As most of you know, I live in Cataluyna. Prior to Covid I spent my time here, Dubai and in Scotland. Since Covid of course, I have been at all times here in my Catalan location. This week if all goes well, I will for the first time in two years go to Dubai and spend some time with my family.
Knowing that I am domiciled outwith the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts and COPFS I have had several approaches regarding the Alphabetties. I have been asked do I know their identities, yes I do, every last one of them. Would I be willing to name them in an article? I have always declined. Let me say here and now that will always be the case. Unlike the scum that purport to be professional journalists and look down their noses at bloggers like me, I know the difference between right and wrong. I would not sell my soul for a bowl of pottage or to curry some short lived favour.
I know if I were to publish these women’s names I would get enormous hits to my blog site. The audiences for my podcasts would no doubt skyrocket. I might even find additional subscriptions to help with the costs of doing all this. Unlike these individuals I write and podcast because I believe in the independence cause, not to pay my mortgage. That allows me at all times to write the truth. I have no need to corrupt or be corrupted for coin!
However, if I did expose these women, I would be just as reprehensible and wrong as those that made false accusations or those that try to profit from the lies. Fifteen jurors didn’t believe the accusations! They believed the defence witnesses and case. The prosecution failed and failed abysmally. Do not forget the Crown did not for a microsecond contemplate appealing the decision.
To name these women I would be as corrupt as Sturgeon, Murrell, Lloyd, Evans, McKinnon, Clegg, Andrews, Garavelli, Wark et al. They all did what was wrong, probably illegal and certainly morally repugnant. Each no doubt to improve their positions and standings in the House Jock and or SNP hierarchies and of course, to make some filthy lucre.
Sturgeon and Murrell to cement their positions and head off a possible rival to their hegemony. Lloyd to ingratiate herself with the First Minister. Her recent promotion to an invented post and job on a higher grading and salary, no doubt her reward for her dishonesty. I wonder if that will ever cross her mind, her part in the conspiracy to falsely imprison an honest man. I suppose a fat monthly pay cheque and a huge pension in the future helps some to lose their morals and their knickers too, allegedly. It may also help her well documented ‘friendship’ with the disgusting married man David Clegg.
We know that Evans got a contract extension and no doubt a substantial pay rise for her dishonest endeavours. Her process that the Court of Session deemed, Unfair, Unlawful and Tainted with bias, cost the Scottish taxpayers upwards of Β£1,000,000. Yet she is rewarded. McKinnon, who was equally guilty in the collusion and corruption, is still to the best of my knowledge employed by Civil Service. I wonder if her grading and salary were increased?
What I can say is this. All of the accusers are known to Nicola Sturgeon. They either work in the Scottish Civil Service or are members of the SNP. All of them are in daily contact with the First Minister or were at the time of the conspiracy. Pay rises and new grades have no doubt been bestowed on some. Others who are members of the party and Sturgeon’s inner circle have been given promotions way beyond their abilities. Though in fairness that could apply to any of Sturgeon’s trusty cabinet and advisors. Never has Scotland been more badly served. For Sturgeon to say at the Fabiani Inquiry, she didn’t know the names of the accusers was just one of the many lies Sturgeon told that day. Not that her lying is restricted to just that day.
What to me is the most disgusting in all this is the corrupt House Jock journalists that are making money out of all the lies and corruption. Let us not forget a jury of nine women, and six men found all the charges against Alex Salmond not worthy of a single conviction.
This has not stopped detestable individuals like Wark and Garavelli making a documentary and money from articles that were not only biased and dishonest they were morally and factually inaccurate. They only ever told the prosecution case, never the defence. Not only dishonest in the extreme it is poor journalism in the extreme. It is worthy of North Korea or Saudi Arabia, not what we want or deserve in Scotland. Sadly, it is, what we have come to expect and why the dead tree press and Broadcasters, are losing their audiences daily.
Now the latest shame on Scotland, the Ulster Unionist Clegg and this Andrews character are publishing a book that once again concentrates on the accusations and prosecution case only and not any of the defence rebuttals. It also includes passages and transcripts that Lord Pentland has forbidden to be made public. These corrupt journalists either think or have been told they are above the law and any recriminations.
If these two reprobates posing as journalists are not charged with contempt and illegality then we know conclusively that Scotland is indeed a failed corrupt state. To try and make money out of lies and fabrications brings shame on the entire journalistic profession. Those journalists that today sit silently by as they did with Craig Murray are equally contemptible. By not calling out this shame you are condoning it. One day soon you might just find yourself on the wrong side of these corrupt individuals and who then will come to your aid? Certainly not me!
So I might not be about to make myself money or gain more followers or viewers but unlike the people I have named above I can look in the mirror, sleep at night and know I have done the right thing.
