Dear All
One thing which I have commented on in the past was that I once was a member of the SNP, I wasn't just a member, I was one of the highest profile activists in Glasgow during my time. Whereas a person would chip in a few days here and there on an election campaign, I did both long and short campaigns. Most weeks in the long campaign, I would be out regularly twice a week minimum. In the event of a by-election, I would also travel to the area or the constituency to work on that as well. The first time, I campaigned for the SNP was in the Glasgow East by-election of 2008, I did 16 days campaigning. One thing the SNP is good at is by-elections, because they run them as special events, so you get to meet people from everywhere. One person, I did meet at the Glasgow East by-election was Alex Salmond, I was having a break between campaign sessions sitting in a kitchen, in a trailer on a car sales lot. Alex Salmond walked in, and sat down, and immediately struck up a conversation with me, despite never having met me. I have related this story many times before on the blog because in light of current events, I want to impart how he acts. In the course of several years, I would see him at other events and by-elections, and he always made a point of chatting to me probably because he recognised my efforts from other events.
So, what is Alex Salmond like when he goes campaigning with people? Firstly, he fits in with the team, he does the same work, and he always treated everyone with respect. During breaks, he would engage with the activists, young, old, male, female and any other variation. He led from the front, and I never ever saw him abuse anyone for their efforts. In many ways, he came across as a person who people would naturally follow because he was in the trench with you fighting for every vote. In fact, I would say on by-elections, he was never happier, and his enthusiasm gave activists a boost. A good leader knows when to lead, they know when to let others lead and also how to support people. It was said in private that he drove his staff hard, but the standards he expected were no more than he expected of himself. In the last 24 hours, two things have happened, one, SNP Leader Nicola Sturgeon's husband, Peter Murrell has been reported to the Lord Advocate for alleged perjury. Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser took to twitter to call him out, and then file a letter with the Crown Office. And Murrell's number 2 at SNP HQ has accused Alex Salmond of an act of “physical aggression.” Is it really a coincidence that as SNP CEO Peter Murrell has been accused of perjury that his number 2 on the same day releases a statement claiming Alex Salmond was violent?
The SNP has form on attempting to deflect bad news off certain senior people, I have wrote about this before many times, the idea is a contrived media trick. The SNP flood the news media with stories in the hope that they can move the agenda on. In this case, they want to move the news agenda off Murrell and deflect it onto Alex Salmond. So, let's focus on Peter Murrell in this part, and what MSP Murdo Fraser tweeted, because this is important. Fraser tweeted:
"Giving a false statement under oath is a criminal offence under s.44(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland)Act 1995. It is clear from his evidence today that Peter Murrell is guilty of this offence."
In an additional tweet, he wrote:
"A complaint has already been made to the Crown Office by @jackiebmsp and the evidence today can only strengthen the case for a prosecution."
In a follow up tweet he wrote:
"Following Peter Murrell’s evidence to the Salmond Inquiry Committee today, I have written to the Lord Advocate asking him to investigate if a crime has been committed under s.44(1) of the 1995 Act."
Two different politicians from two complete different parties and both calling for a formal investigation into Peter Murrell, the husband of Nicola Sturgeon. This is unheard of, this is news, but apparently the press have been slow to react to this. Imagine for one moment if the person was Boris Johnson's wife, you would have an invasion of press and TV camped out at Number 10. This would be on the front page in foreign newspapers, someone somewhere would be making a pitch for a documentary to the BBC, SKY or ITV. Murdo Fraser seems to be 100% sure of his position, because if it 99.9%, I doubt he would be tweeting this in public and on a platform such as twitter. As you read, and I will discuss Sue Ruddick and her contribution, remember the squirrel gag, don't get deflected, keep your focus on the main players of the Alex Salmond scandal. As I tweeted on the 7th Feb:
"The five main players in the Alex Salmond story are Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond, Leslie Evans, Geoff Aberdein and Liz Lloyd, I want to hear what Geoff Aberdein and Liz Lloyd have to say under oath at the Salmond Inquiry. Why aren't these people being called?"
