The Crown Office is objecting to the appearance of, and trying to block from court, ALL of my witnesses and ALL of our proposed evidence for my defence at my trial for Contempt of Court. Today I have to complete the first draft of my own witness statement. We understand the Lord Advocate may object to the hearing of my own evidence also.
I shall write more on this tomorrow. Today is very busy.
Franz Kafka would retreat into the fantasies within his mind, which are saner and more logical than the current UK court system.
It is amazing to listen to the US and UK complain about other nations not respecting freedom or democracy, while at the same time pro-democracy protestors are attacked by American federal officers, local police, and various right-wing thugs who apparently are given a free shot to attack. And in the UK, we see the several ongoing open jokes of proceedings against designated Enemies of the State such as you and Mr. Assange which would make old Soviet show trials blush with shame.
But every CIA or MI6 color revolution operation is supported by loud air cover of the US and the UK beating their chests and the founders and leaders of democracy and freedom. It is of course more of a joke with the UK, which consistently throughout history has supported Kings and Emperors against any movement of the people from within their countries. So, BoJoke’s government isn’t all that different. In the case of America, ever since WW2 we have been, in Dr. King’s words, “on the wrong side of a world revolution.”
“pro-democracy protestors are attacked by American federal officers,”
But are they pro-democracy or is it more colour revolution?
The BBC replied promptly and thoughtfully. The subject is of concern.
Thank you for contacting us about the Trial of Alex Salmond and we are sorry to hear of your concerns. However we don’t agree that this programme was biased or unfair.
Alex Salmond has been a senior political figure for many years and his trial and subsequent acquittal was a major news story, which received extensive coverage at the time. The outcome was fairly reflected in the programme and would have been known to everyone watching. Within that context, the film aimed to examine what impact the trial had had in terms of the ‘me too’ movement and Scottish politics. A range of different views were heard, including authoritative contributors who made points in support of Alex Salmond, such as Jim Sillars and Kenny MacAskill. Mr Salmond himself was invited to take part but declined to do so, as the film made clear. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines require us to be duly impartial and accurate in our reporting and we believe this was the case here.
We’re grateful to you for taking the time to raise your concerns with us and we’d like to assure you that we value your feedback highly. The comments we receive from our audience help to inform decisions and go towards improving our services. As such your complaint has been added to our audience feedback report.
This report is among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly.
Thanks again for contacting us.
Kind Regards,
Daniel England
BBC Complaints Team
__________________________________
RE BLISSEX
The Jury (yes , 8 women and a Woman Judge) said that Mr Salmond was not a ‘monster’ the complainants were not ‘victims’ even though they so testified -ie lied. There is smoke without fire. Not better “safe than sorry” with an innocent man
There is no natural justice for a Man (usually) if women can conspire and send him to jail because he cannot prove a negative “beyond all doubt” . This would turn Women into dangerous mines that men must avoid in private. This leads down a very nasty road to be avoided. I know of many football parties last Winter where all women were left out as too dangerous to be invited (after a recent Court ruling). In some cases ‘professional ‘ ladies provided the sparkle in the belief that “paid “ (OMG) was far less dangerous and expensive than ‘free’ . Shock, horror, Yes some men with beer at some party may be occasionally different to nuns. Of course it is wrong that women must be defensive and careful. But hey,Nature. Birds and bees. Common sense. Without them there would be few children.It is far from perfect.
Why can Mr Salmonds career be destroyed by unfounded allegations while the “alligators” are not named even though they wasted Court time and caused personal damage. ?
Exonerated of bias, yet again. Three cheers for good old Aunty! Hip hip..
Yes, very much. The Alphabet sisters remain serving Civil servants and advisors. It would be entirely reasonable for any male Civil servant to refuse to be alone in a room with them. They have raised accusations against a man which a jury considered unfounded. This should be raised with union reps. and “guidance” regards “interaction” with the Alphabet sisters should be issued.
