As many of you will already know, I was excluded from the public gallery of the Alex Salmond trial yesterday. Inside the High Court, in the queue to enter the courtroom, I was suddenly taken aside by the police and told I was barred. The prosecution had made an application to the judge for an order for my removal which the judge had agreed, over a “possible contempt of court.”
I asked the police – who were very pleasant – if they could tell me where the possible contempt lay, but they had no information. Later I phoned the court and was eventually phoned back by the clerk of the court, who was also very pleasant, but he could not tell me where the possible contempt lay either. He could however tell me I was excluded for the duration of the case, not just for the day.
I have to say that I find this process very unsatisfactory. To be excluded from a public trial on the basis of something I have “possibly” done, when nobody will even specify what it is I have “possibly” done, seems to me a very strange proceeding. I can only assume that it is something I have written on this blog as there has been no incident or disturbance of any kind inside the courtroom. But if the judge is genuinely concerned that something I have written is so wrong as to necessitate my exclusion, you would expect there would be a real desire for the court to ask me to amend or remove that wrong thing. But as nobody will even tell me what that wrong thing might “possibly” be, it seems only reasonable to conclude that they are not genuinely concerned, in a legal sense, about something I have written.
I will state openly that if the court asked me to remove or change anything I have written, I would certainly do that. But they have not asked me. They have just chucked me out without explanation. I do not find that satisfactory. It also seems to me very strange indeed, and quite contrary to natural justice, that the prosecution and the judge were formally discussing in secret a motion for my exclusion, while I was standing right outside their door. I was not given a hearing, allowed to be present, or even told it was happening. They knew I was there because the police then came straight to me. That seems to me contrary to all principles of natural justice. I am not a terrorist who needed to be secretly surveilled and dealt with in camera while excluded.
I do not doubt the judge may have the legal powers to do this. But the law is then wrong. Not to mention that this behaviour is extremely discourteous – she should at least have called me in and told me why. That would have taken a minute. And I then could also have removed any material she wished.
All of which – and the threat of prosecution for contempt which carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail – is very unpleasant. But what is far worse is the terrible feeling of helplessness that has resulted. I have scarcely slept at all this night, and it really was a dark night of the soul. Having seen the crushing power of the state operate against both Julian Assange and Alex Salmond in the last month has been dreadful. It is of course, at a philosophical level, the state’s use and abuse of its monopoly of violence, including the violent enforcement of deprivation of liberty. I am excluded from the court by the state’s monopoly of violence, as I would discover very soon if I attempted to re-enter. I find the violence of the state, and its enforcement by officialdom, a more brutal and horrible thing than personal violence, which I abhor. It has kept me awake, in a sea of desolation, to think that how Julian and Alex feel tonight must be a million times worse than I am feeling, which is bad enough.
But it is also the helplessness. In both the Assange and Salmond cases, I felt strongly that by bringing the full and detailed facts of the court proceedings into the light, I was at least doing something for truth and honesty. The detailed accounts I could write in each instance presented a picture that was entirely different to the selective and horribly skewed view of the proceedings being fed to the populace by the state and corporate media. Even if my accounts reached only a few thousand people, a world where a few thousand people know the truth is better than a world of absolute darkness, by a factor of infinity.
Being deprived of that ability at least to hold a little candle in the darkness, at least to bear quiet witness to the truth, has just left me also in darkness. That is where I have been all night, unsleeping, fevered and restless. And today I shall not be in court.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/
With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.
This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
BBC Scotland has a summary podcast
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0873stt
After some hours of deliberation, the members of the jury did not reach a verdict. They have been sent home and will resume on Monday.
______
Meanwhile it’s all going pear shaped for Johnson and Sunak. Parlous times indeed.
Mary,
That is good news. I’ve done jury service, and it was coming up to 5pm. “I am not going to change my view, so if we don’t all agree, see you guys again on Monday.”
I got the result. We took it all very seriously, which re-confirmed my belief in jury trials.
Meanwhile, the very latest news is not good in England
Basically, It’s Martial Law.
I never thought it would come to this, within my lifetime, but almost no one resisted, and if they did they were castigated, for telling the truth, as close they knew it.
