I am reporting today on the Salmond trial over 24 hours delayed. As I am not permitted media access and the public is excluded from the gallery during accusers’ evidence, I need to gather information in order to be able to give a different perspective from the mainstream media. It is very hard to do that in real time.
But when done, it is very interesting indeed. Yesterday, all of the mainstream media portrayed Salmond’s defence, and his defence counsel Gordon Jackson QC, as an appeal to the social attitudes of the 1960’s. This from the BBC is how the episode of an alleged slap on the buttocks of Ms G in a restaurant is universally described in the media:
When it was suggested by Mr Jackson that the smack had been “playful”, the witness said she had considered it to be “extremely inappropriate”.
But this is a quite deliberate misrepresentation – which is peculiarly universal in the BBC, Guardian, the Scotsman, the Times, the Sun and anywhere you care to look. Gordon Jackson was not suggesting an alleged unwanted slap on the buttocks was “playful” in mitigation. Doubtless as intended, the reporting has brought down a social media storm from feminists of all genders accusing Gordon Jackson of ancient chauvinist attitudes and Alex Salmond of appalling abuse.
Those criticisms of Salmond and Jackson would be quite justified if the mainstream media reports of what was said were true.
But in fact it is a completely false distortion of what was said. This is the truth.
It was the woman – Woman G herself – who had described the alleged slap on the buttocks as “playful” in her initial statement to police. Playful was Ms G’s own choice of word. Gordon Jackson was putting her own word to her, and querying how an alleged event which she had initially described as “playful” had now morphed into a serious criminal offence.
It makes rather a difference when you realise that “Playful” was Ms G’s word, not Gordon Jackson’s word, nor Alex Salmond’s word, does it not? Yet you would never know that from all of yesterday’s media reports. That is because the media is very deliberately attempting to frame this story, and frame Alex Salmond’s guilt, in the public mind. That is the real danger when the public are excluded and only state approved “media” are allowed to witness. Thank God for moles.
I also ask you to bear in mind that these are all the prosecution witnesses. The defence witnesses have not yet been called. All of the media are reporting that women were banned from being alone with Alex Salmond in Bute House after 7pm. It is reported as fact. That was however an assertion by one prosecution witness. It is not necessarily true, despite all the media headlining it as fact. Wait until you hear the defence witnesses. It may be true. It may not be true. Wait.
A final thought for today. It is notable that quite a few of these incidents have taken place in public places. Restaurants. Office parties. A car containing also both a driver and the accuser’s husband. In the case of Ms A, numerous unspecified locations. Yet to date, not one single incident has been attested by an independent witness who saw it. Nobody seems to have seen these things that allegedly happened in public. That may change as the prosecution case progresses. But it is an interesting fact at present.
As the prosecution case mounts, it is intended that you should start to lose your critical faculties and conclude there is no smoke without fire. That is how the prosecution are framing this. Hold on, draw no conclusions, and above all do not believe the media. There is a reason independent media witnesses including myself are not allowed into court.
Irrespective of whether the individual accusations are true or false – and the jury are in much the best place to decide that, guided by the judge – one thing is very clear to me. A number of very ambitious people took advantage of Alex Salmond to propel political careers, and then turned upon him after he no longer had power. This happened once it became clear it was the will of the new SNP hierarchy that Alex Salmond be taken out of the political scene for good.
Which makes me feel quite ill.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Keep up the good work, Craig.
I’m glad you read all the rags as I can barely keep my blood pressure in check just looking at the misleading headlines. As you say, it is notable that every editorial decision seems to conclude with the same selective and distorted picture being presented as established fact.
So the Britnat media have moved on from bias by omission to deliberate misrepresentation. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been all week deliberate bias by deliberate omission of pertinent testimony. Now you are saying it has progressed to deliberate misrepresentation. I have not checked the specific points in your article but based on your previous reports on this matter I have full confidence I will find your assertion to be true.
The so called tried and trusted MSM. Trusted to follow the Britnat line in Scotland for many many years but hopefully not for much longer. The stables need a good cleaning out followed by a dousing of disinfectant.
I admit to getting a bit angry at the procurator fiscal for bringing serious criminal charges forward for what has been presented so far – it’s demeaning to women that have had to suffer serious assault and had difficulty in prosecution. Using the criminal justice system to play politics (allegedly) is – I don’t know the word – amoral? Disgusting? Not on?
Like so many other very bad things, it has come here straight from the USA. And of course it was the Yanks who dreamed up the cunning plan of framing Julian Assange in a rather similar way.
As long as such cases are allowed to be tried on the basis of no more evidence than “he says – she says”, with everything stacked heavily against the defendant, miscarriages of justice will continue.
The Swedish system that fitted up Assange – without, please not, ever even bringing a charge against him – is inspired by American corruption and perhaps even worse than the US system. If that is imaginable.
Thank you for that Tom Welsh. I fully agree. The US and UK are experts at framing people. The Justice system in both territories is utterly compromised. The appalling treatment of Assange amounts to torture, for which UK, Sweden and US should be jointly prosecuted. These cases of purported “sexual abuse” are a travesty for those persons who have actually been sexually abused: it is a politicisation of sexual abuse and makes a mockery of the ruining of lives caused by this serious offence. Shame on all of those women involved in this fabrication. A “slap on a bottom” or a “hand on a shoulder” is not sexual abuse. It is utterly insane what is taking place across the anglo-american sphere.
No, no no a “slap on the bottom” is most certainly a sexual assault and contrary to the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009.
*Alex Salmond was First Minister between 2007-2014.
Have any women been prosecuted for it?
So agree with you!
So agree with Contrary
If we have learned anything from the Henry James novel the Turn of the Screw is is not to trust the narrator. In the Salmond case the narrator is the MSM, so yes, if what Craig tells us about who said a particular slap was ‘playful’, it does indeed make a difference if it was said by the accuser and not the defendant. Without being in that court room we will only be able to make any kind of judgement about the case. When the whole trial transcript is available and we have more information about the background power structure relationships in which all this seems to have played out.
I can only hope that the common sense of the jury will prevail. The rules regarding the balance of evidence in a criminal case are stronger than those for civil cases, this would seem to favour Mr Salmond, a lot is going to depend on the Judges summing up. If it is up to the court of public opinion, based on what I have heard people say about the defendant, then all is lost, but there will be appeals, in the meantime all this has compromised the independence debate, so jubilation in Whitehall.
‘in the meantime all this has compromised the independence debate, so jubilation in Whitehall.’