Vivian O’Blivion
You talk about the alphabet methren as if they were real human beings. But can a human being that tries to manage human expectations, control a narrative or project a political distortion of reality be considered as a human being?
To be considered as a human being, one has to switch off the dictate of logic, not be an algorithm, not take decisions based on your own objectives and allow humanity, the heart, the conscience, moderate your decision-making.
That awful way of thinking, that a lie will convince most gullible people, insults the normal human intelligence of the heart, which experiences stress, anxiety , in incremental doses as soon as it experiences emotional disinformation
Look, you’re fine with a liar, as soon as you realise that they always lie. Yes minister, I shall treat your every comment with equal suspicion. You want a cup of tea = you want me out of the room. BBC broadcasts Wark fiction = Weinstein’s lawyers tell him to appear using a Zimmer frame.
Nothing much to fear from a totally busted flush.
You could ask them out to a romantic dinner, just to annoy them.
In my experience, writing to MPs, Banks or large organisations is a complete waste of time.
They either ignore your communications, reference some irrelevant procedures, state their own agendas or suggest if you don’t like the service you go elsewhere.
The current environment seems to be based on ‘we’ll do what we like’ and other opinions/approaches are of no interest. ‘Our’ only function in this brave new world is to provide income and cheap labour for the establishment
“However we don’t agree that this programme was biased or unfair”.
How amazing. I am shocked! Shocked.
At least you got a reply. I have sent a few complaints to the BBC over the years, about a variety of things. I have never received a reply of any kind.
I repeat. That is NOT the BBC writing to you. The communication came from Capita, in their giant grey shed in Darlington.
BBC extends Capita Audience Services contract to 25 years
Nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and Auntie’s Capita deals
Thu 19 Apr 2018 // https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/19/beeb_extends_capita_audience_services_outsourcing_deal/
All sorts of other activities are performed from there on behalf of the ‘state’, eg TV licence fee collection.
I can well believe that.
This is nothing new.
Henry Root ( otherwise known as William Donaldson ) as part of his satire on Thatcher’s Britain wrote to Esther Rantzen at ‘ That’s Life!’
He sent her three weak jokes.
The reply was ” It’s really nice to receive letters from our viewers “etc etc.
He then sent her an invoice for the jokes: he received the: ” It’s really nice” etc.
Henry then sent back an angry letter saying: ” Dear Esther – you’re a big fat idiot! ”
Guess what?
Despite the insult he got a reply: ” It’s really nice ” etc etc.
That’s forty years ago so I expect that what they kept in the PR drawer then they keep in the PR cloud now.
If you are old enough to remember the Henry Root Book of letters – it’s hilarious.
Not just his letters more so the replies he received.
They were at it then important people and they are more at it now.
“Why can Mr Salmonds career be destroyed by unfounded allegations while the “alligators” are not named even though they wasted Court time and caused personal damage?”
That is only a small part of it. They lied on oath as witnesses in a crimial trial. That is the crime of perjury.
If the authorities do not prosecute those who appear to have committed perjury, they themselves are failing in their duty.
It will not have come as a surprise to anyone here that the BBC’s and the wretched Wark’s programme about Alex Salmond was entirely biassed against him.
Nor is it any surprise that they will claim it was unbiassed because it included voices (Sillars and MacAskill) in defence of Salmond as that is their standard practice and defence when making and broadcasting programmes that are otherwise completely biassed – see also Panorama’s “Is Labour Antisemitic?”.
The context, tenor, drive, direction and concluding remarks of Wark’s programme all rested entirely on an assumption of guilt. See for instance the group discussion between Wark, Garavelli, Sarah Smith and Maurice Smith (at 40:30, link below) and the sequence of pained expressions on Wark’s face accompanying a sequence of comments from the ‘victims’ at the end of the programme.
It is also standard practice at the BBC when producing biassed programming to include weaker or flawed voices in ‘defence’ of their subjects. So Sillars’ comments were heavily qualified and MacAskill, imho, appeared a little flakey.