To move on to Murrell's Number 2 at SNP HQ, the Chief Operating Officer, Sue Ruddick, her pitch is that she had reported an act of “physical aggression” by Salmond to the police. Okay, so when was this “physical aggression”? In looking at her statement, we have to ask and indeed question it, for example is there contemporaneous evidence? Contemporaneous evidence could be notes made at the time or shortly after an event occurs. They represent the best recollection of what a person witnessed. Does Sue Ruddick have contemporaneous evidence? As far as I am aware, no she does not, and also she makes no mention of having evidence in her statement! Ruddick's claim is that she was the victim of a “physical aggression” by Alex Salmond in 2008. So, the question there must be, why did she wait nearly a decade to report it to the police? If she was assaulted by the then leader of the SNP Alex Salmond, why did she remain as a party employee? According to linkedin, she has been an SNP employee for 13 years and 2 months, between the years 2004 to 2005, she worked as a Parliamentary Press and Research Assistant for the SNP Westminster Parliamentary Group. Between Aug 2005 – Dec 2007. She was Chief of Staff, SNP Westminster Group. Then from Jan 2008 – May 2018, she pops up as Corporate Development Manager. Then in May 2018, she becomes the SNP Chief Operating Officer were she remains in post according to linkedin. For those in the cheap seats, the timeline of complaints against Alex Salmond started in January 2018. In the same year that Alex Salmond is accused of sexual offences, Sue Ruddick lands a plum, very well paid job as the SNP's Chief Operating Officer.
Having made her claim of violence what exactly did the police do? Well, they registered the complaint, they spoke to her, they took notes, and after weighing up what Ruddick said, they came to the conclusion that there was “insufficient corroborative evidence to charge” him. In Ruddick's statement, she further states, the messages of women who made complaints about him must remain private. Apparently she has a history degree from Aberdeen University, so she may be familiar with the fact, that Parliamentary Inquiries are back by Acts of Parliament and that legally their entitlement to documents supersedes her right to privacy. So, despite her University degree and high paid job, it appears Ms. Ruddick is a tad ropey on rights. Also if her claim on privacy was true, the Crown Office by law would have never handed over the messages she is complaining about. In other words, she is wrong and talking rubbish. So, her pretence at having a legal right violated is entirely bogus, without merit and without foundation.
That's the nice way to put!
We have also seen in the last 24 hours, an extraordinary statement for a woman called Anne Harvey, she is the principal assistant to the chief whip at the SNP’s Westminster Group. She is apparently a solicitor and an officer of the court. In relation to the claim of Ruddick of being a victim of “physical aggression”, Harvey says “categorically” there was no physical aggression on the part of Mr Salmond. Harvey claims that she was there when Salmond, Ruddick and Harvey went “door-knocking” together while campaigning in Glenrothes, Fife, during 2008. In a later statement, Ruddick later said Ms Harvey was not present at the incident she had reported to the police. Harvey said:
“Alex walked past Sue in the stairwell of a close. He brushed past her on the stairwell as he was heading to leave the close. I saw and heard nothing which caused me any alarm or concern. I was only yards away. This is the incident she is referring to, but I can categorically confirm that there was no physical aggression on the part of Mr Salmond. Any contact at all between him and her that day was absolutely inadvertent and in no way deliberate or aggressive.”
When you read this and then learn that Ms. Harvey said the police had questioned her “extensively” about the incident. You have to ask the question, Ruddick said she was the victim of a “physical aggression” by Salmond. Now, in light of her recent statement, is she now claiming that she was the victim of "two" acts of “physical aggression” by Alex Salmond? If I was sitting on a jury listening to this, I would come to the conclusion that this was nonsense. It certainly doesn't rank as evidence, and falls into that category of 'what the fuck is this shit, are you having a fucking laugh?' Someone bumps into you in a close 10 years ago, and you want him charged with a criminal offence? In life, people bump into you, it even happened to me with former Altered Images star Clare Grogan. She walked straight into me in Union Street in Glasgow, years ago, as I was looking in a shop window. Then breezed off with even saying sorry, and it wasn't a bump of the elbow neither. It was like a body slam, given I was stationary, I thought WTF, then she wandered off as nothing had happened, it made me wonder if she was pissed or just up her own arse.
One thing else which Ms Harvey said worth looking at is when she said:
“More generally, there have been discussion again today about whether there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond. I have believed for some time that there was what I described in writing on 28 August 2018 as a ‘witch-hunt’ against him after receiving what I considered to be an improper request from SNP HQ seeking to damage Mr Salmond.”
