THE FABIANI WHITEWASH AND THE COURT ORDER

I’ve been asked if I can make still clearer why it’s a big deal that the Fabiani Report has shown such utter contempt for the truth, as detailed in my last post.

The court order

The following is part of the court order, called an “interlocutor”, made by Lord Pentland at the Court of Session on 8 January 2019, when the court granted Alex Salmond’s application for judicial review against Leslie Evans and the Scottish Government:

“The Lord Ordinary … finds and declares that the decisions of the first named respondent, viz. Leslie Evans … are unlawful in respect that they were taken in circumstances which were procedurally unfair and in respect that they were tainted by apparent bias by reason of the extent and effects of the Investigating Officer’s involvement with aspects of the matters raised in the formal complaints against the petitioner prior to her appointment as Investigating Officer in respect of each of those complaints…” [my emphasis]

In other words, the one specific reason given by the court for finding the actions of Leslie Evans and the Scottish Government unlawful was that the Investigating Officer in the formal complaints of Ms A and Ms B involved herself in matters raised by the formal complaints before she was appointed to investigate them.

That is to say, the one specific reason the Fabiani inquiry was given when it was set up to investigate the unlawful behaviour of Evans and the Scottish Government was the prior involvement of the Investigating Officer, Judith Mackinnon, in the formal complaints of Ms A and Ms B.

But, instead of investigating that prior involvement in the case of Ms B, the Fabiani inquiry has decided that one vital part of the prior involvement just didn’t happen.

The facts, again

It is an established fact that Ms B made her formal complaint directly to Judith Mackinnon by email at 1.56 pm on 24 January 2018.

The Fabiani Report acknowledges this fact:

24 January 2018: … Ms B’s formal complaint is … received by email.”

It is also an established fact that Judith Mackinnon, who later acted as Investigating Officer, had prior involvement with Ms B on 23 and 24 January 2018.

Again, the Fabiani Report acknowledges this fact:

23 January 2018: … A call is arranged between [Mackinnon] and Ms B for the following day.

24 January 2018: The Head of People Advice [Mackinnon] … and Ms B speak on the phone. Ms B’s formal complaint is subsequently received by email.”

So this is a prime example of exactly the prior involvement set out in Lord Pentland’s interlocutor – you know, the one that the whole Fabiani inquiry is based on.

It’s a prime example of the unlawful conduct that the whole Fabiani inquiry is supposed to be investigating.

But instead of investigating it, they find, as a fact, that it just didn’t happen.

They find that there was no prior involvement on 23 and 24 January 2018 because Judith Mackinnon was somehow, magically, appointed as Investigating Officer before Ms B’s formal complaint was ever received:

“The Director of People [Nicola Richards] appointed the Head of People Advice [Judith Mackinnon] as the Investigating Officer under the procedure. This appointment was made on 23 January 2018 in relation to the complaint made by Ms B.”

By finding an obvious falsehood as a fact, they avoid any engagement whatsoever with the very unlawfulness they’re supposed to be investigating.

This is in blatant contradiction of Lord Pentland’s order.

By a Committee of the Scottish Parliament.

In a democracy governed by the rule of law, that should have some kind of consequence.

95 thoughts on “THE FABIANI WHITEWASH AND THE COURT ORDER

      1. No worries, Gordon. When you are looking at a tangle of string, it helps to have an end to take hold of. What you have shown is that the end result from Fabiani does not match the starting point from Pentland. So you have given us 2 ends and shown that they are not the same piece of string. I suppose it’s the nearest you’ll get to a mathematical proff on this.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Right, duncanio, and paragraph 10 is no exception to the rule:

      “In the event that a formal complaint of harassment is received against a former Minister, the Director of People will designate a senior civil servant as the Investigating Officer to deal with the complaint.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not paragraph 10! Don’t mention paragraph 10!!

        It appears the Fabiani Whitewash (I do hope this phrase starts ‘trending’ – it is rather good. Rolls off the tongue) decided that the Evans-interpretation is their favourite, rather than Lord Pentland’s.

        It’s interesting. You’d have thought, right, that if you were setting up an inquiry to investigate the very matters that Lord Pentland ruled on, that, perhaps, the FIRST thing you’d do would be to examine that ruling (including getting advice on its meaning, and perhaps applying to get his notes on the matter) – would you say that was a reasonable first step Gordon? I have no experience in setting up inquiries, so I’m not sure of the best format. The Whitewash seem to have, instead, just asked Evans what she thought, and accepted it.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. Thanks Gordon – so that’s pretty clear – Fabiano should have STARTED this process with Lord Pentland’s interlocutor. OK, so let’s assume Fabiani’s no the brightest – although to be fair, she is ‘thick’ the right way for the true purpose of the… ahem… ‘Enquiry’.

        But I was under the impression that, as they do in Westminster, the Holyrood equivalent of Parliamentary Clerks (who normally have qualified lawyers in their ranks) would, and should, have kept her right? Yes?

        In which case, as these folks have clearly failed to do that (Do they by any chance report to Lesley Evans?) they are either utterly incompetent, or even more horrifying, they are part of the web of corruption?

        In either case, this does not auger well for an independent Scotland!

        Liked by 4 people

  1. Many thanks for that. However, I preferred the more forensic version that you posted earlier.

    Now, I would like to know, what action/sanctions are going to be the result of your forensic examination. (I note that Liz Lloyd has now resigned and is to become the Senior Adviser to the First Minister. It’s a revolving door.) Are they being reported to the Police for contempt?

    Is there no end to the Scottish ‘Government’s shenanigans?

    Best regards,

    David Hepburn OBE

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Glad to hear that, David. I know your questions are most likely rhetorical but sadly I suspect the answers, at least for the immediate future, will be none, no and no. Oh well, we keep up the fight because you just never know…

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Not Loretto School. I am an FP who left in 1960. These are my views and not those of Loretto

        Like

    2. For goodness sake Contrary.
      How many times do you have to be told.
      ‘Common Sense’ only applies to ‘Common People’. The clue’s in the name pal
      It does not apply to those in power like what Nikkla and Liz and Leslie and Barbara etc is.
      This is your final warning
      Know your place pleb.

      Oops better remember the lol. Last time I went without the lol I ended up in big trouble.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Lol.

        I’ve no idea which comment this is in reply to! You deserve to be in trouble IMP.

        I keep meaning to write similar to Gordon on his outrageous use of evidence and facts to back up outrageous claims of Whitewashing, and doubling down here and making it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, that there is a complete fabrication within Fabiani’s report. I can’t think of the right wording though – lol is definitely the get-out clincher. Lol.

        Like

  2. “In a democracy governed by the rule of law…….”

    Well Gordon it is starting to look more of a country ruled by Sturgeon rather than law. Sturgeon a colonial governor kept in place by Westminster punting the dream of independence that she has no intention of delivering.

    It is all very well arguing about how critical the Fabiani report should or should not have been on various matters but it becomes moot if there are no sanctions for anyone for ANY wrongdoing. Indeed additional rewards for some of them is the outcome to date never mind punishments.

    Liked by 7 people

      1. Exposing as much as we can but how Gordon will things turn as youbsuspect they inevitably will.

        Criminally corrupt governments have a tendency not to wind their neck in. In fact the reverse is all too often true. our government here in Scotland, together with its UK spectre, is increasingly open in its display of corrupt behaviour and really the only question is how does a society change this behaviour..

        It’s a quite truly frightening development. History around the world has given us example after example of rotten regimes and Scotland I am afraid is just another emerging example of rotten lawlessness by the state.

        We are I believe, with no exaggeration facing a war. A war waged by the state. A war to suppress the will of the people. No different from the action of the UK in it suppression of countries and colonies around the world be it Kenya, Malta, Ireland and the others.

        Reading the 1970’s books by Brigadier General Sir Frank Kitson very much set out the undercover tactics to be used to quash independence movements. Redacted absolutely for many decades books like Gangs and Counter Gangs and Low Intensity Operations Operations detail tactics like using the law of the land to jail political opponents – and we certainly now have examples of that.