So I am digging my Garden, and growing much more food with my lovely wife, who is very experienced, at the community allotments, which they have also closed down.
We are both somewhat older than Craig Murray, but still fit and healthy, and there is a fresh stream nearby for water, and lots of trees to keep warm and cook with.
I have also bought loads of books written on paper.
Tony
Based on what I read of the trial, If that jury does not come back with a not guilty verdict 15-0 then I despair.
I doubt there will be a not guilty verdict on Alex.There will however probably be a 15-0 NOT PROVEN verdict which will be enough to end this great mans career as the media will now continually smear him . Also there is a very real chance the jury will not be able to reach a verdict which will mean a re-trial and due to this corona-virus wont be held any time soon. You can bet any potential re-trial will be held as close as possible to the 2021 Scottish elections.so as to do maximum damage
There is always a verdict, it’s just a majority decision, not a unanimous one. And with 15, no hung verdict. There could be other reasons for a retrial I’m sure though.
Contrary
You are correct it is a majority verdict but it can get complicated as you have three choices and sometimes jurors who don’t know or can’t make up their mind.
Eg you could have 7 for guilty 7 for not guilty and 1 for not proven. You have a majority against guilty but not a majority for either not guilty or not proven.
Not guilty means acquittal, Not proven also means acquittal. That to me means 7 not guilty plus 1 not proven would result in an acquittal.
Thepnr
I am aware that not proven and not guilty are legally the same. The point of my example is to recognise the complication in getting an agreement on what the verdict should be described as. Unless the guidance to jurors has changed in recent times then I have been on a jury where it does get complicated.
Another example 5 want a guilty verdict, 5 want a not guilty verdict, 5 want a not proven – a clear majority do not want a guilty verdict but 3 of the not proven or not guilty have to change what they want.
The official verdict of the jury cannot be acquital it has to be not guilty, guilty or not proven.
If you think the above is wrong happy to hear from you as ever Thepnr. I rest my case????
Aye, that’s true Cubby, and a good point.
Contrary
Also they will have to decide individually for all 13 charges. If a lot of the 13 are a mix of all three possible results then it could take some time.
Aye Cubby, I was assuming that the number of charges to get through was going to be the main thing that would take the time – I personally prefer that a jury takes its time and doesn’t make any snap decisions (although the influence of newspaper headlines is a bit of a worry). I also agree with Thepnr, that it’s likely there would not be too much of a disagreement between not-proven and not guilty, though it will still take time to consider too. We shouldn’t be too impatient, the case has lasted half the time they thought it would, but with a verdict on Friday we could have spent all weekend gossiping about it! (Obviously, that’s a minor reason for reaching a speedy conclusion)
The media will smear him whatever happens at the trial. This is because “journalist” is another word for “liar”. (Citizen journalists excepted, obviously, Craig)
Athanasius
Correct because their job is not to be a journaist but to be British state propagandists.
Journalists are imprisoned and die all over the world. Here they sign the ragmans roll.
You best have a new Scottish Independence party ready by then Big Al, cause the SNP is not a good prospect after this horrible neocon trial.
I urge all SNP supporters to create a new untarnished party with the aims and objective to reform Scottish law and end the navel attachement to Westminster. Act as a Scottish entity for all those that live within, cut those strings and strenghten the spine, it will be fine.
How about calling it the Scottish National Independence Party (SNIP)?
Being Welsh I don’t have a dog in the fight regarding Scottish Independence, although I support whatever Scottish people might see as the best for their future and being separated from rule by Westminster must be a major part of that.
I do see Alex Salmond as something of a victim in this ‘show trial’ and desperately hope that he’ll see justice, although I somewhat doubt it. At the very least it’ll destroy any further political ambitions he might have had – so job done.
As to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, hard to see Scotland achieving independence under her leadership, surely she’s little more than an establishment stooge, an equivalent to Blair and the part he played in derailing the Labour party.
Time will tell.
Mr Murray, as others on this site have mentioned, I’d challenge the matter of your exclusion due to an alleged possible contempt. Contempt of court, at least under English law and I’d be surprised if it is different in Scots Law, arises where there has been a breach of an order of the court. Now, to be bound by an order of the court, the order needs to have been served on the person to be bound. From your narrative, the first you were aware of the order preventing you from entering the court, was when a police officer removed you from the queue.