The programme though did acknowledge (getting its excuses in early), albeit very briefly, that Sturgeon may be found to be the guilty party. But even this was presented as a travesty as (at 46:30) a (I think un-named) female commenter says “It would be a cruel irony if the only casualty of this whole sorry tale was the First Minister – was a woman.” (Some, of course, might regard it as poetic justice.) Cue heroic shot of Sturgeon.
Now, it appears, the validity and standing of both this and the Panorama programme (assuming Ware goes forward with his action against Corbyn – I suspect he might not) will be tested in the courts.
This fightback is long overdue.
At some point someone has some seriously heavy work cleaning the stables at our supposedly premier public service broadcaster.
BBC – The Trial Of Alex Salmond:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000lwld/the-trial-of-alex-salmond
Sillars and MacAskill were set up to come across as foaming at the mouth, rabid, far off-piste ‘conspiracy theorists’. Wark even mentioned ‘conspiracy theories’ as part of setting the stage for their appearances.
I don’t believe the people behind these persecutions are even sincere in their MeToo fanaticism. They just use it as a faux-progressive facade, a surrogate for genuine radicalism, and as a weapon against select enemies. Ask wee Sturge, Kirsty and the rest what should be done about the rapes of Tara Reade, Juanita Broderick, for example, and all their BelieveHer posturing goes out the window. They are simply self-dealing charlatans of the standard British establishment model.
I agree. All these smug, middle class, frequently millionaire women, wringing their hands over mostly celebs, never have a word to say about the plight of women in Palestine, Yemen, etc etc. What faux radicalism. The flawed sort of thinking that have them applauding the likes of Thatcher, May, Merkel, Patel, et al, as being progressive. Identity politics at its worst.
But from a technical point of view the opportunity is far too good to miss. If anyone causes you trouble – or looks like doing so – or just needs to be made an example of…
Charge them with rape or something similar.
1. They will be preconvicted by the mass media.
2. Many ordinary people will assume “no smoke without fire”.
3. You don’t need any evidence: just a story told by a witness who gets to remain anonymous.
4. Although it’s “he said, she said”, she will usually be believed. (Hats off to the Salmond jury!)
5. Apparently, even after the accusations have been dismissed by a jury, the slanderous witnesses are still not prosecuted for perjury.
Can anyone explain why they have not been prosecuted for perjury? They made allegation in court, presumably under oath, which a jury had determined to be untrue.
Isn’t that the definition of perjury?
Isn’t perjury a serious crime? A crime, indeed, that undermines the very foundations of justice?
They can’t be charged with any crime as long as they stay anonymous. You can’t be charged with perjury without being named. It was part of their cunning scheme to have maximum effect while being protected by the PTB.
In other perjury news. Remember this?
“The nearest thing the crown had to an eye witness was Mr Donald Cameron, head of the private office of Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government. Mr Cameron testified on Friday that he had witnessed Alex Salmond attempt to brush the hair from the cheek of a civil servant in a lift (which is not one of the charges). Mr Cameron also agreed under questioning that there was not, to his knowledge, any policy against female civil servants working alongside Mr Salmond in Bute House, which claim had been the major trial media headline on Friday morning.”
Now we have the yoons going mad over this question which has already been answered in court. What will lezzer evans answer be though? If she states that there was such a policy then her PPS is going down. If she says that there was not then it just adds more evidence against the alphabet harpies and their clear perjury.
It would be nice if the media would bother with the facts as we already know them. Just once maybe.
Tom
The jury does not give a written ruling to the judge detailing the reasons for their decision, so it is not possible in law for you to say that the witnesses perjured themselves, it can be cogently argued that the jury were merely not convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
That means that there is also reasonable doubt that perjury took place.
I agree with your sentiments, but the way the jury system worked up until 2019 means that it is hard to prosecute those women, much as I would personally love them to be prosecuted by the most hellfire and brimstone set of lawyers that Scotland can drum up…..