        Setting up counter gangs being another tactic the funding of groups like Better Together is another example of Kitson thinking at work. But of course there’s more, controlling the media, or creating your own media, infiltrating everything from community groups to political parties another.

        So yes, a secret and now not so secret war is being fought against us. But it could get worse and may we’ll get worse since ultimately the dark forces of the state will kill, and kill innocent civilians for no other reason than them being political enemies of the state.

        Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finnucane were two civil rights lawyers in Northern Ireland who were murdered by agents of the state security apparatus.

        We must therefore pay grateful thanks to free press – online bloggers like Craig Murray and others, who like yourself Gordon, are at the forefront of providing truth and light.

        We live in very dangerous times.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. Seems Fabiani enquiry was only set up to possibly catch Salmond out. When his lawyers became more threatening the enquiry just went through the motions. Never any danger of Sturgeon and Co. being held accountable.

      Like

  3. ‘Director of People’ and ‘Head of People Advice’

    It really is 1984 meets Monty Python.

    Do these people in power in Holyrood really have no self awareness of how ridiculous they come across?

    Aye ye cannae beat the old maxims.

    ‘Give an inch and they’ll take a mile’ and ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

    Keep up the good work Gordon please. More and more people will eventually break free from the mental shackles and escape the cult

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Thank you for the clarity which aids my understanding.

    From a position of total ignorance, I wonder how the selection of an IO might normally proceed. Would it be through an interview to assess qualification and experience, with confirmation of role and responsibilities? Or might it be nearer to – Tag, you’re IT.

    Just asking.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Gordon

        I’m new here and I can’t respond to your other comment so I’ll do it here if that’s ok.

        Alex Salmond and indeed many others don’t seem to understand Nicola Sturgeon. I also think that Alex Salmond fell into the trap of wanting to believe that Nicola Sturgeon was at one point his friend and that she would work with him to achieve what he saw as a higher purpose. I have never met Alex Salmond but I know people who have and he seems to be someone who wants to be liked by everyone. Nothing wrong with that, indeed it’s an admirable quality, but when dealing with someone like Sturgeon it is a weakness. He also failed to accept that until Sturgeon was exposed and removed from the political field his career in politics is finished.

        Nicola Sturgeon is a power obsessed narcissistic psychopath and has used every single person she has ever known to get where she is. Alex Salmond was just another person to be used and when he became a potential threat he was to be disposed of. She used the entire mechanisms of the state to destroy him and bribed and coerced other people into committing criminal offences to do that. Someone who does that is not going to kiss and make up with their intended victim.

        Regarding the court order, it is blatantly clear that some of the complainers have abused the anonymity granted to them. In particular Mrs you know who, who defamed Alex Salmond in the horrendous BBC interview with Glen Campbell and her statements through the Sturgeon lackeys Rape Crisis Scotland, who themselves should have been prosecuted for revealing her name. I wonder if this abuse of anonymity would be sufficient for the court order to be challenged?

        One thing I have always wondered would be if someone who has all the documentary evidence would do an information dump on a foreign website. Once the evidence is out there on the internet there is no hiding it anymore and I’d like to see the crown office threaten to prosecute a website based in Russia or some other foreign jurisdiction. Even the hardened psychopath Sturgeon may struggle to limp on when all the international wokerati and intelligentsia she so desperately tries to curry favour with saw her for what she is and turned their backs on her.

        Jacinda Ardern or Elif Shafak publicly mauling Sturgeon would probably push her over the edge. One can only live in hope I suppose.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. The system for replying is odd, wwi, and I can’t work out myself why it makes threads the way it does, but your further comments are very welcome here too!

        And since I’m now on this thread myself, I’m very disappointed that no-one has picked up on my reference to “het”. Did no-one else say “het” for “it” during tag-style games or was that just a Kirkie thing?

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Ah ‘Het’. We used in in 1950s-60s Bellshill and elsewhere in Lanarkshire. It is Scots for ‘hot’ (as in “all het up”).

        So, I’ll leave it to the woke brigade to tell us if it is now a proscribed term!

        Liked by 2 people

      4. Sadscot and John, thanks for the reassurance. My wife reminds me too that our generation’s name for “tag” was “tig”, as in “Tig! You’re het!”

        And don’t get me started on “Bugs! Injection!” As you say, John, subjecting another child to imaginary bacteria and then claiming imaginary immunity must surely be more than enough to get you cancelled now.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. When oh when will these total incompetents/shower of idiots/bunch of sociopaths get what’s coming to them?

    Liz “Oh it’s perfectly normal to be on holiday from May until mid-August, resign from my job in dodgy circumstances then get a shiny new job just as cosied up to Nicola as I was before with nary a hiccup in my generous pension scheme” Lloyd and Lesley “Yes I f***** up, the legal team told me I f***** up, the judge told me I f***** up, Alex Salmond told Nicola I’d f*****d up, hell knows there are people on twitter who think they are dogs who endlessly tweet that I f***** up but yeah, basically I’ve cost the Scottish taxpayer over £1m and counting but my pension’s secure” Evans – those two for a start need to get what’s coming to them

    And then the rest

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Gordon

    I’ve followed this series with great interest and I am delighted that you have stepped back into the breach after your “very Scottish coup” series petered out. I was concerned that you had been put under legal pressures to cease that blog as a lot of other people commenting on this scandal also went mysteriously silent.

    I’m a lawyer like you, though not a QC, and having discussed what has gone in with various fellow lawyers we are all aghast that we have ended up where we are. We have a situation where Nicola Sturgeon at the very least needs to be charged with conspiracy to pervert justice, she also needs to be charged with perjury for lying to the Fabiani inquiry multiple times, as do Peter Murrell, various other witnesses to the inquiry and of course a number of witnesses at the Alex Salmond criminal trial also committed perjury and should be charged. There is also the matter of the Scottish government committing contempt of court multiple times to both the criminal and civil courts and the Fabiani Inquiry.

    Many many people in Scottish political circles, the media, the crown office, police and judiciary know these offences have been committed yet no one does anything about it. We have gone through the looking glass and ended up in 1984 where criminal offences have been committed but no one dares speak about them. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes where these offences don’t exist if no one mentions them yet when anyone who has followed this scandal looks at Nicola Sturgeon we see a common criminal.

    Just how on earth have we ended up here and how is it ever going to be resolved? Just the other day Nicola Sturgeon was being lauded as some great female leader who stands up for women, well how do you square that with what we all know she has done? You can’t. She is a corrupt fraud and yet not a single person in any position of influence speaks out against her and tells the truth.

    [Deleted by GD]

    Where on earth do we go from here?

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Watching with interest, I’m afraid I’ve deleted the bit of your comment where you talk about Sturgeon’s legal career. My understanding is that a complaint was made by a client which was eventually dismissed by the Law Society in circumstances which are less than clear but which roughly coincided with her giving up the law and taking up her position as a list MSP in the new Scottish Parliament. Until further evidence emerges, I wouldn’t like to put it any higher than that.

      I should also say that I’m not a QC, just a humble solicitor advocate — basically, the equivalent of junior counsel.

      I think that the chilling effect of the section 11 order giving the Salmond complainers anonymity accounts for some of the dire situation which you rightly identify and that situation can never be resolved unless there is a successful application to the High Court for the order to be varied or recalled.

      My apologies again to you and other readers that A Very Scottish Coup seems to have “petered out”. There are no dark forces involved other than my own indolence and I am working again on the next part, trying to remember what I was going to say, and adding in the new information from the legal advice and the Whitewash Report.

      I know I’ve said it before but it should be out soon.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. Gordon

        I take your point about her career. Nothing I’ve said goes beyond what has been on Peter Cherbi’s blog for months (indeed he goes much further) and as far as I know it has never been challenged.

        I have never been near the Law Soc complaints procedure but older and wiser heads than me have told me that back then, which is way before I started practicing, resignation from the solicitors roll was a means of drawing a line under matters.

        Anyway that matter aside, I’m glad that you weren’t threatened into silence and that you will continue on. The court order certainly will be a major issue. I presume what you are getting at when you mention a high court order is circumstances where the court order can be set aside such as where a witness is charged with perjury?