Given so many people now believe that there was a "witch hunt" against Alex Salmond, and complaints were stored up at SNP HQ like 'nuts' for a squirrel, Harvey will probably find she is holding the majority view. One person who warrants special attention is SNP compliance officer Ian McCann. When the Sturgeon Empire falls and is replaced by a pro Salmond regime, there will be need to be a clear out of people, and that list is shaping up and looking to be extensive. The second gem of her statement is of great interest, Harvey says that she received an improper request from SNP HQ seeking to damage Mr Salmond. This raises questions of who was the person who made the alleged improper request? What did they want Ms. Harvey to do? Was that person acting on their own, or where they acting under orders? If they were acting under orders, who gave them those instructions? Will the SNP publish the full unedited correspondence between them and Ms. Harvey into this matter? I think we already know the answer, the SNP CEO Peter Murrell has been accused of perjury so information will not be forthcoming. His staff stored up complaints against Alex Salmond for a rainy day and it appears actively sought others. And each day, the Alex Salmond scandal keeps on growing, and Nicola Sturgeon is as reported by many, to be very close to the Alphabet women who made the accusations against Alex Salmond.
It seems that Ms. Ruddick has been at pains to point out:
“Private communications between myself and (SNP chief executive) Mr Murrell are in no way relevant to this committee’s remit. I am not a government employee and had no role in the complaints process of the Scottish Government. The messages the committee saw last week confirm I reported to Police Scotland an act of physical aggression by Mr Salmond. The messages confirmed there was no conspiracy.”
It seems the Crown Office disagrees with her version of what she believes are her human rights. Secondly, her protestations of not being a government employee are meaningless pap. Her further protestations of having no role in the complaints process of the Scottish Government is also meaningless pap. Its pap because she is surrounded by people who work for the SNP in the Scottish Government, and all those people do have major input. And, they do have an interest in following the current regime because that's what is paying their Bills. Pay packet until death! Whether the messages remain secret, her opinion that there was no conspiracy cannot be verified at least from those messages, it seems, if you believe her story. So, will Sue Ruddick wave her right and publish the entire correspondence between her and Murrell? What would be of interest would be the dates as well as the content. Is it just a coincidence that just as Sue Ruddick challenges the right of the Salmond Inquiry to view evidence that the SNP line is also to challenge questions on the basis they are out with the remit of the Committee? If you were on a jury, would you find that extremely odd?
Labour Peer George Foulkes tweeted on Feb 8th:
"It's now clear from the Murrell evidence to the Salmond Inquiry that the SNP line is to challenge questions on the basis they are out with the remit of the Committee."
Last week, the Scottish Parliament committee requested documents detailing text or WhatsApp communications between Ruddick and Scottish Government ministers, civil servants or special advisers from between August 2018 and January 2019 which might be relevant to its inquiry. I suppose the questions are did Sue Ruddick send messages to what is termed the 'Vietnam' group? Was Sue Ruddick a member of the 'Vietnam' group? If Ruddick is a victim as she claims, did she communicate her allegations to Scottish Government ministers, civil servants or special advisers? If she was so chummy with Murrell who allegedly was 'supporting ' her, why would she not pass information just to him? What is the benefit of widening the scope of people who knew her allegations for her?
An Alex Salmond spokeswoman said of Anne Harvey's contribution:
“Anne Harvey has been brave and principled enough to put her head above the parapet and establish the truth. She is a solicitor and an officer of the court. She has total certainty of her recall of this incident and we have complete confidence in her position, to which she has offered to swear under oath.” It would appear that the only people accused of perjury and lying seem to be those who are close to SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. Team Salmond seems to have people who are willing to give evidence under oath, while at the same time, Team Sturgeon has been accused of obstruction, acting in bad faith, and being a bunch of liars, some of been accused of acting maliciously. Also, how much weight can be placed on the words of Sue Ruddick? Especially in the light of Anne Harvey's statement that she was extensively questioned by the police about the alleged incident in Fife.”
Finally, as I mentioned above, I have campaigned with Alex Salmond, met him at many a by-election. If he was acting in the way that Sue Ruddick described, it would have gotten round the party. Alex Salmond loved by-elections, so the idea that while out and about he was a violent thug to me doesn't ring true. I know from my experience how he acts, he treated me with respect for my efforts, and being observant, I noticed how he treated others as well, with the same respect. When everything blew up and I first heard about the allegations against him, I struggled the idea being presented by the Alphabet women. I think the more you keep reading into what the SNP are doing, the more you are not inclined to believe them. What is happening at present is a cover up of the truth, this is the biggest political scandal in Scotland's history. This scandal isn't going away, my advice to Sue Ruddick, is firstly say nothing further, seek legal advice, and start looking for another job.
Yours sincerely
George Laird The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
25 comments:
I'll tell you an interesting piece of information: the Fabiani Inquiry is failing because the casting vote on the production of Alex Salmond's statement is held by Wightman of the Green Party. So it was 4 votes to allow production and 4 SNP votes to block production. Wighman held the casting vote and he voted to block production.
He's such a spineless soul he probably doesn't realize that his decision may well bring about the closure of Holyrood for a few years. Does anyone think that isn't on the table as a possible solution?
So, you see the tentacles of the SNP run all through Holyrood and our news media. As you say, if this story was about Boris Johnson's girlfriend then it would be international news. Here, even on the BBC, it takes second place to just about anything. Last night, they covered illegal Covid house-parties instead.
It is still being portrayed in the press as Nicola Sturgeon standing-up for the rights of violated women. It is of course nothing to do with that and the rights of violated women are substantially diminished by this farce. No-one cares about that though, do they?
There was some talk a few days ago of naming alphabet women H, I think we virtually all know who she is anyway. She has to be named by an overseas source, but there are already volunteers and so that may well happen.
It just shows us though that when folk think they are protected by Sturgeon, they think they can do anything to anyone. Good for Anne Harvey and I somehow don't think she will be the last to step forward.
We may have to wait until Alex Salmond speaks to the press. I expect his contribution to be very, very powerful. It will make SNP voters ask: 'Why are we listening to this shite from Peter Murrell - who is this guy Peter Murrell?
I expect Michael Gove and Jacob Rees Mogg to have an even clearer understanding of this criminality than even you have and so this will not be covered-up for long. Also, James Hamilton is due to give his decision in a couple of weeks.
Murdo Fraser has written to the Lord Advocate, but will he get a reply? That's the basis upon which Holyrood and the Scottish legal profession now operate, George.
You write to them, but they don't respond. Most people give-up due to boredom, but not everyone gives-up.
If this is indeed what the bastards are doing then it should be identified and the public made aware of it.
Our present Lord Advocate and his predecessor Frank Mulholland have form, a great deal of it, when it comes to mallicious prosecutions. Do the public know that?
Our present day Justice Minister, the vainglorious Humza Yousaf, appears to have pre-judged the outcome of the Holyrood Inquiry already. He will never learn, will he.
Any way you look at it, Holyrood is a house of cards built upon shit.
Do any of us actually want it to continue?
From Adam Tomkins: 'Watching the Lord Advocate dissemble in the Holyrood Chamber is pitiful. We have a malicious prosecution with no malice?! He can’t even tell us if it was incompetence or corruption. Cover-up, half-truth, bullying, and worse'.
Speaking as a man who has had experience of Holyrood's legal areholes, permit me to suggest it is cover-up, half-truth AND bullying. Especially bullying. They love that so much at Holyrood.
Alphabet woman H was warned three times at Edinburgh High Court re her conduct. So desperate was she to see Alex Salmond bankrupted and sent to jail.
It turns-out she was lying and Alex Salmond's team had no difficulty in proving that. Alphabet woman H is therefore a fraud.
Who is this woman?...surely we're not still paying her?...surely Rape Crisis Scotland are not still defending her honesty?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sturgeon-and-the-impunity-of-the-snp
From The Spectator - a proper Judge-led Inquiry is what we need. We've all had enough of this SNP designed to fail stuff.
Scots Law and Scottish Politics a global laughing stock, yet again, the perfect interface between corruption and incompetence.
It's the modus operandii of Holyrood; identify your enemies and bankrupt them. Works every time. No-one stops you. We have a Secretary of State but he just sits on his arse.
Salmond has more than enough to bring it all down, but he’ll wait until everyone else has been asked and had their say and then he’ll fill in the blanks with what really happened. It won’t end well for the Murrells.
Anyone else notice James Wolffe appologising to Holyrood today for the latest Mallicious Prosecution?
Appologizing on behalf of himself and the Scottish Crown Office.
He was made to do it by those he maligned.
'Lessons learned?' - Holyrood is one embarrassing shit-show for Scotland. World-wide, we're at the bottom. We cannot go any lower. Close it now.