Were you ever served with the court order? Were you present in court when the prosecution’s motion to prevent you entering the court as a result of your alleged breach was put before the judge? Were you or your legal representative allowed to hear the allegations of your alleged breach and respond to the allegations? Absent these, I would suggest that preventing your accessing the court amounts to a breach of natural justice and was probably unlawful. If the court is unable to provide you with a copy of the order, I would contact the police to get the details of the police officer who prevented you entering the court and make a complaint to the police. If the police acted without a court order that will itself be an offence.
Although the trial is over, this appalling fascistic behaviour, if true, demands to be publicised and those responsible, put to account. Silence only permits this type of behaviour.
Ingwe,
Would you object to me copy/pasting your comment on the current Wings thread?
It’s an interesting comment and also in the public domain anyway so get pasting Ian! It’s a sideshow though and my guess is there’s no wrongdoing and if Craig presses it, it may produce an actual charge coming his way.
I’m more looking forward to AS taking one or more of his accusers to court. Like his brief said, “It stinks”
Feel free, Ian Brotherhood at 20:23 March 20th.
Hoots!
🙂
My view is that CM has not been in possible contempt of court, the only thing he might possibly have done is commit sub-judice. If that is the ruling then continuing or not adhering to the courts edicts leads to contempt which can mean exclusion, fines or prison. It just seems to me along with the exclusion of the texts that this is not a level playing field. Anyway CM keep up the good work.
Just been out to the shops and the ‘news’ stands, a couple of the daily, dirty lying rags, have really nasty front pages, all basically accusing Alex Salmond of the charges made against him…really despicable. That is where the court should be putting their efforts, to stop that sort of
utter bias which really could sway a jury, and it just takes one of the jury to see those lying rags and be influenced by them enough to make them question their own judgement.
Hopefully people are more discerning when sitting on a jury, and given that Craig has been barred from the court, those rags that call themselves newspapers, should never be allowed on the shop shelves with the sort of headlines they have been displaying about this case. That they are allowed to judge, and find someone guilty by their nasty innuendo, is a disgrace to democracy and to Scots Law quite frankly.
Hetty
Totally agree with your comments. It should have been no press or public coverage at all during the trial then full written text of every word said in court published with any names removed as appropriate. Or fully open to the public.
Justice needs to be seen to be done.
Can’t you shop somewhere where they don’t sell newspapers?
“Newspapers” = Billionaire’s Blogs
There can only be one valid reason for being barred from a court in these circumstances and that is a breach of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 whose principle conditions for contempt are as follows:
“The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.”
Note the word “substantial”.
The act also provides leeway:
“A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.”
Under this Act, it is implied that a reason ought to be given for any claim of contempt of court. Either contempt was perpetrated or it wasn’t. If it was then you would be subject to fine or imprisonment. You cannot just be barred from entry on the loose assumptions that someone court official doesn’t like you. You cannot just prevent someone from entering a court gallery on a whim. You have to be given a reason, and if there is contempt then you would normally be heavily fined, arrested or imprisoned.
If the court simply doesn’t welcome your presence, that is not a valid reason to bar you.
After reading the MSM’s assessment of the defence case, it is clear many of them give undue prominence to the prosecution and scant attention to the defence, or describe proceedings in a different way. For example the Guardian on March 19th headlines with the following: “Alex Salmond trial: Scotland’s former first minister ‘was sexual predator’. Jury hears that Salmond preyed on younger women for nearly eight years.” Except for the small quote marks, the impression given is that these allegations might be seen as established facts.
Whereas the defence’s claims are described with a completely different emphasis, thus: “Defence lawyer says ‘scary’ pattern of allegations shows former first minister must be acquitted”
Note the completely different emphasis, where the prosecution’s claims are presented almost as fact, whereas the defense claims are clearly couched as quotes from the beginning, not facts.
One might fairly conclude that the Guardian’s different style of reporting between prosecution and defence cases is, while not in contempt, certainly is biased as to emphasis.