        When David Davis got involved, someone I have a great deal of respect for, I expected him to use parliamentary privilege to “blow the bloody doors off” but he held back from revealing exactly what happened. I have no idea why that was, I hope that his friend Alex Salmond didn’t ask him to hold back because of Alex’s misguided and frankly fantastical plan to pull an electoral masterstroke and do a deal with Nicola Sturgeon. If political tactics have got into the mix then I fear that momentum has been lost, the media and public have moved on and that Nicola Sturgeon has got away with it. In my view she should never have been allowed to stand in the last election and should have been under criminal investigation. I’m also concerned that Alex Salmond is in some cases being advised wrongly. I would be delighted to be wrong on all these counts.

        Unless I am missing something the case against Leslie Evans doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me because at the end of the day she was just doing what she was told to do and Alex is going after the monkey rather than the organ grinder. I again would be delighted to be wrong on this. Maybe some detailed questioning of witnesses under oath in court will achieve the desired result and the deliberate and in my view politically motivated obstruction of the truth by crown office will be swept away.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. All good points, wwi.

        Yes, I was surprised too that Davis didn’t just read out all the messages and put them on the record — very frustrating.

        On Salmond’s election strategy, it’s obvious in hindsight that the two factions hated — and still hate — each other way too much for what seemed on paper a sensible and rational proposal to work. And of course the vast majority of the electorate still don’t understand the D’Hondt system anyway. I couldn’t bring myself to vote SNP in the constituency section (or for any of the other parties who purport to believe a man can be a woman cos he says he is, or for the Tories cos they’re lower than vermin) so spoiled my paper and only voted — for Alba — in the list section. So I suppose I can hardly blame the SNP loyalists who felt the same about Salmond and Alba as I now do about Sturgeon and the SNP. (Monty Python and the Judean People’s Front springs to mind since nothing is ever new in political factionalism.)

        On paper, there’s actually a very good case for varying or recalling the section 11 order in my view, regardless of anything as major as perjury. The default position is supposed to be open justice and the very rare exception to open justice which is made for complainers in sexual assault cases only comes to cover things like someone allegedly putting his hand on your clothed knee because it would be invidious for obvious reasons not to make the grant of anonymity a blanket one once you’ve decided to do it as a matter of public policy. But it should always be possible to challenge that blanket principle in individual cases and in my view this is one such case. If you go back to first principles it’s patently absurd in my view that the hand on the knee complaint, rejected by a jury, should have anonymity but, say, a proven victim of a nasty and humiliating “domestic violence” assault has no such protection. I say on paper, though, because it’s obvious how things stand in practice at the moment.

        Liked by 5 people

      3. Gordon, don’t you know this? There is NO CHANCE of removing or defeating the section 11 order. None at all.

        And it is simple misdirection to talk about the accusers.

        The section 11 order is in place to protect the judge, Lady Dorrian.

        So long as proceedings are covered by the legal shroud it is not possible to demonstrate her perfidy. The way that she excluded evidence of collusion, then supported Prentice in his effort to obtain a guilty verdict based on the Moorov Doctrine.

        As you know, Moorov and collusion are mutually exclusive.

        Except, that is, in a world in which the Vietnam Whatsapp group never actually existed.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. John, you’ll forgive me I’m sure if I refrain from engaging on the topic of the Lord Justice Clerk. I agree with you though about Moorov and collusion being, on the face of it, mutually exclusive, and I’d be genuinely interested to know what the legal arguments were on both sides here, and how Lady Dorrian came to her conclusion that the evidence of the complainers “supporting each other” (as the Fabiani Whitewash puts it) was collateral.

        I can only assume that there were factors we don’t know about and/or that the defence were saving any appeal in case there was a guilty verdict and so, like the SG’s concession in the JR, the acquittals in the trial have deprived us of clarification on many of the points argued on Salmond’s behalf.

        I’d have thought, like you, that where a case is built almost entirely on “mutual corroboration” of otherwise uncorroborated complaints because they are closely connected in time, circumstance and place and/or form a pattern of conduct (Moorov), it would be highly relevant that the complainers might have influenced each other, even quite innocently, by being in touch.

        The classic Moorov case is of course one where two or more completely unconnected complainers report a very similar and distinctive mode of crime and it can be inferred that the perpetrator was therefore common to both, and that each complainer therefore corroborates the other.

        If the two or more complainers have in fact been chatting, that seems self-evidently relevant to me, and definitely not collateral.

        Liked by 3 people

      5. Watching With Interest
        Re Leslie Evans, she breached the official CS Investigation Process all over the place, set it aside all over the shop. No one, not even the FM, could instruct her to do that. She was a willing accomplice. She was part of the team whose only goal was to bring Salmond down. That her own gross misconduct was publicly exposed and she remains in post is quite extraordinary.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Gordon I have great respect for your disclosures and attempts to highlight and educate the normal readership of your blog and also to expose the willful and deliberate lies and corruption being visited on the Scottish Legal System and the people of Scotland , BUT and please believe me I am NOT being disrespectful or ungrateful when I say surely the legal profession must have come across instances like this previously and dealt with them on a professional basis.
      What I find completely and utterly unbelievable is that the overseeing body of the legal profession in Scotland is willing to ignore the BLATANT lies and deliberate obstruction of JUSTICE highlighted and exposed by senior members of the profession

      For Justice to be seen to be done it should be incumbent on the overseeing legal body to make a very strong representation to ALL members of the Scottish Parliament that a Judge led inquiry urgently needs to take place to ascertain what went wrong and if criminal charges need to be brought against individuals committing perjury , the whole of the justice system has to be RESCUED from those who are destroying its credibility

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I believe we are seeing the increase of information and its interpretation building up in the manner of floodwater against a dyke or bund. At some point the legal barrier will be overtopped or undermined, whether by judicial action here or by the names being released elsewhere.At very least the Moorov Doctrine will come tumbling down. Then I think we’ll see action from those SNP figures now marginalised.

        Like

      2. Thanks TH, and thanks again for all your support of, and insightful comments on, the blog — they really are very much appreciated.

        Personally, I’ve never put my faith in lawyers or the legal profession to achieve anything that matters to me, and will continue to rely on the ordinary citizens of Scotland to become aware of what is happening here and to do something about it. If they do, no bunch of elite politicians or media — or lawyers — will stop them.

        Liked by 3 people

    3. Sadscot

      I can’t reply to you directly so I’ll do it here.

      I have no idea what your point is. Evans breached the code when carrying out the instructions of her boss Nicola Sturgeon and she’s been rewarded with a gold plated pension, invincibility from any disciplinary action and the full protection of the Scottish state,

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi WWI

        I’m happy to clarify.

        “Unless I am missing something the case against Leslie Evans doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me because at the end of the day she was just doing what she was told to do and Alex is going after the monkey rather than the organ grinder.”

        Leslie Evans is the head of the Scottish Civil Service and any action taken against Salmond was led by her. That is why her name must be on any legal action Salmond raises now.

        Nicola Sturgeon does NOT have the authority to order a senior Civil Servant to abandon the official CS Investigation Procedure. Leslie Evans is the most senior Civil Servant in Scotland and if instructed, by any FM, to embark on a process which was (as it turned out) “unlawful, unfair and tainted with apparent bias”, she is not obliged to follow those instructions. There are options. She can alert the FM regarding the perils involved and advise her that she cannot comply. If the FM chooses not to listen then the Permanent Secretary has the right to notify her own boss, in London, of her misgivings. It’s that simple. Bottom line is, Sturgeon, or any other politician, does not have the authority to rewrite the Civil Service Investigation procedures (as this lot did on the appointing of the Investigating Officer). Civil Service HR people know these things backwords. This lot pretended to be vague about them in order to save their own skins.

        What we have seen so far is that the parties involved, including Evans and senior HR personnel, were all actively involved in this whole disgraceful situation together. They were running a corrupt investigation process. They could not have been “forced” or “ordered” to do that. All of them, were clearly willing to be part of the game. Remember too, Evans’ text…”We lost the battle but we can still win the war.”