It is not like appealing (via Stated Case) against a Sheriff Summary conviction. The Sheriff would state whether or not they found the witnesses/accused credible/reliable i.e. lying or telling the truth. Neither do does the Jury have to state what Findings in Fact they made. Juries do not have to reason or explain anything. That is why it is much harder to Appeal a conviction as a result of a jury trial, your only avenues would be on a ‘point of law’, or ‘no reasonable jury’. Once convicted by a jury it is very, very difficult to overturn.
Perjury (unless your name is Tommy Sheridan) is very rarely prosecuted in the Scottish courts. As a solicitor said to me once stood in the corridor of the Sheriff Court: “10,000s of people pass through here every year. Most of them tell lies. How many are prosecuted for perjury?”. Well, the answer is none.
And the BBC are at it again:
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-news/2020/08/24/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-is-an-iranian-hostage-documentary-claims/
A BBC Panorama investigation claims Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe a “hostage” in Iran, was on the brink of being freed from jail, but It is unclear why the deal fell through !!!! (BoJo ?)
It is claimed Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held in order to force the UK into settling a multi-million pound dispute with Iran. When the Shah toppled in 1979, Britain refused to deliver tanks to the new Islamic Republic but kept the cash paid (£400M), despite British courts accepting that the money should be repaid. the Ministry of Defence has objected to the repayment.
It’s abundantly clear that Zaghari-Ratcliffe could be free tomorrow if the British Government weren’t such a bunch of absolute crooks.
I’m with Iran on this one. I feel sorry for the woman but it’s clear who the villians are.
Only recently been confirmed the UK was the main driver behind the 1953 coup against then Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh – known as Operation Ajax. Mossadegh had nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and MI6 believed Soviet-backed communists would eventually take over the government. MI6 convinced the CIA to get on board.
Recent revelations would’ve made for a far more interesting programme.
The appalling Foreign Policy continues…
The current population of Egypt is 102,574,622 as of Tuesday, August 18, 2020(UN). Egypt, the most populous Arab country, has received more than $40 billion from the US over the past three decades – more than almost any other country. ‘Security Aid’, as it’s euphemistically termed, currently amounts to $1.3bn per annum, plus there’s other unspecified military, surveillance assistance holding al-Sisi in power.
Quote: Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has built the most repressive state in his country’s modern history. His regime has engaged in a systematic pattern of gross human rights violations, from gunning down peaceful protesters in the streets to jailing tens of thousands of political opponents, including journalists, academics, and human rights defenders.
President Trump called al-Sisi “my favorite dictator.”
Maybe those banging on about Belarus, the likes of Ian Blackford and Paul Mason, ought to realise there’s a whole world of authoritarian brutes and pain, much of it the west is perpetuating.
‘ there’s a whole world of authoritarian brutes and pain‘ notably Israel and I feel the pain of the use of low-yield tactical nuclear warheads by Israel in Syria and recently Lebanon. Given to me by a British friend, a mechanical engineer, who worked at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Israel acquired knowledge of advanced pit design enabling them to perfect a low yield device that was small and lightweight.
Yet somehow Syria and Lebanon have remained quiet about this outrage, which would justify a return nuclear strike against Israel.
Strange that the in Lebanon we didn’t see any of the widespread fires that the intense heat of a nuclear blast would cause or the scores of victims with severe burns. Was it a cold fission bomb perhaps?
Goose, that has been known for at least 30 years, I was reading about it in the 1980s in my early 20s. It may not have been officially admitted through release of government papers, but enough government papers were out by 1985 for the truth to be pretty obvious….
Panorama investigation: The detainees held ‘hostage’ in Iran
Anoosheh Ashoori was arrested in Iran in 2017 and sentenced to 10 years in prison after being accused by the Iranian government of spying, charges he denies.
He is one of eight known dual-nationality British citizens to have been arrested and detained in Iran in recent years. That number includes Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, convicted under spying charges that have been widely denounced as baseless.
Also detained in Iran is Hammersmith-born Morad Tahbaz. The conservationist was arrested in 2018 and had been diagnosed with cancer.