There will be a day of reckoning for those corrupt individuals and institutions. When that day arrives, I will rejoice that at last justice has been done. These individuals have obviously never heard of Karma!
Not sure why it is ‘wrong’ to name them (except maybe woman F), especially if it was done by an anonymous whistleblower with no profit motive.
But if naming them could hamper any future trials of perjury then that would be a good reason not to reveal them at this time.
It is illegal to do so and carries a penalty. The other reason is that it will have an adverse effect on other women who might be the alleged victims of a sexual offence. That is why the convention was brought in, in the first place, and I must say, as a woman, I am extremely disappointed at the blatant disregard for the welfare of others and the disregard for the law that this constant sniping shows. Alec Salmond was exonerated by his peers in a public trial. What happened to those central themes of the law: innocent until proved guilty; and innocent if the jury brings in a ‘not guilty’ verdict? We just all ignore these two fundamental legal principles? How long will it be before the Scottish Taliban appears on our streets?
Prasad I wrote this comment on the Paisley mohawks site in response to an article by Neale Hanvey on naming them on parliamentary privilege
YES O P and this is where we will ALWAYS fail , this obfuscation of why parliamentary privilege was called for was NOT to name the accusers but to get evidence out that was suppressed and showed the collusion and manipulation that highlighted the depth and involvement of certain individuals , with that information available it COULD then have resulted in an investigation which THEN would determine if any or all of the accusers were ENTITLED to their anonimity .
There is NO set criteria of who should be granted the anonymity or the conditions that MUST be adhered to for the continuation of that anonymity , so a decision could be made on an individual basis if the person involved had deliberately lied or committed perjury .
This BLANKET ANONYMITY for all accusers in perpetuity is what is permitting and encouraging the continuous smearing and denigration of a man CLEARED by a jury of his peers and should be revisited by the courts
Definitely, Robert.
And the problem is I fully agree that anonymity for accusers in trials of a sexual nature is imperative. As Iain says, the same privilege should be awarded to the accused, while he is assumed to be innocent: innocent until proven guilty should be the watchwords of a just society.
The question that no court, nor police enquiry has seriously investigated is whether too much was taken on face value from people in politics and accusers in politics… All of whom were known to one another, all knowing the accused, obviously, and all knowing the accused’s successor to the FM post… The accused’s successor to the post of FM being someone whise political credibility was being questioned by the accused
Dear Judicial Services, go figure.
“… It also includes passages and transcripts that Lord Pentland has forbidden to be made public… ”
You are a better man than any of them, Roddy, male or female. The sentence above illustrates precisely what is happening in Scotland right across the board. That thse writers will have contacted all the people involved on the government side, including a number in the government or in government circles, should come as no surprise. The entire ethos now, brought about by hubris in both Westminster and Holyrood, is that he end justifies th means, even when the end itself may be a calumny of illegality at every level.
It is as if a whole new ethos of undermining the law has been put into action for the 21st century, and it is happening everywhere, in every sphere of public life. The law is being pre empted where it doesn’t yet exist and overturned shamelessly where it does. Not only the law is being trampled underfoot, but so is probity in public life.
The law has never equalled justice. Any woman could tell you that, but you are right to not publish the names because that would undermine other women who have yet to face the very public ordeal of a sexual offences trial. The convention of anonymity was hard-won. The problem here, and in future, of an acquittal in a sexual offences trial, and some people’s refusal to accept it, would be off-set by making the anonymity mutual until such time as a conviction and sentencing were secured.
It is the constant sniping from behind the shield of anonymity – for which it was never intended – by public bodies funded by the Scottish government that rankles. Who does Ms Brindley think she is? She has no remit to speak on behalf of the SG and even less, in law, to employ a fully-functioning male in a women-only space. How dare she? If her voice is heard in this latest farrago, she should be disciplined by the courts for this breach of legal rules and for the wholly illegal sanctioning of a male high heid yin – who lied on his CV, to boot, in a female-only space – against the tenets of the 2010 Equality Act.
These people believe they are above the law that the rest of the peasants must adhere to (except those sheltered under the SG umbrella: Stonewall; the Scottish civil service to notchers; and snipers from publicly-funded bodies) and they are disgusting hypocrites of the first order.
Another top article Roddy. The impression given is that Lloyd has told her “pal” Britnat Clegg that they won’t be prosecuted because Andrews/Clegg know 100% that they have broken the law and committed a contempt of court.
A point of detail – my recollection is that Sturgeon said in her appearance before the Parliamentary Inquiry that she did not know ALL the alphabetties. Of course no one asked a follow up question – well how many exactly do you know out of the 9 – bloody useless Committee members. Sturgeon has since confirmed on TV that a lot of them are her friends. That information seems to me to a bit of a jigsaw. But as we now know only independence supporters get prosecuted for that offence and that ain’t Sturgeon.