        I agree she’s survived, but only because the Committee investigating chose not to go to town on her and demand serious sanctions and even sackings! Furthermore, the Parliament chose to ignore all that had emerged despite vague promises to demand a judge-led inquiry, blah blah. It tolerated Sturgeon declaring she’d been “vindicated”. It let her declare she had every confidence in Evans. It sat there and did nothing.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sadscot

        Again I really don’t see what your point is. Other than perhaps you are one of these people who thinks that poor wee Nicola Sturgeon never had anything to do with this and she was just an innocent victim of some bad out of control civil servants and the British state.

        The responsibility for the witch hunt lies at the door of Nicola Sturgeon, no one else. All of the people involved in this from Leslie Evans, Liz Lloyd, Peter Murrell, James Wolffe QC downwards work for her. It is clear many of them took deliberate actions to shield Sturgeon and hide her involvement. Anyone else involved was a bit part player following instructions. It really is as simple as that. Yes many of them should face criminal consequences for those actions but it is Sturgeon who is the key player and ultimately her who should pay the biggest price.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. WWI
        You misunderstand. I’m the very last person you will find defending Nicola Sturgeon! You’ll find nothing anywhere from me suggesting she had nothing to do with it or any of the other claims you list.
        I’ll leave it there.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Sadscot

        I’m glad that you are not trying to defend Nicola Sturgeon. Yes Lesley Evans could have done various things to protect herself but she clearly didn’t, likely because both she and her husband are fully signed up members of the Sturgeon personality cult. Often in our professional lives we have to do things that we don’t agree with, I was trained that when that happens you keep records to show exactly who told you do what or what they said or did and always ensure you cover your own back, something that has served me well multiple times. Often the people who try to get others to act wrongly don’t keep any records themselves. Sturgeon is famous for not keeping any records.

        In contrast Lesley Evans made the very bizarre claim that she had destroyed her notebooks, something that I’m sure is against civil service rules and i beIieve it was also done to reassure Sturgeon that she was not gorging to reveal the truth, in exchange she was rewarded by Sturgeon with protection and the further gold plated pension.

        I wanted to flush out what your motivations for saying what you did because as an aside I know someone who spent the last 10 years suing the SNP Scottish government because of lies a SNP minister told them that they then acted upon. They lost hundreds of thousands of pounds and their home because of what the minister did and then incurred hundreds of thousands on a legal case they ultimately lost. During the entire process they saught to blame the government lawyers, the civil servants, in fact anyone they could except the Minister who actually made the statements to them and in public. It was completely deranged and entirely because they are an ardent nationalist who cannot bring themselves to criticise the party. Still now when it is all over and their life and business is in ruins they still can’t see the truth.

        Anyway I digress, if the scab ever gets ripped off this sorry tale a lot of people need to be going to prison. Somehow I doubt they will but one can live in hope.

        Liked by 3 people

      5. WWI
        Thanks for your reply.
        You’ll see other posts from me on this site making clear exactly what I now think of Nicola Sturgeon.

        Where you and I are misunderstanding each other is on the issue of Evans’ official position within the Scottish Civil Service. Sturgeon isn’t her boss. Her boss is in Whitehall. She is also entirely bound by the Civil Service Code as are her personnel colleagues in HR. Anyone of her rank will ordinarily meet with various government ministers, certainly, but no one in any government position has the authority to instruct any Civil Servant to behave unlawfully. I spent nearly thirty years in the Civil Service. As soon as anyone in government asks a Civil Servant to get into the area of illegality that Civil Servant has a way out (as I have outlined above). Evans had a way out but chose to ignore it. Instead, she and her HR team were happy to help. Sturgeon could not have pulled this off without Evans allowing the Scottish Civil Service to put in place a corrupt investigation process. (What really sickened me was seeing the GS of Evans’ Union the First Division Association coming out defending her and attacking Salmond. That showed me just how deep the rot goes.) For, ultimately, here was the head of the Union which represents the most senior Civil Servants condoning, essentially, gross misconduct.
        Before all this kicked off, I recall a random interview Salmond did with a journalist. He was asked if he’d consider a return to politics in the future. (It must have been after he lost his seat as an MP in 2017.) He said he wouldn’t rule it out. I remember thinking to myself that this wouldn’t go down well in some quarters. But, ye gods, I never expected anything like what came to pass. I have never forgotten the statement he made that day because, for me, there was a direct link between him not ruling out a return and the chain of events that followed. A chain of events designed to take him out, period.
        I have friends who are still in the SNP, one of whom had a near meltdown with me in May when I told him I could not vote SNP at the election because I now knew that Sturgeon was thoroughly dishonest. There are others like him who are willing to keep faith because of independence. He barely speaks to me now. I can live with that. For what I’ve seen in Sturgeon has shocked me to the core. More importantly, to see all sitting behind her at Holyrood nodding like wee dugs is even worse given all she has done and what she plans on other matters like Gender Reform. Women in her own Party have been threatened, attacked and relentlessly trolled for opposing those reforms yet Sturgeon hasn’t uttered a word in their defence. I honestly don’t recognise her any more or the person she’s become.

        Liked by 3 people

      6. Sadscot

        I fear we are slightly at crossed purposes and I can see what you are saying about who Evan’s boss was “technically”, but in practice that isn’t correct.

        The fact is that the Scottish civil service has for the last 14 years and for want of a better word been corrupted. Salmond started a process whereby senior appointments were filled with fellow travellers of his (nationalists) which he admitted to and now regrets and Sturgeon has carried on the tradition. This has meant that rather than competent professional people filling senior roles we have SNP party placemen. The culmination of this has been a situation where Lesley Evans and other senior civil servants have cast aside all pretence of doing their jobs properly (hence the reason the UK civil service complaints guidance was cast aside) and instead they have engaged in criminal conduct to do the party leaders bidding. The level of corruption is eye watering and most people don’t even know the half of it.

        Evans would never have gone to the head of the UK civil service to complain about sturgeon because as far as she was concerned she worked directly for Sturgeon and her job if anything was to do exactly what she was told and protect sturgeon at all costs. The entire system is corrupt, whereby previously civil servants would keep meticulous records of everything, now deliberate steps are taken to hide meetings, not keep any records and destroy what records exist. In my professional life I have become aware of conduct by senior SNP ministers and civil servants that would in normal times lead to resignations and perhaps even criminal charges. No one says or does anything about it because the culture in Scotland is now such that if you whistleblow you are finished. In the case of the Salmond scandal everyone involved was a political appointment so there was no one to whistleblow and everyone worked together to destroy any evidence!

        The only way this is going to change is when the entire rotten edifice is torn down and a lot of people go to jail. Politicians, civil servants, law officers, the lot.

        Like

  7. There seems to be some confusion about the dates when the formal complaints (rather than concerns) were made by the initial complainers.Here is what para 300 to 302 say.

    “300. Ms A made a formal complaint on 16 January 2018 and Ms B on 23 January 2018. These were made to the Director of People.

    301. At the point that Ms A and Ms B made their formal complaints in January 2018 it triggered the formal process set out from paragraph 10 of the procedure. Initial contact is set out earlier in the procedure. It appears to the Committee that the initial contact was taken as having been fulfilled because of contact in November and December2017.

    302. The Director of People appointed the Head of People Advice as the Investigating Officer under the procedure. This appointment was made on 16 January 2018 in relation to Ms A’s complaint and on 23 January 2018 in relation to the complaint made by Ms B. With the knowledge of the outcome of the judicial review, the decision to appoint the Head of People Advice as Investigating Officer becomes a critical point (because of the interpretation of the prior contact and paragraph 10 of the procedure, which states that the Investigating Officer will have had no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter being raised). However, the implications of the appointment for the judicial review are not discussed here but are explored in the judicial review section of this report.”

    Like

    1. I’m not sure what your point is, Sam. There is no confusion at all about when Ms B’s formal complaint was made. It was made by email at 1.56 pm on 24 January 2018. All of Mackinnon’s contact with her prior to that date and time was unlawful “prior involvement” in terms of paragraph 10. Any talk of prior “concerns” is wholly irrelevant.

      Further, since Mackinnon was not “designated” Investigating Officer by Richards under paragraph 10 AFTER the formal complaint was received, but simply treated as such because of their prior understanding, further questions arise about EVERYTHING she then did in the formal complaint of Ms B.