Which makes me wonder what has changed for woman F who said:
‘This is to misunderstand the context … going to someone outside was completely unthinkable. This was the run-up to a referendum on independence. Everything we did which was outward-facing had potential ramifications which went well beyond personal experience.’
Does F no longer support independence does she not think that we are in a run-up to a 2nd referendum on independence?
Pete
In what way has it compromised the independence debate. Fail to see that but happy for you to explain your reasoning.
Re “In what way has it compromised the independence debate.”
My logic is this – correct me if I am wrong – Alex is one of the leading voices for Scottish independence, the case, by tarnishing his reputation has damaged him and by association the cause to which he is associated. At the same time it may have the effect of giving credence or authority to those in the SNP who are surprisingly lukewarm to the nationalist agenda.
Now you can interpret what has been said by all the parties in this case in what way you like, but a marginalised ex leader and a tepid nationalist leadership is what it looks like leaving to me.
Persuade me otherwise.
to emphasise the point I am a staunch Scottish independence supporter and I now do not think that the SNP is the way forward.
Heartsupwards
Very often a sick patient can end up stronger after an operation to cut out the cancer causing the illness.
So how did the SNP come to be run by people who don’t want Scottish independance?
Johnny Conspiranoid
Best ask the British Secret Service I think.
Pete
Sorry but I don’t buy the cause being tarnished by the actions of one man. Parnell was tarnished in Ireland by a sex scandal but the cause continued. A jeweller once tarnished himself, his products and his shops but it did not stop people buying jewellery.
The cause of independence is not Salmond it is not Sturgeon it is not Cherry it is not Robertson it is not MacKay. You are mixing up a political party with a National cause.
You second point re tepid leadership – best wait until the trial is completed.
Don’t be sorry, it’s a good point, take the case of Roger Casement, are the Black Diaries genuine or fake. To this day some Irish nationalist claim that the diary’s are a hoax. To me they seem genuine.
But real or fake they got Casement hanged.
“Parnell was tarnished in Ireland by a sex scandal but the cause continued.”
You have to wonder whether that was a fit up, as well.
Cubby;
Perhaps some people hope the cause will be taenished, or perhaps they want to take an effective campaigner out of circulation in the SNP with the hope halting independance. This won’t be the only part of their strategy.
AS stopped being a leading light in 2014, in fact he has very deliberately in my opinion kept well back from the debate, unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary.
Pete
No. Sorry but your logic is flawed, so yes I’m going to correct you b/c I believe you to be wrong. Alex WAS ONE of the leading voices for independence. HE WASN’T ALL THE VOICES. He isn’t a politician any more, isn’t a member of the SNP & his reputation doesn’t IN ANY WAY influence how *I* feel about independence. Independence is about self-determination and it isn’t ONE MAN’S role or voice in getting that self-determination. It isn’t even about the SNP or THEIR VOICE. Only in as much as they are the only political party at the moment taking us to independence. But it’s the voice of THE SCOTS that are important here. Salmond may fall by the wayside. And so may the SNP per se.
But another ‘leading voice’ will step up. Another Independence party will step up. As long as there are people fighting for self determination, it will go forward, with or without the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond. What happens to them is immaterial. The fight will carry on. And I think I speak for quite a few Independence supporters when I say this. Neither you nor unionism will kill the idea of independence.
Don’t be sorry, this too is a good point. Sometimes particular characters have a quality, I guess you could call it charisma or something like that, a difficult to define essence that gives him or her popular appeal, to me, whatever you might say about her, Nicola Sturgeon has the same presence.
But Nicola seems to have cooled on the independence front, she may just be waiting for the right time. Whereas Alex, despite not being in the SNP at the moment, continues to call for independence as soon as possible and he has a voice in the media, even if it is on RT. He is a figurehead for Scottish independence and as such is feared by the MSM and this may be a contributing factor to the continuing campaign of words hostile to him.
Yes another charismatic leader may come forward, but this still puts the campaign for independence on the back burner, which is where the PTB want to keep it.
Kate;
The trick then would be to take down leading voices as fast as they appear.
lol just go and try how many women’s butt you can go around “playfully” slapping before you are handcuffed and thrown into a meatwagon. Some, assuming they are men, really need to get up to speed at what constitutes a sexual offfence in Scotland 2020. Same with consent. Someone posted on another thread about an “expectation of consent”. Because you have had sex with your partner before. And remember all those 70s stars of TV and radio – all behind bars for nothing more then slapping women’s butts.
I think you missed the point Craig made. It was not AS or the defence referring to the incident as a ” playful slap “, it was the accuser.
Pete
No way that this has compromised independence- it has compromised Salmond though. An attempt to destroy its most effective actor.
If Salmond disappears into the criminal justice system I fear for his life.
Humans are disappointing Craig. (reference your final sentence)
Ref ‘thank God for moles’. Yes, for the human variety. As for the brown furry variety, I do love them especially for their huge energy underground to find earthworms. But not when they dig up your lawn! as they did mine.
Scots often raise a toast the wee Black Velvet, especialy on the 8th of March.
It sickens me too Craig. And as a woman I am angry because they are doing our sex no favours. If women are allowed to use sex to exploit men then turn on them for trivial ‘misdemeanours’ (if they are even that, such as the politician who got her leg touched ‘above the knee’ in a six minute journey while her husband sat a few feet away…) then no man is ever going to employ women in future.
Thanks girls. You’ve done the rest of us a big favour! (Not).
And as for women who have been the victims of real sexual abuse? Harder than ever to achieve justice.
But here’s another thing too. The complainers so far have been insiders. If he is what they allege, what does it say of the party to have had no adequate processes for protecting women? None at all?
I made a similar point in commenting on Craig’s previous post. Nicola Sturgeon wants to have all-women short lists in the SNP. If the feminist, empowered high-up women in the SNP haven’t the gumption to tell a man, however powerful, to take his hands off their knees, then how can they hope to run a country?
Good question Jane! I certainly wouldn’t be voting for them.
I wouldn’t be bothered about someone having their hand on my knee especially if I had on my coat which on a February night in Scotland I certainly would.
It would be a different story if:
‘Under the table I feel Johnson’s hand on my thigh. He gives it a squeeze.
‘His hand is high up my leg and he has enough inner flesh beneath his fingers to make me sit suddenly upright.’
Or deal with Boris Johnston!
Well said.
I’ve never read John Knox, but I wonder, from the title of his most famous work, whether he was on to something.
«If women are allowed to use sex to exploit men»
In contemporary culture that *never* happens, that is always described as men using favours to exploit women for sex, not women using sex to exploit men for favours.