There may be a hearing at Edinburgh High Court on Thursday. The purpose of the hearing is to decide upon the legality of publishing Alex Salmond's submission to the Fabiani Inquiry.
Dear Anon
Thanks for that tip on the hearing, I will keep an eye out for it.
George
I believe it may be to clear the way for it being published by the Fabiani Inquiry. If so, then Alex Salmond may agree to attend on Monday.
The other possibility is it is to allow it to be published by the press on Sunday.
While all of these great affairs of State are going-on, the deputy First Minister takes to Twitter to promise every Primary School pupil free meals at breakfast clubs.....but only if we vote SNP.
And that other tool of the Junta, Kevin Stewart, reminds all eligible women to remember to claim their free sanitary products.
All's well then.
Fraser Nelson of The Spectator is also following developments at Court re Salmonds statement.
I'm reminded of Gerard Butler in this clip, voicing what Salmond is probably thinking, and maybe a fair few people in regards to Holyrood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUsLDzXWUU4
So, bacause Andy Wightman is devoid of ethics and moral fibre, The Spectator is going to the High Court to seek clarification on the reasons why Alex Salmond's statement is not being issued.
Andrew Neil of The Spectator said about 10-days ago that he was sick and tired of Scotgov and all of their shite and he was fighting back.
So you have Nicola Sturgeon and Andy Wightman on one side of the arguement and Andrew Neil and Alex Salmond on the other. I wouldn't mind betting on that result.
Scottish lawyers stay out of it and just hoover-up the money.
Alex Salmond will sink every last one of them.
'You have to wonder how many other people have had their lives ruined by COPFS who didn’t have the means to seek redress.
Defamation and malicious prosecution are the means by which ScotGov policies are delivered when innocent people stand in the way.
This is the new norm at Holyrood and has been for several years'.
Jim Sillars, a former MP who served as deputy leader in the 1990s, said he would not vote for the SNP at May’s Holyrood election which he said had its “toxic tentacles stretching into and around civic Scotland”.
'So an investigation into ScotGov’s flawed HR procedure will only accept evidence approved by, and redacted by, Lesley Evans – the civil servant responsible for the procedure and will not allow full evidence from the man who was the main victim of the flawered procedure?'
Welcome to Scotland sir. Excellent HR procedures are in our DNA.
Will Fraser Nelson of the Spectator be Scotland's answer to Bob Woodward of the Washington Evening Post?
Some time ago, Craig Murray stated that the Fabiani Inquiry would not allow the Aberdein statement, Alex Salmond's statement or the various 'Vietnam Group' WhatsApp messages to be made public.
Basically, the trial is over. Alex Salmond walked from Court a free man and the Scot Gov can release this information if it wants to.
They are not allowing any information to be released because it may allow 'jigsaw identification' of the woman accusers.
That position will be tested in Court tomorrow. It has had to be tested in Court as we appear to have a deliquent government which wants to crush all those people who disagree with it.
Thank God we are still part of the UK.
Andrew Neil: "Scotland is awash with government-inspired gags on the media, vital documents redacted, important evidence/submissions censored or buried.
"Multiple threats pouring out from legal authorities. Even at The Spectator.
"I think it’s time to fight back. Watch this space.”
I didn't take him long, did it. Thank God for Andrew Neil. I think we can all agree on one thing: 'Scottish legal authorities are all arseholes'.
Maybe we should all just accept that the Scottish Government are incompetent and bordering on criminal. We will soon know for sure. I have attended two meetings with them. Neither meeting was recorded or minuted. I had to do that myself. Does this happen in any other country in the western world?
What then happens when the population lose confidence and trust in their government, police force, civil service and legal profession? What do you think happens.
Some of them need jail time for this.
corrupt and rotten to the core
While I agree that Sturgeon and Co have been involved in a disgusting criminal conspiracy against Salmond, a few points should be remembered.
Salmond was found not guilty but he admitted most of the the actions with which he was charged, saying they were "high jinks", which is true enough. He is same Alex Salmond banned from the Edinburgh Airport VIP lounge for just the sort of thing he ended up in court for.
The police always find it easier to fit petty criminals fro serious crime they did not commit than truly innocent people.
Parallels with the case of Paddy Meehan come to mind. He was fitted up by the police for a murder for which he had the perfect alibi: at the time of the murder he was going about his profession of safeblower.
Keep up the good work, George.
Post a Comment