      These are all things which could and should have been investigated by the Whitewash, and which they avoided by finding a falsehood as a fact.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. According to the Committee report which I quoted Ms B made her complaint on 23rd January, not the 24th January 2018 which you quote. The timeline in the Annexe B says: “23 January 2018: Ms B notifies the Director of People of her intention to make a formal complaint. The Head of People Advice is appointed Investigating Officer under the procedure for the complaint of Ms B. A call is arranged between her and Ms B for the following day. 24 January 2018: The Head of People Advice, acting as Investigating Officer, and Ms B speak on the phone. Ms B’s formal complaint is subsequently received by email.” This conflicts with para 300 which says Ms B made her complaint on 23 January. Here is the quote again.

        “300. Ms A made a formal complaint on 16 January 2018 and Ms B on 23 January 2018. These were made to the Director of People.”

        And

        “The Committee therefore finds it astonishing that the potential for challenge around the perception of impartiality of the Investigating Officer was not identified at this point.”

        Like

      2. That’s the whole point, Sam. The Committee’s finding that Ms B’s formal complaint was made on 23 January 2018 is an obvious falsehood for all the reasons I give in the posts. (The fact that they say “complaint” and not “formal complaint” is irrelevant because only a formal complaint IS a complaint under the procedure as Evans and others were at pains to point out all through the inquiry.) Perhaps you could explain why you think that this is a justified finding of fact. I’d be particularly interested in how you reconcile that finding of fact with the Committee’s own finding that on 24 January 2018, “Ms B’s formal complaint is … received by email.”

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Sam (and others interested), Ms B’s formal complaint, made by email at 1.56 pm on 24 January 2018 is here, on pages 5 and 6, with the 4 pages constituting the complaint itself redacted:

        Click to access SP_SGHHC_-_FN24.pdf

        There is no dubiety about this. The Committee’s finding that Ms B’s complaint was made on 23 January 2018 is a falsehood, plain and simple. Everything else in my posts kicks off from there.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Paragraphs 312 and following paragraphs of the Committee’s report are also relevant. ( I would suggest that the final sentence of para 314 is an arse covering exercise or attempt to get out of jail – doomed to fail.)

    312. The Committee believes that there was an opportunity at the point at which Ms A and Ms B made formal complaints to pause in order to fully think through the process which would need to be followed under the procedure. The consequences of failing to take that opportunity were significant in terms of the application of the procedure which was new to officials and which had no guidance to support it.

    313. The Committee is concerned that there was no clear articulation of roles under the procedure at the point when formal complaints were received. This led to the Head of People Advice seeming to have two roles: one as the Investigating Officer and one as a source of support to the complainers.

    314. It is evident that the Head of People Advice had, by the time of her appointment, built up a rapport and relationship of trust with Ms A and Ms B. The Committee therefore finds it astonishing that the potential for challenge around the perception of impartiality of the Investigating Officer was not identified at this point. The Committee was given no evidence that a risk had been identified around the suitability of the Head of People Advice to take on the role of Investigating Officer. As will be explored further in the Judicial Review section, the Scottish Government appears not to be concerned because it interpreted paragraph 10 of the procedure as meaning the Investigating Officer will have had no involvement with the subject matter of the complaints rather than having no prior involvement in any aspect of the complaints.

    315. The Committee does not question the need to provide the complainers with support, nor the forms of support offered. It does, however, question whether this role should have been embodied by the Investigating Officer. One way to ensure complete separation is for any investigation to be undertaken independently of the Scottish Government as employer. As highlighted in the previous section, this is a feature of harassment procedures in some other areas..”

    Like

    1. Sam (and others interested), see the exchanges above. None of this adds anything to the point at issue in the posts, which is that the Fabiani Whitewash has found an obvious falsehood — that Ms B made her complaint on 23 January 2018 — to be a fact and as, a result, has avoided the whole issue of Mackinnon’s unlawful “prior involvement” with Ms B on 23 and 24 January 2018, before her complaint was made.

      Like

      1. Mrs B emails a formal complaint and J. McKinnon replies ‘Brilliant’ and ‘That sounds great.’ Hmm..strange?

        Like

  9. Good day Gordon, a nice clarification.

    I would like to side track a little here,but not far from the lunatics in charge of the Asylum. ( Holyrood)

    COP26: Isn’t this utter madness this Scottish Government is allowing this to go ahead ?

    I write to perhaps stimulate your readers as they are more of the intellectual race. This Meeting of 25000 people from around the world, I think, is a recipe for a very dangerous outcome and perhaps serious consequences for the citizens of Scotland.

    As we now know there is a new variant of Covid, now better known as the Delta Variant,has manifested itself from different strains of the virus being mixed with vaccinated and none vaccinated persons. We now know that people who have been vaccinated are being reinfected and the vaccinations are not covering this new variant well.

    Is there greater a chance of a new variant emerging from 25000 different people from around the world not trouble people of Scotland ?

    Do you think this COP26 should be postponed until we know more about this Covid and variants, if this goes wrong,people of Scotland could be faced with a new variant and deaths will follow. With the shoe on the other foot, what will these delegates be taking back home ?

    I just think this is seriously risk taking and without impact studies and we learn more about Covid we should air on the side of caution and postpone this for a year or two until we know it’s safe.

    Your thoughts ?

    Not a word on MSM.

    Allan

    Like

    1. Allan
      The (UN) COP 26 host is the UK government, not the Scottish Government. The SG does not have the authority to postpone it.
      (Obviously Covid restrictions are decided by the devolved Parliaments but that is a different issue. I’m not sure Sturgeon would be willing to use that route. Besides, she’s got it into her head that she’s the official host which, sadly, just makes her look ridiculous. She isn’t. Even more sadly, the official host is the UK PM. Glasgow is just the venue.)

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Hi Allan,

      My thoughts are: I hope GCC pulls the finger out and starts clearing rubbish and filling potholes in glasgow – ken, like councils are meant to do.

      I’m also irritated that my work is making me go into the office and clear all my junk out so the company bigwigs can do some corporate COP26 schmoozing using that office. At the same time I’m hoping they install thick pile carpets, lots of comfy sofas in coffee break out rooms, and some nice partitions – open plan offices are a terrible thing.

      On a less personal level – the government does not care about the spread of disease, as long as not too many people die (bad for popularity ratings). They believe vaccines have resolved that annoying dying issue, so don’t give a toss. And, I believe sadscot is right, it’s the uk government hosting, and Scotland is just the location, and the Scottish government is irrelevant because we are all ‘one nation’ and they’ll do as their telt – and Sturgeon, as usual, will comply because she must be the most spineless self-serving sell-out in the history of Scotland. ,,, hmm,,, she probably has a bit of competition there, historically speaking,,, (which would beg the question: why haven’t we learned our lesson?!)

      Liked by 3 people

      1. “Sturgeon, as usual, will comply because she must be the most spineless self-serving sell-out in the history of Scotland”

        I reckon she runs John Balliol, Toom Tabard, a close second!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Contrary

        Sorry to break it to you but COP26 is a UK event and the Scottish government quite rightly have no real involvement. It is after a mid level devolved assembly that does not have responsibility for many of the things that will be discussed and it shouldn’t even be called a government. Half the supposed ministers don’t even have a real jobs. It’s a jumped up council

        I for one do not want to be represented by a third rate failed solicitor who should be enjoying a 10-15 year stretch in Cornton vale and her band of corrupt incompetents she calls a cabinet.

        The SNP council have demonstrated how utterly incompetent they are, Glasgow is a tip and here we are a few months out from a major event and the SNP council are trying to absolve themselves of all responsibility. It goes to show just how the SNP would have performed on a national level if they had responsibility for this event.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. This often seems like Jarndyce v Jarndyce merged with the Office of Circumlocution. A satirist could have a field day with how the Scottish Establishment has woven an impenetrable but transparent protection around itself. We can all see in, but any of those inside the circles within circles or the Venn Diagrams of overlapping interests who might actually be horrified at the open transgressing against democracy, seem frozen into inactivity. It would make a fascinating, if incredible, fiction on the bookstands if it weren’t actually horribly true.