I’ve read Craig’s reporting several times and I cannot see a single sentence that is not a fair observation, the most telling one being an unassailable fact, that the prosecution’s case is entirely dependent on uncorroborated statements absent of any third party evidence or confirmation.
I cannot recall a single MSM report that points this out. So who is “in contempt”?
Leonard Young
Thank you for that. It could not be clearer that the judge was wrong. Maybe panic. More likely orders from on high.
This is what happens when somebody understands the law but the law is overruled by our masters across the pond, fearing CM might be on a winning streak across the board.
Leonard,
Is it okay if I copy/paste your comment to ongoing Wings thread?
I also asked ‘Ingwe’ (above)
These are, imo, important comments which deserve the broadest possible audience.
Forgive me Ian, but I don’t know what the ogoing “wings thread” is. I am not a lawyer so what I wrote was not gospel but a reasonable conclusion after reading through the 1981 legislation. I would rather seek the views of a qualified lawyer who might post here before unleashing this elsewhere.
Sorry, I should’ve been more specific.
Wings Over Scotland is an indy-supporting blog by Stuart Campbell which has been going since 2012.
Craig knows Stuart.
If you haven’t seen it before:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-delay-phase/comment-page-2/#comment-2519713
Just to let you know – I have copied your comment to that site, unedited, and made clear where it came from.
Please be assured it will be appreciated (critically, in all ways!) by the readers.
🙂
Frankly, as a US resident I admit that your fascinating reporting on the Salmond case is mostly a welcome diversion from the “all pandemic all the time” news and analysis. Still, I respect that it is a significant event and commend you again for the high-quality (and risky) independent journalism you provide.
It is obvious enough from here that “possible contempt of court” is a euphemism for “here’s an incipient Enemy of the State– a boat-rocker and troublemaker who is up to no good, and must be banished forthwith on the first flimsy pretext that comes to hand”.
If pressed, which is itself unlikely, the judicial authorities will devise some lawyerly rationalization developed at their leisure.
I’m wondering if the RT network or other “alternative”/independent media will report on your exclusion, and naturally seek to interview you. I’ve skimmed through the extensive comments, and appreciate that there are valid arguments for both aggressively pushing back and “making a stink”, vs. nominally submitting to the unjust exclusion and holding your peace as developments proceed.
FWIW, as a long-time blog visitor and commenter, I am well aware that many commenters feel compelled to advise blog hosts and tell them exactly what they should or shouldn’t do. I tend to defer to the host’s own judgment, and I’m sure you’ll respond (or not-respond) appropriately.
I trust that my seditious opinions will not subject me to legal reprisals from across the water, or place you in further jeopardy.
Ort. Craig usually is a guest on George Galloways MOATS on Youtube and radio Sputnik
Thanks for the tip!
‘Alex Salmond case emerged from ‘murky’ world of Scottish politics and should be dismissed, court heard
Describing politics as a “murky world”, he said there were “sinister patterns” in the evidence and implied that there had been an element of orchestration between witnesses’.
https://inews.co.uk/news/alex-salmond-case-murky-world-scottish-politics-dismissed-claims-2503600
That’s exactly what Craig implied in his ‘Yes Minister’ satire. Maybe he looks too close to the conspiratorial position of the defence.
“Minister …the accusers can just be my closest political cronies and the public will never be aware of that! That’s brilliant, Perm Sec!
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/yes-minister-fan-fiction/
Sleep well tonight Mr Murray. As reported in the Guardian, Gordon Jackson QC, Salmond’s defence advocate told jurors at the former first minister’s trial that the entire sexual assault and attempted rape case is “murky” and “smells bad”.
He also alleged, there were signs some of the charges were orchestrated.
“That stinks,” he said. “It absolutely stinks.”
I think it can be said Mr Jackson did not ‘mince his words’ about what he thought of the prosecution case. His words were widely reported in the press and media.Your blogs, in comparison, were a model of restraint.
I wondered whether you had inadvertently erred by publicly naming several of the defence witnesses on day 8, but no they were all also named in Thursday’s Scottish Daily Mail.
I think we can assume your blogs have simply annoyed the prosecution team. Lady Dorrian had little choice other than to agree to ban you if your blogs could be construed as a “possible contempt of court.” I note Prosecution Advocate Alex Prentice, also managed to persuade the judge to disallow Ann Harvey’s evidence.
