publishing such damaging charges.

      • paul

        I wonder how many times that mysterious stranger went up and down that line, spontaneously sharing like that.
        Maybe a lot,maybe never.

      • Cubby

        Linz beech

        If you presented that story in a courtroom I think you would be dissected and charged with perjury.

        We are expected to believe that a woman who thinks of Salmond in that way was going out her way to visit him.

        We are expected to believe that she was going to visit Salmond but she was unaware of the charges and the court case.

        • Stonky

          I don’t think Linzi thought of any of that. She just took it all at face value…

          Hey, here’s a loud-mouthed Aussie on a train who just happens to be an old acquaintance of AS and who just happens to be going to see him and who just happens not to know anything about current affairs and who just happens to know that he’s a sex pest and who just happens to be sharing that information with anybody she chances to meet…

          I suppose you could be generous to Linzi and assume that rather than being a total idiot, she simply made the whole thing up.

          • Cubby

            Stonky

            Only Linzi knows the truth of the matter. An idiot or a liar – not the best choice to make so I’m guessing we won’t hear any more from Linzi on the matter.

    • Borncynical

      “it was her reticence at being told of the charges being brought that unnerved me greatly”

      By your account she was anything but reticent!

    • Stonky

      I always find it odd when someone comes onto a forum like this, and drops a complete bombshell like “Linzi Beech” has done, and then disappears, apparently having no interest whatsoever in the subsequent discussion it will provoke. As a regular visitor, I don’t recall seeing Linzi posting before, and I wondered if she had come to visit CM exclusively to provide us with her scoop. A targeted search for “Linzi Beech” on this site provides no hits – not even this thread, which is odd. Does she have a hidden character in her name? Why would she do that?

      Or am I being paranoid? Can anyone confirm that she is in fact a regular poster, and I just haven’t noticed her before? Presumably the Mods would know.

      —
      [ Mod: The search facility only searches the articles, not the comments.

      There has been a spate of new contributors with female names in the last couple of days, casting doubt on Alex’s character or presumption on innocence. Interestingly, they all come from the same small cluster of anonymous proxies which aren’t seen often but which were previously associated with the notorious sockpuppeteers who most frequently used the names ‘Grhm’ and ‘James’ (which aren’t female names). Worth keeping an eye on. ]

      • Stonky

        The search facility only searches the articles, not the comments…

        I used Google’s targeted search function, which finds poster’s names at the top of their comments, and within comments when somebody else has addressed them. So if I search: “Stonky” site: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk it will find both my comments and comments where people have referred to me.

        What is very odd now is that I specifically included “Linzi Beech” in my comment above, so I could check if Google picked it up. And it didn’t. It’s not picking up the two comments by Linzi Beech, or the comment in which I referred to her. I don’t know how easy it would be to block that search function, or why anybody would bother.

        Anyway, nuff said. She’s a sockpuppet. As I think you’re aware, I’m not too keen on censorship. But I think you would be doing a service to your readers and the wider public if you would flag it up straight away when you get someone like this posting from a known sockpuppet proxy. Plenty of people will have seen the original post, but they won’t necessarily have seen the follow-up discussion. So they may quite well go off thinking to themselves “Well, who would of thought… no smoke without fire…”.

        • Stonky

          I think my comments concerning flagging up sockpuppets are all the more apposite given that Craig has now published a new article, and even fewer people will now see this exchange.

        • Magic Robot

          I used duck duck go on my ‘robot’ name to search.
          All comments made by me, or others referring to me showed up.
          A similar search for ‘beech’ or ‘linzi’ – ZERO – except for comments unrelated to this thread.
          How is this done?

          • Stonky

            That is interesting. I wouldn’t have the first idea how to block search engines in this way. So it seems that Linzi is not just a random sockpuppet doing a bit of anti-Salmond trolling – (s)he is a sockpuppet with access to a significant amount of IT expertise.

  • Paul Barbara

    Hate to say this, but given the ”Security Services’ of virtually (probably all) nations and regimes use sexual entrapment to ensnare VIP’s, I suspect they have the goods on Salmond.
    Could be wrong, of course, but take care not to put too much faith in denying what is really a natural and common-or-garden abuse of position.
    The PTB have the power, and use it, to incite/gather info on people they wish to have a ‘hold’ on.

    • N_

      @Paul – The Scottish nationalists here don’t see Salmond as “PTB”, though – they see him as a rebel leader with a vision of the nation’s liberated future who even if he attempted to rape 100 women shouldn’t have been investigated let alone charged or tried because they were all asking for it, making it all up, suborned by “Westminster”, or all three at the same time. Basically he didn’t do it, but if he did, he’s our boy and nobody should knock him.

      • Cubby

        N

        Note to moderator. In my humble opinion this post should be taken down. It is in contempt of court.

  • Mist001

    It’s been reported in some media outlets today that Alex Salmond has lodged special defences of consent to four of the charges. A special defence of alibi has been lodged for a further charge.

    So from that, we know at least four of the events did actually take place and they’re not made up or invented so the problem is that one person says the other consented, the other says they didn’t.

    That’s going to be very difficult to prove one way or the other, so I think those charges will be dropped.

    And just what is a ‘soft supporter’ of independence and what does that have to do with the trial?

    • N_

      Let’s hope Scottish criminal law isn’t so weak that all a man accused of rape needs to do to escape conviction is to claim the woman consented.

      • Mist001

        It wasn’t stipulated which of the charges his defence was referring to in the case of consent. One of them may have been a rape charge, it may not have been. The fact is by his own admission, at least 4 of the events/charges did take place.

        It boils down to his word against hers, who is more believable and nothing to do with Scottish law being weak.

        • Cubby

          Mist001

          I wouldn’t fancy having you as my defence lawyer. There is no rape charge – attempted rape is the charge.

          Please pay attention. The Moorov doctrine can come in to play because of the number of charges.
          Alex Salmond needs killer evidence to prove one, some or a lot of them to be false.

      • Stonky

        Let’s hope Scottish criminal law isn’t so weak that all a man accused of rape needs to do to escape conviction is to claim the woman consented…

        Just out of interest. Supposing you were alone in a hotel room with a woman, engaged in consensual sexual activity, and later she accused you of raping her, what would your defence be?

  • Squeeth

    Would the suppressed information you have advert to the fact that Salmond is innocent? Surely pointing that out isn’t contempt, considering that he has yet to be proved guilty of anything?

  • Doug Scorgie

    Martinned
    March 9, 2020 at 10:26
    “This is protecting victims of sexual assault…”
    By calling Salmond’s accusers “victims” you have already made your mind up the Salmond is guilty without hearing any evidence to support their allegations.
    I don’t think you would ever be a suitable jury member in any criminal case.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.