I have never heard any Sturgeonite explain how it is acceptable for the ” supposed” leader (Sturgeon) of the independence movement to have a Chief of Staff now Strategic Adviser in a close relationship with an ultra Britnat journalist like Clegg.
Cubby, Nicola Sturgeon said ‘to this day I still do not know the identities of all the accusers’. She is a practised liar.
Roddy, I meant to say you are right not to name them as you would be 100% prosecuted if you ever came back to Scotland. All the best for your trip to Dubai.
I cannot actually be charged for releasing the names from a foreign land on foreign servers even when I land. I just won’t I will not stoop to the level of the so called professionals.
WELL SAID Roddy π΄σ §σ ’σ ³σ £σ ΄σ Ώππππππ΄σ §σ ’σ ³σ £σ ΄σ Ώ
Thank you
Accepting your argument that you won’t name the Alphabettis, but if you know them all then it must be possible for you to find somethnig in Clegg’s book or the Times articles that confirms their identities. So why not make a formal complaint to the police pointing out the “jigsaw idetification”? You’ve nothing to lose, and the more people who do that the harder it will be for the police to ignore it.
Craig Murray wasn’t convicted for ‘jigsaw identification’ per se, David, but for not desisting when warned by the court, and taking all his blogs together on the subject, with all the information out there provided by MSM journalists, might have led to ‘jigsaw identification’. It was actually contempt of court he was jailed for, which, in itself, is problematic because of the timing and the fact that others had done more to identify the women and were either not sanctioned legally or received a lighter sentence. The real crux of the matter lies in the timing and the length of sentence for a first offence, and the health and age of Mr Murray, just as the case against Mr Salmond co-incided with his under-the-radar protests against the lack of progress on independence. This latest book thing carries on the co-incidence as he was just elected leader of ALBA. All pure co-incidence, of course. The women involved must be blind if they cannot see that they may have been ‘used’, shall we say, and, maybe we are all blind, too, and manipulated, if we don’t even consider seeing it in that light? Who knows?
Lorna. Craig Murray was never warned by a court. He was told by the COPFS Office to stop and he refused to do so on the grounds that it was no their job to warn anyone.
I agree that some of the women were ‘used’. However Woman H (Perjy McPerjface) should be named in my view.
Yes, indeed, Kitbee, if you wish to be pedantic, but COPFS were acting on behalf of the court which had issued the ruling on anonymity. As for Woman H, if she was identified, it could lead to identification of them all. As I said in another thread elsewhere, I believe that Mr Salmond asked for anonymity for the women or was instrumental in the acceptance of anonymity for the women. There may be one or two who have sniped, or had someone else snipe, from behind the shield of anonymity, but if they have not all done so, why have mass punishment – and extend that all women, because that be the result of removing anonymity. It was hard-fought-for because women needed protection from the press and others who might have had retribution in mind. Fewer women will come forward with sexual assault complaints if removal of anonymity is threatened. The women in this cse should have been brought before the court and given a good telling-off about sniping from behind the shield and putting it in jeopardy, in the understanding that it could be removed if they transgressed again.
Way to go.
I hope that scummy lot are hoisted eventually.
Having watched it all unfolding, it sickened me to the pit of my stomach.
πΌπΌ
I’m Startacus!
I know the Alphabet women’s names too! There’s Aileen, Brenda, Carol, Daphne, Effie (no, not that one!), Fiona, Gertrude, Helen, Isabel, Jean, Kathy, Lorna, Margaret, Nettie, Olivia, Patricia, Q? Q? Awe f*ck it!
as ever, enjoyed your article and your principles.
look forward to justice being meted out to the gulity and absolution to the innocently imprisoned and besmirched.
give my regards to Dubai – my wife & I miss our life there.
haste ye safely back to Catalonia (and Scotland? – following Indy)
Well sad Roddy , these people are truly despicable, and like you , I will rejoice the day they are brought to justice
If the names were ever revealed, it might demolish the Moorov Doctrine aspect of the case.
The Moorov Doctrine works by enhancing any existing evidence by its similarity to other evidence. For example: if he/she did ‘that’ and ‘that’ and ‘that’, all being so similar that they form a pattern of criminal behaviour, then, ‘this’ being similar in most aspects, is very likely to have been committed by the same person. The names wouldn’t change anything because it is the pattern of behaviour that forms the nucleus of the Moorov Doctrine, Bruce, not the people involved. From their point of view -the names and their connections – it might, however, provide evidence of conspiracy. Most conspiracies, however, do not start off life as conspiracies, but become so when c***k-up leads to cover-up.
The SNP hierarchy, in more than the common parlance of being a bedfellow with Ulster Unionist Davie Clegg, is a strange one altogether.
Kind of tells you all about the policies and morals of the SNP and their chums.