British ‘democracy’ on full display. A disgrace but somehow expected. What a sad place the UK has become. Genuinely I can’t see anywhere that is good that this country is heading for. Vassal of the US, isolated from Europe all the while the ignorant and uninformed celebrating our new found ‘liberation’ from the EU. It would be funny if the results weren’t so horrific. None so blind as those who refuse to see.
I thought they done away with Not Proven, anyone confirm?
Yes Scottish law still has the not proven verdict
Tony M
My understanding is that there have been moves in the past to remove the not proven option but they were not successful.
I note that the jury have been “sent home” for the weekend. Is this usual procedure, as opposed to isolating them from the outside influences if the mainstream media? Regardless of procedure, I’m sure we all know there will be a barrage of propaganda fired in all directions this weekend, with the express intention of misleading both the jury and wider public. I can only hope the jury act as impartially as possible here, but I sincerely hope the YES movement doesn’t give up on seeing justice done. Our former FM, despite his flaws, did more for the independence movement than any individual before or since. He at least deserves the fairest hearing for that.
You need to grow up about how ambitious women behave. They simply do not give a shit about fairness, decency nor justice.
Challenge the legality of your exclusion.
They have not charged you with an offence, so go for it.
“Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.”
Whom God wants to lose, He first pays £2,200.00 a week.
I’d be going bonkers if I was losing that much instead of my normal £0
ubi ius incertum, ibi ius nullum
I fear the mods will put a stop to this, maybe hope they will, if we’ve got comment in Latin.
actus non facit reum, nisi mens est rea
When the law is unclear, it isn’t law at all.
An action is judged by its intention.
The Tories are absolutely terrified of the capitalist system collapsing. They didn’t listen to the warnings about coronavirus in 2015 from Bill Gates or their own advisors last year.
They cannot imagine a world without stolen oil from wars.
The market will not find a solution. We are now living in the proven model for dealing with the virus shown by China.
“ The market will not find a solution. We are now living in the proven model for dealing with the virus shown by China.”
Both points wrong.
1) every pharma company in the world is probably working on a solution. Whatever company finds it’s will be massively rewarded. Whatever scientist finds it will become an instant world hero.
2) the China model is eternal lockdown. They literally have a fence around Wuhan too. It works but it won’t work forever.
the China model is eternal lockdown. They literally have a fence around Wuhan too. It works but it won’t work forever.
Actually it worked fine. They have had no new domestic cases for days now. The very small number of new cases have all been imported from outside.
Your belief in the heroic power of the market is noted. Big Pharma have been raking in the profits “working” to find a “cure” for cancer too. The elite of the world LOVE this coronavirus. They want to eliminate a large part of the world’s population.
Why on earth would they want to eliminate the slave labour?
J Galt
Elsie Garnett: “… they only need so many of us to do the things that need doing, and the rest they’d rather be without.”
https://youtu.be/Z9TTKbeFlwQ?t=86
Wrong.
Read: https://www.rt.com/news/483707-china-coronavirus-no-local-infections/
Life is starting to return to normal in Wuhan. Four months after the scare began there.
Lingua latina non penis canis est
I’ve got mine cast in stone: “NON URINAT INVENTUM”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Amsterdam_Homo_sapiens_non_urinat_in_ventum.jpg
🙂 my favourite is Per rectum ad astra
Good for Roscosmos as it is today
I think we’ll have to ban mixed sexes in the workplace and mixed dead and live languages in future.
Oh ,we haven’t got any more work, or life, to do.
Good gracious, I expect we will be allowed 2 jokes on Fridays and 1 on Saturdays 🙂
Tatyana
If we get this bored in one day, we’ll be climbing up the walls by next Friday.
How would the security services be able to blackmail anyone if there were not rampant illicit bonking going on at work?
They exist for adultery, corruption, paedophilia, bigamy, illegitimate children, covert homosexuality, anything they can subvert democracy through suborning officials.
At least Scotland isn’t the only, or the worst, to use sexual allegations to try to ruin someones life.
Anyone heard of this case? ‘Libérez Tariq Ramadan/Free Tariq Ramadan’:
https://www.change.org/p/lib%C3%A9reztariq-ramadan-free-tariq-ramadan
The FCO tried it on Craig, of course, when they were trying to get rid of him as Ambassador, and MI6 spread lying rumours to Richard Tomlinson’s landlady, leading to him being turfed out.
It is exactly what was done to Julian Assange on an international scale.
I can only thank you for what you have given us in your reporting. Be assured you have right on your side and though it upsets you personally I believe we all share your burden in confronting and illuminating injustice.
Craig, please do a new post on the Corona virus, looking forward to read your analysis!
Jack. I would have thought Craig might need to rest and also a while to research before another quality piece.
My commiserations with you, Craig, after all the time and effort you had put in attending and reporting faithfully on the court proceedings .
Is there any way you could find out via via what really passed on between judge and prosecutor?
Some friendly soul who could intervene in a nice way?
Wish you peace of mind and trust that truth will prevail.
Absolutely despicable treatment of Craig
And that puts an end to the notion that this judge seemed to be a fair one.
I’m in two minds as to whether it would be a good idea to take them on over it…Lest they pin something on Craig
I know it’s easy for us readers to say… But try not to get too stressed over it Craig. The world so needs truth tellers like yourself..
Have a Relaxing weekend with the family.
I am no lawyer but does it not seem strange that a prosecution witness (‘a celebrity’) was allowed to give evidence (albeit via a video of a police interview) but he could not be cross examined by the defence because he was ‘self isolating’?
Surely under these circumstances the prosecution should not have been allowed to present the celeb ‘evidence’ as the defendant has a right to cross examine and this was denied him?
He could have been questioned by video Conference in the.court room, indeed.
As it is this evidence should be inadmissable.
Justice… they’ve heard of it. And talked a lot about it.
“he could not be cross examined by the defence because he was ‘self isolating’?”
WTF?
And why is this witness anonymous anyway? Is it Alan Cumming?
N
Is Alan Cumming the only celeb you know that supports independence. Others are available.
Unlike Cumming who was brave enough to publicise his support perhaps this celebrity did not want to take the inevitable abuse that would come his way from mindless Britnats and also risk being blackballed by others like the BBC and losing work.
Is he anonymous?
I thought we had been told his name perhaps I am getting things mixed up with something I read in a Rebus novel.
Nut Brown Maiden
?????
Just read the yes minister article. Reads like an instruction manual. Brilliant stuff.
It’s a travesty. If a judge orders you to refrain from doing something, she ought to tell you on a piece of paper so you can contest the order (even if it might not be sensible to do so).
I wonder what they’re so scared of. “Do they think we are so powerful?”
Perhaps MI5’s bug in the jury room is telling the judgecution something the prosejudge isn’t pleased about?
Leeona Dorrian’s straightest-backed lackeys should have a good look at this comment and draw it to her boarding-school “educated” judgeship’s most dignified attention that “Lady Leeona Dorrian” is an anagram of “Ordinary Ole Deal”. Is that what you did, Leeona?
Give the coronavirus crisis another week and they’ll be Stormtroopers rounding up Honest Journalists (aka Bloggers) with early morning knocks on the door.
The Internet is about to go very Dark.
Los
I met someone who thought the bug had been used to round up questioners of government policy in China. Man-made bug to eradicate dissent against pollution etc.
It doesn’t look so bonkers from where we are now, with Boris striking his white cat bulletins on hourly news bulletins.
Let’s hope the bug gets us first, probably delivered through the letterbox to order.
The MSM scribblers and the editors have moved on from Alex Salmond to THE shutdown (or ‘la fermerture’ if you want it in French). Imagine how many fewer papers will be sold.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
eg
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman
Am I correct in thinking the jury will have to consider all 12 charges separately?
Well that is generally the way it works so he could be found guilty of some but not of others.
This will be one reason why the jury is taking so long, they have to consider each charge separately.
That’s what I thought but I wondered why there was no mention of that anywhere in the MSM.
There are 13. But yes.
Cheers for keeping me right!
Sorry I thought it was originally 13 but one got dropped.
If it turns out that the evidence given by the ‘Alphabet Sisters’ is murky & does stink then if any of these ‘Alphabet Sisters’ are standing for election/re-election then I feel the public have a right to know who they are.
“. . . if any of these ‘Alphabet Sisters’ are standing for election/re-election then I feel the public have a right to know who they are.”
Either that or vote for someone of an alternative/genuine independence party.
Or vote male.
They’ll probably feel they have to resign, if they haven’t already done so.
But can you count on that?
Wow, the summations were quick! I am surprised the judge sent the jury out to consider their verdict at 2pm on a Friday. In England and Wales that would not happen in a case where the defendant was accused of such serious crimes, especially with multiple charges on the indictment. That said, in the E&W jurisdiction jurors are supposed to discuss the evidence until they reach a unanimous verdict and if they can’t reach one they are brought back later to be told that 10-2 will be acceptable, whereas in Scotland a majority of 8-7 is fine. Speculation about what is happening in a jury room when the jurors have retired is often worth little, but I’m guessing that the votes they probably took on all of the charges as soon as their door closed favoured guilty on some charges and not guilty (or not proven) on others. If they had voted 8-7 guilty or 8-7 not guilty on everything, they wouldn’t have needed to stay out long. Some but not all of the charges will fall. Or from the defence’s point of view, their boy will be acquitted on some but jailed for some of the others.
Got to wonder how much of the nationalist movement will be bleating that “With some of them it was only through their clothing” and “They were both drunk”.
Their knuckles will be so white with rage that the tattoos saying “2014” and “1320” and “AEAB” will stand out well, though.
How will Salmond get on with other prisoners, do we reckon? I wouldn’t advise him to start “crowdfunding” inside.
How will Salmond get on with other prisoners, do we reckon? I wouldn’t advise him to start “crowdfunding” inside.
I’m presuming you meant to type would and not will.
Would he not be put into solitary confinement – why risk him being able to persuade prisoners to vote for independence?
Sex offenders are generally segregated and some do elect to be placed in solitary for their own protection. Your ordinary criminal doesn’t like sex offenders and they tend to get the shit kicked out of them.
Except in women’s prisons?
“Your ordinary criminal doesn’t like sex offenders and they tend to get the shit kicked out of them”.
I am fairly sure your ordinary criminal has quite enough common sense to realise that a man who may (or may not) have touched a woman’s bottom for a moment, or kissed her briefly on the lips instead of the cheek, is not a “sex offender”.
A sex offender is a rapist or a child molester. (A real child or children, not 16-year-old “jail bait”).
Ordinary criminals have also known for longer than most of us here that the mainstream media purveys self-serving lies designed to prop up the existing order. I remember reading, in a book by one Jim Phelan, about how the linens are full of madam. That was about 50 years ago.
N-
You may be a Marxist idealist but definitely not a political man.
The subject of a political set up like Alex Salmond has been being framed from the moment they entered mainstream politics. The dirty work of aligning them is steadily built up behind their backs for years. The person themselves is usually kept completely unawares of the treacherous backbiting that is going on.
When the backstabbers are told that the framed nasty person is going to be attacked all the main backstabbers disappear in a politically correct fashion – butter would not melt in their mouths. But the fake accusers with their lies and their thespian tears start to relate their false accusations knowing that all the ground work in the community against the victim has been done.
Suddenly the victim has no shoulder to cry on except conspiratorial shoulders who will relay all their worries back to the main backstabber in chief. The false accusations are baffling because the victim knows they are mostly untrue.
All the formerly solid looking ground around them is suddenly quicksand.
This trial is not about morality, it is about political and concerted manipulation. It has happened to me twice but our ears get longer as we grow older. Young jurors maybe better educated in political manipulation than older through TV soaps of which I never watched even one.
Imho, most jurors will , like me , have moved swiftly on from the moral indignation to recognising their favourite villains from soaps, books and films. I think AS will be aquitted on all charges , and good luck to him.
I wonder whether the trigger action might have been CM’s discussion of complainant anonymity. One of the points he made was that many people can and maybe already have worked out who the complainants are. After the trial, it is very likely, he suggested, that the identities would leak. One might draw an analogy with a virus infection…….. It is easy to agree that this is a good and fair point, but authority may not be seeing it like that.