«then no man is ever going to employ women in future»
In some places that’s a considerable risk, but there can be quotas. Some places are dealing with it by forbidding every 1-to-1 meeting between members of staff where one of them is a woman, there must be always at least one witness.
This is probably the worst of the bunch – the Heil today. But I expect they are rivalled by Murdoch, I haven’t looked.
‘Alex Salmond’s sixth accuser tells his sex assault trial she felt ‘mortified and demeaned’ when Scottish First Minister grabbed her buttocks as they posed for a photograph
The woman told the Edinburgh’s High Court the pair had been posing for a photo
But Salmond grabbed her ‘forcibly’ by the buttocks at the 2014 event in Scotland
Woman K said that she was shocked but did not want to make a scene at the time
He has pleaded not guilty to all 14 charges of alleged offences against 10 women
By JAMES WOOD and JAMES GANT FOR MAILONLINE
Overuse of the word ‘buttocks’.
Yes – interestingly another event to which there ought to have been eyewitnesses who are so far not forthcoming. We wait to see,
I find the similarity in the testimony of the witnesses about how they felt and reacted during these alleged assaults quite striking. Every one of them seems to have frozen, every one of them – supposedly senior civil servants – seems to have believed that there was no avenue available to them to complain about AS’s alleged behaviour (err had they never heard of the Cabinet Secretary the head of the UK civil service), every one of them was so scared that they obeyed immediately with whatever AS allegedly told them to do, every one of them, when they finally decided years later to do something, didn’t go to the police or even a rape crisis centre, but to an SNP official.
Today it’s Witness J that “totally froze” and describes the alleged incident as a “nightmare”. The late Nicolas Parsons would call foul for repetition.
I seem to remember reading about research carried out examining the differences between false and true rape allegations, which suggested that false allegations were characterised by a stereotyped representation of the chain of events and a sense of detachment whereas genuine rape victims described their experiences in highly personal terms with details that could only have been lived through by the person at the time. The accounts that I have read are much more of the former with all the stereotypical props than the latter.
yes – another woman was making exactly the same point to me yesterday – a remarkable consistency in the words they use – he was the most powerful man in the country, I just froze, I couldn’t say no to him – almost as though they had been coached.
Freezing is the most normal reaction to serious sexual assault – if you have read or talked to anyone that has been through the experience this is a big thing – the guilt they feel when they haven’t fought back etc. Using this term repeatedly for situations like, say, a hand on the knee, particularly by someone allegedly already known to be ‘tactile’ (that is, less of a surprise), makes a mockery of real experiences of people in very serious danger. I am very concerned about the language used.
Of course, and this is a wider point and not specific about this particular case, a successful predator will only select easy victims.
No way have they been coached , not possible , is it ?
Accusing someone of doing something years and years ago , not doing anything about it at the time ,six or more people getting together years later by accident presumably all of them say that they did not do anything about it at the time and yes they did phone each other and talk about bringing charges years and years later but nobody tried to persuade any of the others to bring charges they all decided individually to being charges and their stories using the same phrases is just coincidence too
Carrying on working with AS going out for meals to the cinema to dinners even business trips overseas as well even though these things had previously happened, felt their job depended on it and he was after all the leader of the country.
OH ! I see , carry on , tell me more
@ Contrary. It is the aggressor who holds the power. When a stranger comes up and starts punching them in the face most people just “freeze” and don’t fight back. Same when someone pulls a knife, they just become fixated on the knife and freeze. It is hard to know how you would react in such circumstances.
“Accusing someone of doing something years and years ago”. 75% of the work of the High Court is prosecuting ‘historical’ sexual offences. These go back 40,50,60 years. Prosecuting these cases is a ‘priority’ as ordained by the Scottish Government.
Reminds me of every harassment disciplinary I’ve been in.
@Eubank
That was something I was quite surprised about when I learned of it (a short ‘witness psychology’ course) – that people, witnesses and those threatened, focus on a weapon if it’s present. I had thought that people would watch the face or body, looking for intent or movement, but it’s not. In fact, a witness will focus so much on a weapon they might not notice anything else – events, the face, clothes etc.
Yep. Coached. They have all been in contact with each other. Which they admit.
Do we think it is all 10 compainants that have been in contact with each other, or just 6 of them? It will be interesting to see if the defence can link all 10 complainants. After which the case will dissolve.
Sounds like prior collaboration.
Once again, very much credit due to mine host. As you say, the opprobrium here is not the legal process itself, which appears to be entirely fair and unskewed (cf Julian Assange). The opprobrium is the shoddy, inaccurate, incomplete and wilfully-tilted journalism which is now further shaping the opinions of almost every Scot – and in an unacceptable direction.
I admit to being rather nonplussed by much of this. Of course it is political; it is potty to deny (should that be refute?) that. This trial is as close to purely political as it is conceivable, to me at least. As such, it is all the more crucial that reporters of all political complexions be allowed access to the raw material – and that is not happening.
Whether or not Mr Salmond is cleared, certain objectives have plainly already been achieved and others are in the process of reinforcement.
Far too many buttocks indeed, Mary: a bunch of arse, the whole shebang!
‘Alex Salmond’s sixth accuser tells his sex assault trial she felt ‘mortified and demeaned’ when Scottish First Minister grabbed her buttocks as they posed for a photograph…’
As a writer and editor I feel some admiration for the technical skill displayed in that one. For, if you look closely, you will see that the words “Scottish First Minister grabbed her buttocks” are governed by the distant verb “tells”.
Thus, technically, the allegation is quoted speech – not an assertion of fact by the journalist. But the sentence is just long enough for many readers to have lost their grasp of its structure, and to read that fragment “Scottish First Minister grabbed her buttocks” as a factual report.
Politics, business, law, journalism – they all have so much in common with criminal confidence tricksterism.
And it has come back to me what I was thinking about and should have included in my previous comment.
The standard accusation, in ancient Athens, against “sophists” who “make the worse appear to be the better case”. (An accusation which was, quite unfairly, used to bring about Socrates’ condemnation and death sentence for “corrupting the youth” by teaching them to think and argue logically).
To this day it still hapens routinely that honest people who tell the truth and mean well are condemned for sophistry by lying sophists.
Languages like German and Spanish use the subjunctive mood for things that somebody else asserts happened but that the writer does not want to confirm happened. English does not have that subtlety.
Yes. Hard to understand how her buttocks were grabbed forcefully while posing for a photo. Presumably both were facing the camera, which leaves only one Salmond hand available. It’s possible to grab one buttock with one hand, but both, and “forcefully”? Unless he has hands the size of a baseball mitt I don’t see how it’s possible.