    Sometimes, I stand back from all of this and can’t believe the whole glass edifice is still standing. It seems that a well aimed pop gun would brink it all down but no one is stepping forward. The whole of Scotland’s polity as well as the legal establishment seems paralysed and as a result has failed all of us. ( Obviously, someone like yourself is trying to chip away but don’t you feel that you are trapped by the very system you are trying to work with? You don’t have to answer any of that, of course, since it’s not incumbent on you to do so.)

    Anyway, I doubt that Scotland can recover from this. They are few and we are many but throughout history elites have dominated the majority of their people very easily. They have overcome the potential problems of modern democracies and despite supposed advances for the many, the few are back in charge with the same ability to neutralise the opposition of the majority as in the middle ages, using modern stratagems, of course The exercise of democracy is limited to voting in what is virtually an elective dictatorship while just like the medieval church, the media are there to direct the narrative which cushions those in power.

    Perhaps there is a crack somewhere which will spread throughout the facade – a seemingly off-centre, unnoticed challenge in court which will cause The Clique’s glass edifice to shatter in ignominy? A Grisham novel might end that way but this is unfortunately real life, not blockbuster fiction, where the writer delivers an ingratiating ‘good’ ending for the readers. Hope is the very devil of a tormentor though.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The one thing we can predict, jgedd, is that if and when the catalyst comes, it’ll be one that no-one predicted.

      The recent analogy that I know best is the phone hacking scandal. Nick Davies and others were working away diligently on it for years, producing startling evidence and cogent analyses of that evidence but nothing was really happening, or would have happened in my view, had it not been for something no-one could have predicted — namely, the astonishing effect on the public consciousness of the revelation that the bastards had hacked the phone of a murdered girl, Milly Dowler.

      Of course, sometimes the catalyst never comes and it’s thirty years later that official documents get released showing, for example, that the security services were tapping Arthur Scargill’s phone and worse, things we were all called mad conspiracy theorists for saying at the time but which we’re now told that surely everybody knew about, and it’s all ancient history anyway, even as we’re called mad conspiracy theorists for the things we’re saying now…

      As Chomsky says, if you assume there is no hope, and act accordingly, you guarantee there will be no hope, so I choose to hope, and act accordingly.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. I subscribe to Chaos Theory, myself – you know, the one that has the butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon forest causing a tornado in New York (or similar). They use the mathematics from chaos theory to predict the weather,,, so that gives a good indication of how good it is as a prediction tool (ahem). The uncertainties are good though – it means there can be no coordinated counterattack before whatever random thing occurs.

      What this means is we need lots of butterfly wings flapping in the right general direction – I identify a thing and start nudging to get interest going – I never naysay or put down anyone else’s ideas or interest (a common theme of SNP trolling that, you’ll notice) because you just can’t ever tell where it might lead,,, nudging in the right directions is good though. I decided years ago the currency issue needed tackled, I had to spend a couple of years of hard labour (because I’m very not financially minded) learning about how economies work just to be able to START asking questions, and ask I did,,, and look at the development now! People are fully engaged,,, ah but, I wouldn’t ever say that was my nudging that got anything going, it likely would have happened anyway, and the point of Chaos Theory is that I’ll never know one way or the other. But if you never do any nudging it may never happen, and note that nudging can be just showing an interest, questioning, wanting to know more.

      Nothing is a waste of time! Any interest in anything MIGHT lead somewhere. Keep the butterfly wings flapping.

      Ah but, Gordon, you mention there the ‘public consciousness’ – another comment in the previous post suggested there was such a thing too but I didn’t get a chance to reply – how, exactly does this public consciousness come about? It isn’t out of thin air – it’s put there by the media. What they do is sensationalise a thing or two, but haven’t fully thought through how two or three things might be related – it’s an accident on their part.

      There should be national outrage at the McCrone report, but no one appears to be bothered – because we haven’t been TOLD it’s an outrage. All the best kept secrets are the ones in plain sight. (And then called conspiracy theories!).

      The media will never publish anything obviously positive about Scotland – or anything sensationally bad for Nicola Sturgeon now (note that it took a while for the media to catch up on her not being a threat to their precious Union) – so anything that is going to capture the public consciousness to reveal her as a charlatan WILL come from something not obvious (everything else will be down-played). It needs that background hard work of analysis and investigation to be done, ready for when that catalyst sparks things off, of course.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I’m glad you agree we should all keep doing our bit, Contrary, but I would never pretend to have anything remotely like a “theory” of human behaviour and I think anyone who says they have is a charlatan. Gramsci’s detailed writings on “hegemony” come closest for me but even then it’s not in any sense a “theory”, just a description and some useful terminology that you recognise as fitting the facts time after time, as in the present case.

        I use “public consciousness” just in its common sense meaning of what most people seem to be aware of and interested in or engaged with in some way — nothing more profound, I’m afraid! The moment anyone tells me they’re an “expert” in these matters or have a “theory” about them (except in the informal way we all use that word, as you do above, which is fine!) I pretty much know immediately it’s not going to be worth listening to.

        Like

      2. Contrary and anyone else that may be interested. I really cannot understand why everyone seems to be either ignoring or ‘downplaying’ the role of Peter Murrell in all this.
        As far as I’m concerned he is the real evil mastermind, the Moriarty if you like in all this and yet time after time the slime created by his machinations oozes on to others leaving him untouched. Weird.
        Remember his pathological hatred of Alex Salmond stretches back decades.
        One other point if I may.
        In his book ‘Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires’. Writer and journalist Will Black explains in detail the power of propaganda and the art of convincing the majority that they are the minority.
        I can see a time in the near future when the silent majority of health care professionals, teachers, police officers etc cowed into simmering silence and compliance by threats of dismissal and other sanctions by the PC Brigade will some day soon realise that they are not after all the minority. Then it becomes a whole different ball game.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Gordon, my references to Chaos Theory are a bit tongue-in-check – it is a mathematical proof of how physical things interact (I never did finish reading the book so can’t give a more detailed description than that)(luckily for yous) – not anything to do with social constructs? It was meant as a long-winded agreement to your suggestion that a catalyst would come from an unpredictable direction – absolutely; you can never tell where any one thing might land. Chaos Theory is a formal definition of a theory (a proof), my extrapolation and interpretations are wild imaginings and false equivalents – sorry if I’ve just confused matters! (I rather liked the butterfly wings analogy though)

        You’ve deployed far too many quote marks there for me to interpret – you have to remember I’m from a technical background – I don’t get all that stuff about hegemony!

        IM Pistov – I’m very sure Murrell is in the background orchestrating things – but you have to remember he isn’t in public office, and so can’t be held accountable for all the things to do with the Scottish government – and you need to produce evidence of his nefarious influences, and proof he’s behind it,,, unfortunately COPFS has most of that evidence locked up, so there isn’t much that can be said about him at this stage (except speculation). He was shown to be lying in his committee appearances, but until a conspiracy is revealed and he’s linked to it, there is very little anyone can say further on his involvement, I’d think.

        Like

      4. Haha, fair enough Gordon! Thing is – Sturgeon isn’t exactly a bright spark either – I don’t believe there was any intelligence,,, well, actually, probably there was intelligence behind it, but not from either of them! The point is, it will be their desires that are the driving force behind all the happenings – the enabling and ideas will be from others. ‘Yes Minister Fan Fiction’ gives one possibility of how that could come about. No, they don’t need to be bright to have made it happen.

        And let’s face it, none of what’s happened was clever, just well covered up. I’m sure you’ve come across plenty of people in your line of work that just keep saying ‘it wisnae me!’ (Despite all evidence to the contrary) until everyone gives up? That same principle seems to be getting applied here. It’s not a case for Sherlock Holmes, for sure.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. You’re spot-on, Contrary. There’s a distinct air of unreality about trying to persuade people that Sturgeon knew about all of this from the get-go just as there is with trying to persuade many of the same people that men can’t become women by saying they are, or at all for that matter. It’s just so obvious that you hardly know where to begin.