Nizar Zakkar is a Lebanese businessman and US resident who spent four years in the same prison under similar charges.
The US government has claimed such detentions amount to hostage taking for ransom, an allegation denied by Iran.
The BBC’s Darragh MacIntyre investigates these arrests and suggestions there may be more British citizens in similar circumstances.
‘UK viewers can watch Hostage in Iran on Monday 24 August on BBC One at 19:30 BST.
Available for 11 months’
‘Hostage in Iran
Panorama
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been held prisoner in Iran for more than four years after being convicted of trumped-up spying charges. Nobody knows how many other British citizens have been imprisoned by the Iranian authorities because the UK government refuses to say. Reporter Darragh MacIntyre meets the families of some of those who have been arbitrarily detained and asks whether the payment of a historic debt could set them free.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h3h2
I’ve always doubted that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was as innocent as she claims. If she had really done nothing, she would have been released years ago. Evidently agents are sent in Iran under a cover of deniability: that is, Britain would deny their responsibility, if they were arrested. That’s what has happened here. Johnson made the mistake of admitting a certain role, and then retracted.
I kind of doubt the Iranian government is quite as benevolent as some seem to think around here.
Not that they haven’t been betrayed by Trump (and fawning countries that meekly follow his lead no matter what), after keeping their own side of the nuclear deal.
But the idea they simply would never lock an innocent person up because it might give them bargaining power is – perhaps – crediting them with more good faith than they strictly deserve.
Yeah, that’s the response I expected from people who are out to blame Iran. Zaghari-Ratcliffe was arrested in 2016, four years ago. That’s a long time to keep a complete innocent. Normally, she would have been expelled, if it were just a question of something which annoyed an official at the border.
Iran is certainly no saint. However, the point here is that the UK stole £400Million from Iran in the 1970s (~£2 Bn) and if the money was returned there is a good chance the hostages would be freed. Whether zaghari-ratcliffe is innocent or not is irrelevant, she is a hostage.
The UK has also recently stole £820Million in gold from Venezuela. Might be an idea if dual nationals from there were to avoid the place !
What is one to do when dealing with a criminal state like the UK ?
The BBC position is that the UK has a God given right to act criminally.
Let’s get this right; we agree that Zaghari-Ratcliffe is innocent and being held in Iran as a hostage but that’s perfectly OK, it’s the UK’s fault for not repaying the £400 million.
From what I understand the UK is prepared to repay the money but it would breach EU sanctions if it did. Maybe after Brexit (if that ever happens). The latest row has been about the interest.
“From what I understand the UK is prepared to repay the money but it would breach EU sanctions if it did. Maybe after Brexit (if that ever happens). The latest row has been about the interest.”
You must be kidding right? Johnson wouldn’t dare pay it, and break US sanctions on Iran, even more so now that Johnson is kowtowing deeper than ever to Trump on the hope of a slice of the pie on a UK/US trade deal.
I did say ‘maybe’.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/iran-loses-latest-skirmish-over-400-million-arms-debt-1.978527
RoS
” slice of the pie trade deal “
We want a slice of total unpredictability? Trump is not going to win this election. He gambled on covid 19 being controllable, but he forgot about the herd’s constant desire to be a herd of steaming buffalo.
The human herd rankles against trade wars and ordinary wars. It rankles against racism and buffoonery. It rankles against tossers in the White House who deny climate change while California burns.
The phenomenon of Trump.is finished so any trade deal Snobo might be planning with him isn’t going to be worth the BoGroll it isn’t written on..
Johnson told us what she was doing: training journalists. Training journalists, no doubt, to spread pro western, anti government stories and attitudes. It’s one of the colour revolution strategies. I think she should have been kicked out, not imprisoned, but the charges are not unfounded.
Sounds about right to me.
“Plotting to topple the Iranian Government”. Laughable.
So whatever happened to free speech?