Perhaps she has buttocks resembling a nectarine! 😀
Pasha
It is possible to grab both buttocks with one hand if the buttocks’ muscles are relaxed. Could you please tell me where your “forcefully” is from?
🙂
Mibbe she’s got really toty buttocks?
Sorry, I shouldn’t be flippant, but I can’t be the only one who’s getting really hacked off listening to this pish.
What I’ve read via this place, and Grouse Beater’s reports, throws up all sorts of similar oddities which could easily be shown as absurdities by simple re-enactment. Can’t imagine there’d be many volunteers but how else to illustrate the physical impossibility of certain actions?
The whole thing reeks.
Here’s hoping the jury are typical Scots – if so, they won’t like being treated as if their heids button up the back. Especially the women.
Reading this post, it sounds like you have just discovered that the corporate media are propaganda organisations. But of course this is not news to you; or, indeed, to anyone who has been paying attention.
Steve Hayes
It needs continual repeating or you fall in to the trap of accepting as it as normal and a mindset of nothing can change it.
I would say to the accusers and the judge the only ones you are fooling is yourselves any reasonable person can see this is all a set up with media compliance what I wonder is how do you sleep at night ??? Or look in the mirror aye bought and sold for English gold such a parcel of rogues in the nation
Without wanting to bring this fine blog into disrepute by treading a fine legal line, I think a lot of what we have seen on the excellent Grouse Beater’s blog thus far, indicates a very weak (but co-ordinated) narrative. However, I have not seen anything confirming nor denying that Mr. Salmond will himself take the stand in his defence. Has this been indicated either way?
I also note the “consent” defence. Does this imply he has committed infidelity (there were often whispers about the nature of his relationship with his much older wife, especially as they have no children). Not that this makes him guilty, but I rather suspect it will be twisted by his enemies to make him appear guilty.
He may have been unfaithful to his wife. That, however, is an issue of morality, not a criminal offence.
If infidelity were a criminal offence, the courts in England would be working round the clock dealing with all the cases against the Prime Minister.
Yes, because fortunately no other politicians have ever been unfaithful to their spouse.
Margaret and Tom, those are my thoughts exactly. His fidelity (or otherwise) is a private matter, providing it did not compromise his job performance. I am alluding to the fact the media and and will pounce on anything to get at him and the old whispers about the nature of his marriage will undoubtedly be dragged out again.
I can only wonder what the rest of the world thinks of our media.
I wonder if it won’t rebound. There are plenty of us who see through this and are angry. There are also those men within the legal and political fraternity and elsewhere, no friends of the SNP necessarily, who quite rightly see that if he can be so easily convicted of criminality then no man is going to be safe.
“I can only wonder what the rest of the world thinks of our media”.
If they have any sense they don’t read our media.
I know I don’t.
Chris Donnie
Many many years ago our gutter press used to try and smear Salmond by hint hint he was gay. That was in the days when smearing by saying someone was gay might work. So according to our lovely press he has gone from gay to womaniser. The press are disgusting.
«conclude there is no smoke without fire»
That’s how good propaganda works: there a well known psychological effect that if some rumour is repeated by enough seemingly unrelated sources most people will believe it to be true (“vox populi”). That’s why “talking points memos” circulate.
Also that’s how trials of this type go in the #metoo #webelieveyou era, especially in a case with 14 charges and 10 “victims”. In some legal systems (including the English one IIRC) there is even the principle that a sufficient number of allegations counts as irrefutable proof.
Also the “victims” are given the benefit of the “presumption of innocence” of being false witnesses.
The underlying principle is “better safe than sorry, at any cost to someone else”.
Thanks Craig for the insight, listening to the “Scottish ” lunchtime news they paint a very different picture for the viewers.
There is indeed a very good reason for keeping honest journalists like yourself out of the public gallery or press box.
As to the machinations of the SNP hierarchy with regards to Alex Salmond, I presume it goes right to the very top?
you presume correctly
I did mention the other day that I suspect this case is Plan C. Plan A was the initial attempt to have AS excluded from candidacy by making allegation against him to an SNP official. Plan B was the altogether spurious attempt to go through a supposedly “independent” civil service complaints procedure, which was cocked up (no pun) when Leslie Evans and co colluded with the complainants and were handed their arses on a plate by the Court of Session. When that plan went awry, all of a sudden Police Scotland became involved and the Crown Office launched a criminal prosecution.
I’m prepared to bet right now that, whatever the outcome of the case, some of the complainants will have their “stories” splashed across the front pages of red tops in “world exclusives” (continued on pages 2, 3, 4,5, 6 and 7).
What happened to Plan A? How did it fail?
Ouch!
Why do they bother, AS was well out of it years ago? Insecurity?
ROS
I keep thinking of the old hit song by Frankie Goes to Hollywood (or in this case Holyrood) – When Two Tribes Go to War. This was of course about the Cold War and nuclear destruction – MAD (mutually assured destruction).
I personally think that will be the political outcome – mutually assured destruction – MAD. Only mad people try to win a political war in this way.
Mutually assured destruction would surely suit the British state. Just as did the destruction of Parnell. Or of Assange, for that matter.
Frankie Goes to Hollywood is interesting Cubby albeit ‘Welcome to the Pleasuredome’ is somewhat inappropriate and bad form in the case of a good man accused of sexual offenses. I would submit ‘the no smoke without fire’ idiom should be a case of ‘smoke and mirrors’ in this instance.
Metaphorically we remember ‘Relax’ was at first banned by the BBC as part of the lyrics was quite wrongly interpreted as “when you want to suck, chew it” when in fact the lyrics read, “when you want to sock it to it” – it went on of course to reach the No.1 spot in the music charts.
‘Wrong’ in the case of Alex Salmond is really the verb to mistreat and hurt a modern stalwart in statecraft.
Whatever the eventual verdict, the SNP will come out of this badly. The impression gained is that the party has, to some extent, orchestrated this. If so, the thinking behind this “move” baffles me!
the triumph of “gradualism” over independence and a big #metoo totem of identity politics
Craig
In the long run all Independence supporters are dead. Gradualism should be dead.
“Free in 93” one of Alex Salmonds slogans was 30 years ago.
Actually, it was Alex Neill. I think Salmond was disapproving
John Macadam
I bow to your better memory – it was a long time ago – gradualism must end.
Wasn’t “Scotland free by 93” a rogue slogan by Alex Neil?
It’s sad but true that the only anti-establishment partei that didn’t succumb to the corruptions of office in the C20th was the NSDAP after 1936 and that lot didn’t turn on all of their sponsors until 1942-1943..
Portjim
“the thinking behind this ‘move” baffles me” – not if the person thinking about is in one of the Secret Services.
Alex put the wind up the establishment, remember he wasn’t going to resign after Indy ref, he was straight on to fight the next one, and then he suddenly announced his resignation.
Willy McRae?
Portjim.
Motive?
In Q4, 2019 (with a GE campaign) the SNP received a paltry £131k in donations. Contrast that with the LibDems at £2.9m. In the same period the SNP received Short money of £202k.
For large scale donations to the SNP 83% are bequeathments from estates (hardly a source that can be tapped on request).
At close 2018, income from membership fees was down 20% on the 2015 peak (and gawd knows how many members have subsequently parted over this trans cult nonsense).
Peter Murrells salary is believed to be > £100k. Nuff said!
Easy peasy lemon squeezy for those outside of the party but on the very inside of the party, to orchestrate anything they damn well like.
It’s a classic tactic, you destroy from the inside and it’s parasitic. The mistake could be said to be, the party concerned were not more astute in seeing this coming, and making sure to be scrupulous in who they allow to get very close.
This is likely to hurt the SNP either way, because of the media vying for blood, an anti SNP, with little if any platform to counter such an anti democratic attempt to effectively oust said party. Those who hate the SNP anyway will be basking in the glory of faux confirmation they were right all the time, about, well, whatever they want to be right about really.
Other countries use sanctions, actual physical weapons, and/or they enact a coup against the country they wish to control 100%. At the moment Scotland is being attacked by media, and has been for some time. Let’s see how this all pans out however, the outcome might be very different to the desires of the rogues at high level politics and the so called media.
Portjim;
The whole point of the move is for the SNP to come out badly, that makes independance less likely, which suits the current leadership and the security services.The SNP can be neutralised in the same way as the LibDems after Charles Kennedy, and more recently the Labour Party.
Well, Craig, the defence is in the details. I, and other lawyers, have privately commented on certain intriguing matters arising, but I shall not compromise your blog by offering opinion here. Without your reporting I would not know a fair amount about the totality of the evidence and that is a powerful criticism of the media who quite simply are not reporting the case that is being presented
John Macadam
Care to comment on why you think the media “Are not reporting the case that is being presented”
Well I think that because I learn elements of the case, chiefly favourable to the defence, from sites such as this one. There may of course be mainstream journalists reporting the whole ball of wax and, on account of some failure, I simply never come across them
John Macadam
I don’t think you addressed my question. You don’t have to of course.
Your answer is actually changing your initial comment from “the media are not reporting…..” to “well there may be some who are but I just haven’t found them”.
Well, if there ones reporting it they don’t write for the newspapers I see on the racks, or for the radio stations I listen to on the way home from work. It may well be that by not subscribing to ‘Tropical fish Hobbyist’ I am missing out on a lot, but I doubt it. I do trust that you are not expecting me to listen to Sarah Smith 24-7 in the vain hope that the truth might inadvertently slip out? [‘cos I ain’t going to]
John Macadam
Not asking you to watch anything. Just simply asked if you have an opinion on WHY they are not reporting the case accurately which you said in your initial post. You seem to be avoiding the question. If you don’t want to answer my question. – no problem – but I don’t understand all the unnecessary deflection.
why the deflection? I have opinions best unstated on Craig’s blog
To be fair Cubby, your question was ambiguous.
John Macadam
Fair enough John. You could of course have said that in the first place. However, I do not see how expressing a personal opinion on the media is a problem. But if you think it is fine.
He did.
Squeeth
I have a different interpretation. I took his words to mean the overall situation not specifically the distrust of the media. I can understand your point of view. Hopefully you will understand mine.
At least you posted your opinion with no personal abuse.
“The defence witnesses have not yet been called. All of the media are reporting that women were banned from being alone with Alex Salmond in Bute House after 7pm. It is reported as fact. That was however an assertion by one prosecution witness. It is not necessarily true, despite all the media headlining it as fact. ”
I am looking forward to this fact being challenged. Alternatively the civil service head who issued the memo being called as a witness to testify that this was indeed the case and the reason why the instruction was issued.
Measured and well reasoned account Craig , best of luck with acquiring “certified journalist” status.
A thought on the law inspired by, but not specific to, this trial.
The criminal record of the accused is withheld from the jury. They are not told that the accused has been found guilty of bag snatching, say, on ten previous occasions. This is to avoid a situation where they think “he did all those – he probably did this one too”.
Why, then, is it ok to lump several similar but unrelated charges together in one trial? The jury is told that the defendant has been accused of a number of crimes. Charged, mind – not found guilty.
Given human nature, it seems inevitable to me that some jurors will think “there are so many accusations – he must have done some of them”.
A classic case of “never mind the quality – feel the width!”
Perhaps some lawyer out there can advise us why it is ok to imply guilt by means of other (unproven) charges, but not by previous (proven) convictions?
“Why, then, is it ok to lump several similar but unrelated charges together in one trial?”
Exactly what I was wondering.
I think the answer is “politics”.
Tom Welsh
Moorov doctrine.
They do say it is a rookie mistake to confuse the law with justice.
“Moorov doctrine”.
As I said, politics.
Apparently it’s wrong (and illegal) to mention any previous brushes with the law – unless that would help to put a man in prison for an alleged “sexual offence” – in which case it’s not only fine, it gets a clever name.
Tom Welsh
I didn’t say I agree with the Moorov doctrine just that exists and it is obviously a potential factor in this trial.
Perhaps a second read of Craig’s satire article Yes Minister.
But men accused of sexual offences always have their details splashed across the media – supposedly to ‘encourage other ‘victims’ to come forward’, the Moorov doctrine. But how many trials do you see with more than one complainer? Has there EVER been a trial with ten complainers?
Well, good question.
As a student, not in Scotland, one of my dear friends was raped at knifepoint. Horrific.
The guy was eventually caught, but eluded police for many years, goodness knows how (!) but he was a seriously serial rapist, and I think at least 30 rapes were identified at the time he was caught, there were no doubt many more. As far as I know, there were multiple cases that potentially could have come up at court, but not sure exactly how many he was actually tried for. Weirdly though he was released after 15 years. Evidence proved he was a horrifically serious serial rapist, why was he not locked up for life? Always wonder what protection he had. Anyway, nowhere near the number of cases that were proven with evidence, by the police, were brought to trial, so seems they only take a few cases and leave the rest to speculation even when evidence is there.
Not sure that answers your question very well sorry Cymru.
Cymru
The Moorov doctrine comes from a case in 1930 in Glasgow – and no I did not read about it at the time – multiple complainants at a department store all female except the manager.
I guess it will be up to the judge to advise if this is appropriate to use but I speculate that the prosecution have had this in mind.
Moorov sounds like more of.
In its almost 100 year history the Moorov doctrine must have accounted for a significant amount of convictions. How many people have been sent down, possibly even executed because of it?
Given human nature, it seems inevitable to me that some jurors will think “there are so many accusations – he must have done some of them”. Yeah well, tell the jury you are innocent. Tell them what these women are up to. Tell the jury what the conspiracy is. Save your won skin. Bring the whole shebang down. To hell with being carted to a prison cell in Saughton to save IndyRef2 2020. This is what we are all waiting to see AS verus Prentice QC.
All indictments are drafted in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for the accused person to leave the court without a stain on their character. In Scotland something like 98% of people who are ‘called to court’ are convicted (in Japan it is 100%!). 90% of defendants will plead guilty usually in the form of doing a deal in any case, what the Yanks call ‘plea-bargaining’ along the lines of “If you drop the two assaults I will plead guilty to the breach of the peace”. The charges are all drafted with this in mind. Not to mention that there is huge psychological pressure from all quarters on accused persons to plead guilty to something. The courts want a confession, preferably in open court or at a later time from, say a social worker or psychologist . It is an unsatisfactory outcome as far as the court is concerned to have to find an accused guilty meaning no admission of guilt. It is also why newspapers will commonly say that a person found guilty ‘apologised’ (when in fact they didn’t.) An apology is an admission/acceptance of guilt. The legal system is not satisfied until an accused person ‘fesses up.
We will never have any democracy and justice in Scotland as long as we have a media that is totally compromised.
In the UK democracy is only for some people. Therefore by definition democracy does not exist in the UK.
The question should be asked. Is now a good time to create a Scottish Independence party and go on to the offense and to the public, by pointing out the many missed opportunities for action, what could have resulted from taken these actions, and more?
My congratulations to Craig for his bonafide status as a Black isles journalist, time to reserve a seat for yourself in May.
@nevermind: ” Is now a good time to create a Scottish Independence party and go on to the offense and to the public, by pointing out the many missed opportunities for action, what could have resulted from taken these actions, and more?”
For me, the clear answer to that is” Yes, definitely!”
I am a member of the SNP up in the highlands, and me and a few other members were talking about resigning and doing exactly that, as the SNP has been compromised on so many levels
No one trusts either of the Murrells, the NEC or the career politicians that the SNP have at both parliaments as they have been bought with power and cash and like the trough to much.
The same group of members, all long standing party members, and prolific YES campaigners no longer trust the party and believe that this is a hatchet job sanctioned at the very top to keep Alex Salmond doing what he did when Swinney was found inept and Salmond returned to steady the ship and take the helm.
Sturgeon has hand picked her core ministers very carefully to those she thought she could trust although it looks like a few MSPs are not exactly giving her the full support with likes to the GRA, (Cherry and McAlpine) and we also believe Cherry is best option to take the party to the next step, ie independence now that Salmond is being nobbles
Willie B, what would be involved to create a new Independence Party? I don’t even know how much money would be involved, it costs to stand candidates I know, but then then there is registering, promoting the party as a going concern etc, creating manifestos (?). Do you think there would be enough SNP groups and yes groups to agree on enough policies (or would it be effectively a ‘protest’ party that would form?) to form a new party? Do you think there is potential for some serving politicians to join?
Sorry, a ton of questions there, but I’ve been pondering the logistics for a while now, and realise I don’t really know enough about the nuts and bolts of politics to assess the feasibility. It’s desirable though. I’m assuming you know more about it!
A media that is totally compromised is, alas, nothing new. Not even nearly.
Note the dates of the following quotations.
“Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor’s prejudices as the advertisers don’t object to”.
– Hannen Swaffer (journalist) 1928
“The press today is an army with carefully organized arms and branches, with journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war-aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty”.
– Oswald Spengler, “The Decline of the West” Vol. II, trans. C.F. Atkinson (1928), p. 462
“There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes”.
– John Swinton (1829–1901), Scottish-American journalist, newspaper publisher, and orator. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Swinton http://www.rense.com/general20/yes.htm
Those quotes are all agreeable, but the best reaction to the notion that the press is the megaphone of particular interests is not to bemoan unrealistically the “who pays the piper chooses the tunes” principle, but to ensure that a lot of different interests be using those megaphones. The real problem currently is not that the media are megaphones for lobbies, but that they are megaphone for the factions of just one lobby. If there are some differences among the interests represented by most media those are between the tory and whig factions of the right wing lobby.
Also another quote you will like, from H MacMillan’s diary, 1963, after he had just retired from politics, 1963-11-30, and T Jefferson, 1814-1-2:
“It is wonderful not to read the newspapers — except a rapid glance through The Times. It makes such a difference. One feels better, mentally and morally, not to be absorbing unconsciously, all that steady stream of falsehood, innuendo, poison which makes up the Press today, apart from purely informative sections.”
“I deplore with you the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, & mendacious spirit of those who write for them: and I inclose you a recent sample, the production of a New-England judge, as a proof of the abyss of degradation into which we are fallen. these ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste, and lessening it’s relish for sound food. as vehicles of information, and a curb on our functionaries they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief.”
Something from the previous post has been on my mind. Who were the two SPADS which were promoted a couple of paygrades without changing their job? I’ve been trying to dig but it’s not something I’ve been able to find any record of.
I know this is clearly unconnected to the trial at hand, but it would be nice to find out
Clearly unconnected. Cough.
sorry about that cough, i hope it’s nothing serious.
But yes, as it is clearly unconnected, and being a matter of someone taking money from the public purse, should it not be public record of who these individuals were, with the remarkable pay increases?
“Alex Salmond’s sixth accuser tells his sex assault trial she felt ‘mortified and demeaned’ when Scottish First Minister grabbed her buttocks as they posed for a photograph”
So if that is the case, where is the aforementioned photograph?
And is the photographer being called to give evidence?
These people are snowflakes, they would quickly be snowballed, in the world in which real people exist.
This is all so pathetic.
Not idiots perhaps but useful nonetheless.
Publishing the photograph would identify the complainant. Even if her face is blanked out, she will be able to be identified if the photograph had been previously published in the public domain.
It would maybe though come up in court given it’s a closed court, pretty much anyway. It would still be evidence. Let’s see what happens next week.
If it is in the public domain, won’t As’s hands be in his pockets or her knickers?
This whole Kafkaesque process could be a shot across the bow for others too to keep on the straight and narrow of the UK’s deep state: Boris Johnson comes to mind.