        I actually knew a guy who used to do exactly what you’re saying and just blanket deny he’d done the thing you just watched him do, and it was actually as hard to argue with him as it is with these people. He was a smart guy and knew exactly what he was doing, so maybe I’m misjudging Murrell and co…

        Like

      6. It’s remarkable isn’t it – I don’t think it has anything to do with intelligence, it’s usually just learned behaviour, and it’s very difficult to argue against (it’s effectively gaslighting: telling you one thing that you know to be untrue until you doubt yourself). I’ve used it a few times, in jest, and it’s amazing how quickly people capitulate – mainly because it’s not worth the bother,,, but that’s why it works.

        Take your Whitewash explanation above, within the *same document* they tell us one thing, then conclude something at complete odds to it: they actually say “Ms B’s formal complaint is ****subsequently****received by email” (‘subsequently’ usually means afterwards) – then tell us MacKinnon was appointed before this, but only after the formal complaint was received,and all is well?! QED, as someone said above, is right.

        The Whitwash itself is saying ‘it wisnae them, even though we’ve just told you it was’.

        It’s these things that really need to be pointed out, I reckon, because they’re too difficult to fathom – when both statements can’t be true, people usually just choose one (the conclusion, because people believe official documents,,,) and run with it.

        All those people involved are paid vast sums of money to produce that sort of mince too, oh it makes my blood boil.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Your point about the Milly Dowler hacking scandal is well made but the reason it had such an explosive effect on the public consciousness is because the disappearance of Milly had been in the forefront of people’s minds at the time. The revelations about the phone hacking therefore caused widespread revulsion in the minds of the public and its repercussions were immediate for those involved.

    However, with a different time scale, the miners’ strike showed different outcomes from which the establishment emerged triumphant having crushed the miners despite the dirty tricks and fabrications of the government sympathisers in the media which had successfully turned public opinion against the miners. One of these infamous tricks was the Orgreave picket when TV footage was reversed to make it appear that the miners had charged the lines of mounted police instead of the other way round. Miners tried in vain to recount the true events to the deaf ears of most of the media and public. ( A few years later, I remember a young Jon Snow at last revealing to us that the news networks had admitted conniving in the editing of the footage in order to frame the miners for initiating the violence. Yet there was hardly a ripple of reaction in the public. These confessions, as well as reporting of later court cases which vindicated the miners, were delivered in such a muted way that the ordinary public was left unmoved, or hardly noticed. Too much time had passed and anyway the original impressions planted in the minds of the public about the defeated miners blunted their perceptions. The miners had lost and were no longer relevant.)

    I take your point, however, in your last sentence. You have to be commended for your efforts to keep hope alive. Many of us, I expect, feel impotent in the face of the intransigent silence of those politicians and other establishment actors who seem to have surrendered to the iniquities of people exercising ruthless power. I am glad that some like you have not given up.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Again, Gordon, many thanks.

    I think it is essential to spend time pondering the reason to set up the inquiry – to explore the governmental procedures used in pursuing the previous FM by the current FM, the civil service and the myriad host of special political advisors who can range not only across political departments, and be intimately involved in their operational behaviours, but can also interfere in actions of other important engines in the state… Including COPFS, the police, the SNP and the judiciary. LL’s working-day placed her in a staggering place of influence… And that doesn’t even touch any relationships with foreign governments or foreign spads.

    I now believe that Lady Dorrian’s exclusion of evidence was an initial message to everyone that the whole truth of the defendant was not worthy of proper consideration at trial.

    The decision to deal with the complainants as if they were people who had little to no contact with each other, or were not closely linked with each other and with the present FM, the person who heads government and instigated the unlawful proceedings, is extremely worrying.

    Legal representation wanted to prove collusion and a possible conspiracy. And they had revealing text messages to substantiate the claim. Lady Dorrian not only disallowed that evidence, but went to the other extreme… That the complainers did not know each others circumstances and their stories were not coaxed out of them, or marshalled by any malign intent… And, in making this a Moorov case, the judge closed her eyes to the defence’s other alternative.

    You are spin on, Gordon. They did not investigate their own flawed and unlawful procedure, by doublethinking a damning but of evidence regarding the initial complaint and investigators and complainants.

    If justice has been done what has been seen to have been done just doesn’t look just.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Many thanks, tombkane. I agree with the thrust of your argument but I do think we have to be a little bit careful on the details.

      The judge in any case can only rule on what is put before her, and that is subject to appeal if she gets the law wrong. In Salmond’s case, it’s clear that the entire media and political establishments were expecting a conviction and, had there been one, I’m sure the arguments you mention would have formed part of the grounds of appeal.

      In a way, just as in the judicial review, Salmond has been the victim of his own success — which is to say, his own innocence — since without a full decision in the JR or an argued appeal in the criminal case, we are left without much information on these matters and having to speculate, which is never really a good idea.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Hi Gordon

        Very wise words… And I applaud your attention to detail and your care with making inferences. Also, it is very nice to see how a fine legal mind constructs an investigation, moving from fact to fact… And then on to an inevitability. If you can help us to challenge everything that was wrong about the Civil Service investigation, the JR, the HC Trial, and the Holyrood Farcicalities… And help us to restore our faith in misused institutions… Well… That would really be something.

        I actually think you could pull that off.

        Respect.

        Like

  13. I’m playing Devil’s advocate here. Mrs. A made a formal complaint on 16 January 2018. Suppose Judith Mackinnon were appointed Investigating Officer on 23 January in respect of that complaint, but the appointment covered “complaints against Alec Salmond”? Which might be a reasonable appointment, if there were a suspicion that other complaints might arise?

    If this line is followed it puts things in a less bad light.

    [I don’t believe it myself, because if it were true those involved would have put the arguement forward.]

    Like

    1. Robert, you’re right that it’s an untenable argument for any number of reasons, which is no doubt why even the Scottish Government didn’t have the brass neck to try to advance it.

      I’ll give you just one. If the Investigating Officer appointed to one formal complaint were to automatically become Investigating Officer for others against the same person simply by virtue of the initial appointment, there would be no independent check on “prior involvement” with each new complainer, and the procedure would be even more of a debacle that it is.

      Liked by 3 people

  14. “I don’t believe it myself, because if it were true those involved would have put the arguement forward.”

    So why put it forward?

    Like

    1. John
      Thanks for replying.

      I’m an engineer, and I like to check what I’m doing, as i’m often wrong.

      I posted to explore possibilities – to see whether what I thought was a daft idea would seem not daft to others. I’m relieved that no-one thinks of it as plausible.

      I could still comptemplate the idea of the conversation: “Here’s another one, Judith – can you do it as well?”.

      Or: “Here’s Mrs A, and a Mrs B may be along later – can you run with both?”

      But the protagonists didn’t use that as an excuse, so it’s probably not true.

      Like

      1. Robert, I know you know this but in case there’s people new to all of this tuning in, to propose such a conversation AS A POSSIBLE GET-OUT FOR THE SG is to ignore the entire context of this affair as set out painstakingly by me in the posts themselves and by many excellent commentators as well as me in the comments section of the blog.

        As you know, conversations just like this WERE happening between these two and others involved in the process and they are ANYTHING BUT a get-out.

        They are in fact the evidence of what was unlawful.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Um, Robert, what you are suggesting as implausible is exactly what DID happen, and exactly what they don’t want anyone to know – I hardly think they’re going to use it as an excuse! Lol.

        That would alert everyone, with big neon flashing lights, that their entire endeavour was ONLY to target Alex Salmond and gather as many complaints about him as possible. They should have had seperate IOs for each complaint, it shouldn’t matter who the complaint is about – and lumping two together is pushing the bounds of it being reasonable – besides the fact they encouraged collusion between the complainers too (who already knew each other and what each other said, anyway). It does suggest they didn’t originally plan on the police complaint (although I’m not sure they’d understand the concept of what they were doing would collapse any case – which is likely why the police refused to have anything to do with Evans’ report).