Kind of O/T but related to general topics of Craig’s :
So, they’ve just interviewed Bill Browder on Radio Scotland GMS, and he spewed forth the most absurd paranoid anti-Putin fantasist stuff – something about some bloke getting poisoned, but he was just making things up, and obviously at that, and managed to squeeze in the proven lies of the ‘murder’ of his friend and ‘lawyer’ Magninsky, and general railing against Putin, claiming he knows everything they are doing and why – then, of course, stating that the people of Belarus are about to rise up in revolution against their leader.
What I want to know – why is the utter mince Bill Browder comes out with okay, but Craig Murray is labelled a conspiracy theorist? I’m beginning to think the label conspiracy theorist is a good label – there ARE conspiracies after all – and theories (hypotheses really) are just suppositions and ideas to explore what might be reasons behind strange happenings. I think that’s fine — as LONG AS no one claims it as fact (which Craig never usually does) – unlike Browder who tells us others motivations as seeming fact.
So, why have a pathological liar – I’ve noticed he has a tiny little smirk every time he thinks he’s got away with a massive porkie (not on the radio obviously – his voice patterns are interesting without the visuals though) – interviewed as news, how is that useful or informative? Unless you want an entire population frothing with anti-Russian sentiments? But why on earth do the elites and their lackies give this sociopathic narcissist little man the time of day, he’s just a paranoid creep, why give him credence?
“But why on earth do the elites and their lackies give this sociopathic narcissist little man the time of day?”
Because it fits with their geopolitical agenda.
When is this ridiculous trial going to take place?
Will it prevent Craig from attending Julian’s extradition hearing starting on 7 September? If so, we’ll be deprived of his outstanding reports on the case. We certainly won’t get any honest coverage of it in the fakestream media.
When they come for you and you hope it will go away and they will just leave you alone. Politics is a disease on humanity. It creates problems and partially resolves them leaving stuff hanging out to exploit at a later date, while creaming off capital for the hidden. There will be times, and no one wants to address this, is that when you lose your fear and intend to fight back they (the oppressors) lose control. Governments hate when people collectively assemble for a common cause and are prepared to defend themselves. Because they can do nothing when numbers interlock with a shared purpose and government distraction techniques fail. Christians cannot unite and that will be their downfall.
Isn’t it self-evident that when one of the parties in a court case tries to block the other party’s witnesses, it’s generally not because they are irrelevant (if they really are, they can only harm the respective party’s case by irritating everybody present and giving a bad impression of the party’s competence), but quite the contrary: why would the party spend time on trying to block them unless their testimony is very relevant and would make this party’s claims harder to prove?
Kenny MacAskill was on Booktalk today talking about his book Radical Scotland. Repeat from March.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000gk18/booktalk-kenny-macaskill. 16 mins
‘Walter James Wolffe and private consultations with SNP.’.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST
“Thank you for your reply that confirms that Lord Wolffe, QC has not provided legal advice to the SNP.
You state. ‘The answer to your question is that since his appointment in June 2016, the Lord Advocate has not been consulted by the SNP’.
Does this mean that Lord Wolffe, QC has not been consulted on any aspect of recent case of sexual harassment by Mark McDonald, MSP who was a cabinet member within the Scottish Government as well as a member of the SNP?”
Response to your request
The Lord Advocate has not been consulted by any political party on any issue since his appointment. The Lord Advocate provides legal advice to the Scottish Government. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide the information you have requested because an exemption under section 29(1)(c) of FOISA applies to that information. The reasons why that exemption applies are explained in the Annex to this letter.
………………..UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION???
OK, so they’re saying that Lord Wolffe QC has not provided legal advice to the SNP, but he does provide legal advice to the Scottish Government. (And the party in government in Scotland is … )
Not sure whether that’s an outright contradiction or weasel wording in order to avoid one. They should clarify exactly how advice can be provided to the Scottish Government without providing it to SNP party officials. Maybe Wolffe gave advice to SG civil servants (who then passed it on the SNP)? Ah, they can’t tell us.
Craig, we are now living in a tin pot dictatorship.