There is no winner here but there will be a bad taste. This is a you too movement moment – when the independence dream dies the Sun will claim ‘it done it’ also.
The ‘taking out’ of political opponents was most apparent in Stirling during the recent Westminster election where the ‘hierarchy’ – with Bruce Crawford playing a central roll – decided to ‘fix’ the selection process to parachute in career politician Alyn Smith. Smith, although not that popular and not local, was propelled in off the back of a nasty smear campaign to discredit the previous SNP MP Steven Paterson. The smear campaign was initiated by office bearers of City of Stirling SNP branch with several of Crawford’s office staff in key roles within the branch. The smear was perpetuated by them to other gullible office bearers in branches within the Stirling constituency to the detriment of Mr Paterson’s efforts to get vetted. The hierarchy simply refused to allow him to pass vetting and Smith became the candidate unchallenged.
With the full support of Nicola.
How many times did she appear with Alyn S in canvassing pics?
The bad publicity over Jordon and also Alyn swanning off to Washington, claiming it was to get support for Scottish indy, may be making some people regret the choice.
He also abandoned his fellow MEPs but did turn up for the last photo op, a careerist indeed.
You portray a very one sided biased view of the selection process in Stirling. I am an office bearer in that constituency and “gullible” is not a phrase that would ever be applied to me, nor should it be applied to any of the other office bearers across the constituency.
It would seem so to you if you were involved in the disgusting shenanigans, but both posts are accurate as far as I can see.
The posts you accept as accurate reflect a view you agree with clearly. It does not however make it true, nor can allegations made in a forum like this speak for the actions of roughly 100 office bearers who are labelled “gullible”, or for the wider constituency membership.
Perhaps your view will change when voters vote with their feet? That normally happens when a party has been infiltrated, as voters and members become aware of the coterie in their midst. I rather hope that the woke who have taken over the constituency branches will be removed, their views are not democratic, even those “gullible” office bearers are already regretting their naivete. That all is now being exposed is one sad benefit of this trial.
In Stirling that was part of the problem they voted with their feet in 2017 loosing the 2015 win majority which was over 10000. We ended up with a Tory MP with a majority of 138. All the Tory held seats were top priority for wins in 2019. Your claim about office bearers also lacks any base in fact. The time for challenge to office bearers was available at AGMs by which time the selection process had concluded.
Selection was not concluded by the AGM – as you should know if you know anything. And the Tory majority was 148 not 138, meaning we almost held it against a national swing which should have buried Stirling. It was in play because of our 2017 candidate, not despite him, again, as you should, but clearly do not, understand.’
Quite a few of the accusers are reported as saying they did not consider it criminal. Abuse of power is being quoted. Many of them did not consider going to the police. So how have we ended up with such serious charges being brought against AS. Is that as a result of the Police investigation? Do they decide its criminal, even if the alleged victims are saying in their Police statements that it wasn’t.
The Police don’t decide to prosecute. The Procurator Fiscal’s Office decides
Procurator Fiscal decides what to prosecute. And I assume decides the charges?
Indeed, why bring serious charges for alleged events that even the women don’t feel are criminal. Maybe they couldn’t present it as repeat behaviour without the charges? Or maybe, perhaps, it’s all political? Obviously there is a lot more to come, so we shouldn’t make assumptions at this stage.
Its not the police who prosecute ,they just investigate and send their findings to the crown office i.e the procurator fiscal in Scotland. It is he or she who decided what charges to throw at Alex Salmond
It seems to me that two courts are being held, one under Scottish Law where irrelevant unrelated detail is prohibited and one in the MSM where their proprietors and briefers from Mi5 have saturated the hacks with sordid and unrelated detail.
I suppose that the political fall-out of the media trial is very valuable to politicians and the status quo while the likely outcome of total acquittal by the official proceedings is almost irrelevant.
Scots will notice that once again the MSM are being used by government to interfere with Scottish business and this will strengthen the cause of Independence. Government is totally cock-sure of its ability to rig democratic elections so the political fallout can be cancelled out by algorithm voting.
Well done sparkle marcel for getting her man out of this sordid facade like the decline and fall of Ancient Rome. Cracks are starting to appear in political fabric of the United kingdom .
I’m deljghted to have a ringside view of its imminent fall and decay.
Alleged assault ‘led to ban on Alex Salmond working alone with women’
Incident in 2014 led to ‘change in working arrangements’ for the then Scottish first minister, court hears
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/12/alleged-assault-led-to-ban-on-alex-salmond-working-alone-with-women
And today they heard from a witness – a prosecution witness and senior civil servant, no less – that he knew of no such ban. As I stated, just because a serial liar like Severin Carrell publishes something it does not make it true.
https://twitter.com/RadioForthNews/status/1238482369742585857
And that’s before they start to call the defence witnesses.
I rather suspect if such a ban existed, it would have been leaked to the Record many moons ago. This is farcical.
Eric McCoo
Look at the first sentence in that report by Libby Brooks. ” Alex Salmond WAS banned” ( my cap) then later in sentence “alleged” sexual assault……
So she is telling the reader he was definitely banned but allegedly for the assault. It should be allegedly banned and allegedly assaulted
A bunch of lying journalists.
An alleged ban, implying known behaviour, but at the same time so many people ‘shocked’ and ‘thought it was a one-off’,,,
Good point Contrary.
At the moment he pronounced these words, Raskolnikoff experienced afresh, in his heart of hearts, that feeling of chilliness he knew so well. He looked at Sonia, and suddenly read on her face the same expression as that of Elizabeth, when the wretched woman recoiled from the murderer advancing towards her, hatchet in hand. In that supreme moment Elizabeth had raised her arm, as children do when they begin to be afraid, and ready to weep, fix a glaring immovable glance on the object which frightens them. In the same way Sonia’s face expressed indescribable fear. She also raised her arm, and gently pushed Raskolnikoff aside, whilst touching his breast with her hand, and then gradually drew back without ceasing to look at him hard. Her fear affected the young man, who, for his part, began to gaze on her with a scared expression. “Have you guessed?” he murmured at last. “My God!” exclaimed Sonia.
Crime And Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Natalie
May I ask you who translated it from Russian?
Very disappointed by the article in today’s The National by Gregor Young. Not sure if he has attended court or if he has just copied a Britnat mainstream media account but he certainly does not seem to read Craig’s blog.
Very poor show by The National.
Allied to Michael Fry the resident Tuesday Tory columnist who claims he supports independence penning an article saying capitalism will solve the coranavirus problem not best pleased with the paper.
I agree Cubby.
Cubby.
SNP hierarchy urging party to adopt measures to block SNP MP’s from standing in next years Scottish election. This I presume is an attempt to freeze out Joanna Cherry, or Angus McNeil, or any other SNP MP who might want to push for independence.
The NEC meets tomorrow and is being asked to stop Westminster parliamentarians from running in the Scottish elections come May next year
We all know Cherry would grasp the independence thistle and run with it, if she were at Holyrood, however the SNP hierarchy will knock that on head.
As long as Sturgeon and her clique call the shots independence will never materialise.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18302501.snp-urged-stop-partys-mps-entering-holyrood-race/
RoS
as the price of crude has fallen through the floorboards, you will need to wait your moment untill the Coronavirus has run its life.
If you have Indy two this year, 1) it will be called off
2) people will be frightened and stick with the devil they know
you need to hang on for a couple of years my old mate.
Michael Norton
The price of oil has always gone up and down. It’s a commodity – that’s what they do. The price fall will not effect Scotland when we are independent as all the revenues go straight to London and stay there at present so no matter the price it will be additional revenue.
Your other points are more valid but not 100%. A vote on independence could take place in the Scottish parliament elections in 2021 if the SNP get their act together.
michael Norton
A tory government that voted itself into power like the QE it prints from the magic money tree, will be shown up as the incompetent gamblers they really are. There are no oxygen masks. There are no payouts to the poor. There are no ethics to motivate generosity . There are no social constraints against crime . Just selfishness, racism, bigotry, borrowing, debt and destitution in the Tory schme of things.
What that means is that whatever bits of Celtic colonies are being starved of resources to pay for the private health care of the rich will defect back to Europe. Ireland taking Northern Ireland and Wales, Scotland and Northern England jettisoning Southrrn England with it’s too little , too late ideas.
We know we’ve been done, by the party that gets people done over by professional liars.
Europe is not in the mood for being blackmailed into No Deal after June. They have put up with us for three years waiting for the British people to vote for Corbyn and reasonable cooperation.
Europe will never allow itself to be bullied by an incompetent liar. Especially one who rigs elections and cries Wolf over killer poisons like novichok.
In six weeks time this government will be in meltdown. Jobless people will riot and March in the capital against Tory callousness and daft eugenics ideas. Nobody will tolerate No 10 saying Black people are inferior when it is black people saving lives. Nobody will cry for the molten shares of the rich when no spare provision has been made for the poor.
As Craig curiously predicted recently, the is a strong relationship between revolution and plague.
Crude was trading at $120 a barrel at the time of Indy Ref. The current price is $13.50 a barrel. And a barrel of oil is huge. We are not talking beer barrel.
Brent Crude approx. $35.00:
https://www.dailyfx.com/crude-oil
Brent
I think you are actually talking about a beer barrel.
Magic Robot
The Brent oil and gas field in the North Sea at its peak provided about 13% of the UK oil requirements.
Brent has over the years and still does to this day provide a worldwide bench mark price for a barrel of crude oil. The field opened in 1976.
In the late 70’s Britnats claimed before and during the 1979 devolution referendum that the oil would be finished by the mid eighties. They continue to lie about the oil and gas around Scotlands shoreline to this day. It is only now that Brent is being considered for decommissioning by Shell.
Cubby
March 14, 2020 at 15:14
That is why I quoted Brent Crude, rather than West Texas Intermediate (WTI).
Teach granny to suck eggs, Cubby.
Magic Robot
I learned from my own granny how to suck eggs and never attempt to teach other grannies how to do so.
So granny Magic -respect – you obviously know your stuff.
ROS
I saw that. It is just getting ridiculous now. That is an affront to basic liberties. The SNP leadership (I am not a member) are losing – correction – have lost the plot.
The National is against Salmond – they are on full on WOKE and part of that agenda! I cancelled my subscription last week.
My M in law is of low education. Born in 1936, she was sent to live with others as her mum died of TB & her Dad was in merchant navy. She used to go on about how hard her life was. Then a few years in she started saying she had been abused at that time. She could not tell how she was abused, but the jist was she had to do cleaning jobs aged 14.. I believe someone told her ‘That would be seen as abuse nowadays’ She has latched on to that line. What we call abuse or sexual assault has different meanings today. If a person gets a sexual thrill from touching other then that is wrong. I had a boss I had to warn off from jabbing staff in side or dead legging cos the younger ones were a bit disturbed by it. He was so embarrassed..he does same to his wife & daughters!!. NEVER thought of it as sexual never mind assault! My hubby is a cuddler, we worked in Theatre & Events..it goes with the luvvie territory!
I don’t know if you watch Modern Family, Craig?
Series 3, Episode 14, ‘Me, Jealous?’
Phil has a new client, who kisses Claire on the mouth, each time they meet. Claire’s uncomfortable but Phil says it’s nothing.
The plot is resolved when Claire sees the client kisses every woman he meets that way.
Interesting.
I was so angry hearing the BBC repeat ad nauseum, that AS had ‘apologised’. The BBC spun this to convey, (a) why apologise if you did nothing wrong? i.e this was an admission of guilt and (b) If he apologised, the alleged incidents had actually happened. That has not been established.
Why are the bBC getting away with this?
If we lived in a normal country where the press represented all views, we would not feel the injustice of press barons’ & UNITY UK BBC’s control of this trial’s public info.
But this trial fully shines a light on the fact that we live in a very abnormal country, where right wing press barons control the flow of info to the people.
This is not in the public interest.
Billy Bones
Managing expectations is all management seems to do.
A man like Boris Johnson is solely focused on his payout from hedge fund gambling on No Deal. Globally politics is no longer anything but a gravy train.. Johnson relies on civil servants and advisors to do the governing.
There is another incentive for politicians, driving through the destruction of the Middle East for Israel, and ministers like Pritti Parel kick out their civil servants in order to follow another country’s interests instead of ours.
When politicians are entirely focussed on what is not their job, Expectations Management is the sole function of government.
While the Labour Party would now be addressing this country’s problems if it was in power, the people who rigged the election don’t see why the privilege of power should be wasted on actually governing, when it could be more usefully used to make millions and destroy the world.
Does it actually matter in the context of this monstrous fraud, who touched whose bump, snagged, or unnecessarily spread their saliva. The Tories are romping with World King Bond movie bad guy Boris cat stroking Johnson while the opposition are gazing at their navels or private parts. Is this what they are paid to do?
What they did is solely the concern of their own eternal souls and the fact that it is being discussed at all is solely because some women who want to be World Queens , boss civil servants and become billionaires have put it there.
Nuff said. I’m going to read my morning prayers.