        (But that begs the question of why the Crown Agent tried to hand it over? Is he as thick as mince too? Or did he want the case to collapse? Hmm, that’s an interesting consideration… But no, unlikely – the SG needed Alex Salmond charged because of the JR – though if they wanted the option to collapse the criminal case before it went to court, so they didn’t have to deal with all that troublesome evidence and defence witnesses … It might have been that we’d never have got the JR, OR the criminal trial – just Evans announcing the unfounded allegations after the charges were announced. Then we have the accusers realising there was a way to remain anonymous – was that in response to ‘the trial will have to go ahead, the police aren’t playing ball’ – had the original plan been for certain people to bare their soul to the newspapers if needed,,,) <– a speculation too far!

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Gordon,

    This is the first time I have posted on your site, although I have been following and enjoying for a long time.
    One thing that really bothers me about the Fabiani Committee was Nicola Sturgeons evidence, which I watched in full, her opening submission and the questions she was asked and not asked.
    In her opening submission she made great play to mention concerns regarding Alex Salmond and specifically mentioning the Edinburgh Airport Sky News enquiry. She knew about this because she was informed by due process according to her position as First Minister. She mentioned Edinburgh Airport again at least once during her questioning.
    She also made great play about not knowing about the complaints until the beginning of April, several months after the complaints became official.
    My problem is that no-one asked her when she knew of the concerns raised by Ms A and Ms B in early December, before she recused herself from the process in late December.
    According to the procedure existing in early December she should have been informed as soon as these concerns were raised and if not then that is another damning indictment against Lesley Evans et al.
    Not one question was asked of her involvement before she got out of the process, which I find strange and disturbing, especially given her submission and testimony and no-one separated the concerns from the complaints.
    I would appreciate your views on this from your perspective.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Thanks, Jim, and yes, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.

    As you and other long-time readers of the blog will have gathered, I have thought from the very start that the key to exposing Sturgeon’s lies is the period from November 2017 to March 2018 and in particular the period you mention in November and early December 2017, before the “recast” of the procedure which removed Sturgeon completely from it. The reason for that, and the reason why it happened then, is it took them that time to realise how dangerous it was going to be for them to have Sturgeon on the record as being involved. They then needed a plausible excuse for why it would seem that she had been involved up to that point and that is when they came up with using the Edinburgh airport nonsense as you say.

    It’s nonsensical of course to think that during November 2017, when there was no prohibition of any kind on Sturgeon being informed about everything that was going on (as she’s famous for insisting on) she was told nothing about the “concerns” of Ms A and B while being kept fully informed about the relatively trivial Edinburgh airport stuff. If it were really true that she was told nothing, can you imagine the trouble Evans, Lloyd and the rest would have been in when she found out they’d taken it upon themselves (for no reason and with no justification whatsoever) to keep her in the dark about this?

    As you know, that’s the premise of the first two parts of A Very Scottish Coup, and the further parts which are coming will develop it further.

    I understand why Stuart Campbell, Craig Murray and others — and indeed Salmond himself — focused as they did on the March 2018 meetings because there you have actual eyewitnesses to Sturgeon’s involvement before the 2 April 2018 date that she misled Parliament about but I continue to believe that it’s the period you identify that’s the vital one and it’s not at all a coincidence that the Fabiani lot misdirected themselves — or were misdirected — away from that crucial period.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Oh my oh my. GrouseBeater has posted a sun article that reveals some FOI information about how much on the make our highly-paid civil servants are – and have identified Mackinnon as one of the perpetrators: link and a couple of extracts below. Can we get any more appalled at these people? No scruples, no integrity, no fairness – this is the basis for Sturgeon’s ‘fairer’ society! Everything, absolutely everything, about Sturgeon and her government is extremely disturbing.

    https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2021/08/26/civil-service-scumbags/

    ———–

    An official behind the botched Scottish Government probe into Alex Salmond is among a list of civil servants with external financial interests, documents revealed. Judith MacKinnon – who is director of a human resources and business coaching consultancy, one official involved in the fiasco of hunting an innocent man to ruin his reputation – is one of more than 450 staff who make money or hold roles away from their taxpayer-funded work.

    Anonymised details of 99 of the civil servants – all with links to companies in the past five years – were released by the Holyrood Government after a freedom of information battle, amid concerns second jobs or external roles could pose a conflict of interest.

    ….

    Judith McKinnon

    Judith MacKinnon’s role in the internal investigation into Mr Salmond led to the collapse of the probe and bill of more than £500,000 to taxpayers, after it emerged, she’d had prior contact with the two women complainers.

    No names were provided by the Scottish Government of the officials 463, with bosses citing a “personal information” exemption under FoI laws. After a freedom of information appeal by a journalist from the Scotsman, the government agreed to give details of the businesses related to 99 of the outside interests, along with the department they work for. They argued that “volunteering in charitable organisations” did not fall within the “scope” of the FoI request, meaning no details were provided for hundreds of other roles. Fourteen of the entries provided were listed as “SCS” – high-earning senior civil servants.

    A further 85 were listed as the pay grades A-C, which go up to around £72,000.One entry said a senior civil servant from the “Directorate of People” was “Business owner of Mackinnon Partners (Executive Coaching and HR)”. This is understood to be Ms MacKinnon, who is director and company secretary of MacKinnon Partners, whose HQ is listed as being at Finnieston Business Park in Glasgow.

    The response from the government stressed that the roles provided were held “within the last five years”, meaning they do “not necessarily indicate that the role is presently held by the civil servant in question”.

    Companies House documents show that while Ms MacKinnon is still director and secretary of the firm, her husband has been the only shareholder since February 2020. The disclosure comes after criticism of potential double-jobbing in Whitehall, after it was revealed senior civil servant Bill Crithers had advised the finance firm Greensill while still a public official.

    —————-

    Like

    1. Pittin’ their bairns tae private school was expensive Contrary and status and money aye gang thegither. It is a strata of complete arseholes that dominate public life in Scotland especially in the civil service, politics and the crown office. I would write it in Gaidhlig but I am better and better understood this way. Maybe we should be kind? Nae chance and we should be as scathing as we can manage while rejecting it. What we are missing is a philosophy to counter this based on community and the Independence to develop it. A cultural identity would cement it and act as a vaccine against things like identity politics but a national identity is a start.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I think at its root. When Identity politics was taken up by the money men (if not actually created by the MKULTRA type thinkers in the US security services) its aim was to undermine and destroy identies based around language and culture making indoctrination that bit easier and community less resistant to it. Its a long game. Adding to the work of the marketing walloper Bernaise and psychopath Anna Freud they introduce things like celebrity culture which is corporate culture and much more. What better for them for us to be paying for our cultural identity at the end of the month with a sub to them. And how much easier would we be to influence and control.

      Like

    3. Aye, control of the masses could be the aim.

      I hate the way the government treat the population – the economic powerhouse of the economy they’re supposed to run – like customers, to be fleeced at every turn. We aren’t THEIR customers, they are supposed to run the country FOR us. Democracy and such like, ken. Without a population, there is no country, and no government, and no economy.

      Is the corruption so embedded in our systems, that we have no hope of weeding it out? I suspect it might be, though hope otherwise.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Who knows? Corruption seems to be present in forms I hadn’t realised existed. Until the other day I hadn’t realised that Uk Civil servants in Scotland were at it and until a couple of years ago I wasn’t aware some other stuff either. I have to believe the punters can get things onto a more honest footing. We do still wield some power ourselves acting together and Independence is still an opportunity in this regard I’d say as n occassionally depressed optimist.

        I just like to slip the CIA in there now and again btw but I am trying to comprehend how on earth this comedy of an ideology could have become so widespread and pervasive. If I was a Duke I would set a team of researchers on it, from the lower orders. I would like to know it all but I would probably settle for knowledge of how power works in Scotland being widespread amongst the people. We only live for so long.

        Like

  18. Apologies for the rant. It’s good to get it out somewhere when you find the place you spend 8 hours a day has suddenly become a lite verion of invasion of the body snatchers and you can only safely discuss subjects withthe people you really know.

    Like

    1. Haha, yeah, I know the frustrations there! Cue the new ‘concious inclusion’ webinar we MUST listen to. Oh for just being allowed to do the work we are employed to do. I am inclusive though!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Aye, there is comedy in it for me. My mates and myself are in stitches at some of this stuff. As for the inclusive bit that happens automatically and without the bleak terminology.
        We had an online thing with questions at the end I think.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: