Category: Uncategorized

Timeline-Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry-Conspiracy against Alex Salmond

Late October 2017: Aamer Anwar alleged the existence of a ‘ticking time bomb catalogue of sexual harassment at Holyrood. Ms H allegedly disclosed to her friend, an SNP politician, details of an alleged sexual assault upon her by Alex Salmond.

30 Oct: Nicola Sturgeon wrote to the Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh, asking what additional steps might be taken to protect staff from harassment.

31 Oct: Daily Record/David Clegg received a heads up message from an unnamed source in the Scottish Government regarding sexual offences allegedly committed by Alex Salmond during his time in office. Clegg is friend of Liz Lloyd who is a senior Spad working for Nicola Sturgeon.

31 Oct: A senior SNP officer, Ms Anne Harvey, based in Westminster was inundated with telephone text messages asking for information about Alex Salmond. suggesting that a fishing expedition had started in earnest well before the involvement of Ms A, Ms B or Ms H. Anne worked with Alex Salmond for many years and was an important witness for the defence, (until her evidence was redacted by the Crown). She was also at the time, a close friend of at least one of the complainers.

31 Oct: Holyrood civil service chiefs excluding the Special Advisor to the First Minister, Liz Lloyd, but including senior civil servant, John Somers, the First Ministers “gatekeeper” were in attendance together with other civil servants at a meeting convened by Nicola Sturgeon with the purpose of reviewing civil service procedures for the handling of workplace complaints. Nicola Sturgeon asked the permanent secretary to undertake a review of government policies and processes to ensure that they were fit for purpose.

31 Oct: James Hynd, Head of Cabinet, Parliament, and Governance, for the Scottish Government was tasked by Leslie Evans on 31 Oct 2017 to update long-standing civil service procedures on sexual harassment covering serving ministers. Instead, acting on his own initiative and without any political direction, he decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy, partly because he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code and there was a “gap” that needed to be closed.

He conceded he was aware of gossip about alleged misconduct involving former First Minister, Alex Salmond, which Salmond had repeatedly denied, before choosing to include former ministers in the new anti-harassment policy. He insisted he alone decided to make former ministers the focus of his first draft of the policy, partly because he was in charge of the Scottish government’s ministerial code. He said he thought it was a “gap” that needed to be closed.

Beginning of Nov: Around this time (possibly earlier) Angus Robertson drafted and introduced new NEC procedures removing candidate selection from Party members centralising the process on Party headquarters officials. Shortly after a number of GRA supporters were installed as candidates for the May 2021 General Election.

02 Nov: MSP and minister Mark McDonald, was taken in to speak to John Swinney and the First Minister’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, and was told his name had come up in “chatter” around “MeToo”.

03 Nov: McDonald met Ms Lloyd, who revealed a complaint had been made against him about the offensive content of a social media message he had sent. Lloyd told him he would need to resign from the Government.

There were strong rumours that Alex Salmond was unhappy at the lack of progress on independence given the strong polling figures in favour of this and was considering a return to front line politics, possibly through the Aberdeen seat vacated by Mark McDonald when he was denied the Party whip in Holyrood. It was also rumoured that Alex would soon be installed as the editor of the Scotsman.

04 Nov: McDonald said Nicola Sturgeon phoned him in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign that evening.

04 Nov: McDonald resigned from his role as children’s minister in the Scottish Government.

04 Nov: In the evening, Sky News contacted the SNP Government parliamentary media office enquiring about Alex Salmond’s alleged misconduct with women at Edinburgh Airport. Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans and Liz Lloyd were informed. Both of them briefed the First Minister of events the morning after.

Afternote: Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government, told the Inquiry that on 5 Mar 2017 she warned the first minister that Alex Salmond had been calling civil servants in connection with a Sky News investigation into an alleged incident at Edinburgh airport in 2007. The officials were a bit bewildered and unhappy about it and she advised the First Minister of her concerns. She was also worried that it could become a story and the Scottish Government needed to be ready because the media was very volatile reporting on everything.

She went on to say that a whole range of people inside the Scottish government had been raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct involving ministers and the former First Minister and the rumours had began surfacing in early November 2017 at the height of the MeToo movement and soon after John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, announced a new zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct.

The briefing by Evans that rumours of misconduct included the former First Minister concentrated the minds of members of the Inquiry on the context of the closing statement of Ms Evans to suggest that the “new” sexual harassment policy had been “targeted at and designed to get Alex Salmond”.

Ms Evans denied that was the case. But in late 2018, Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she first learned Salmond was being investigated “when he told her” during a meeting at her home on 2 April 2018. But the government was forced to admit that she actually met one of Salmond’s closest former aides, Geoff Aberdein, in connection with the matter in her ministerial office on 29 March 2018.

05 Nov: Ms H said she informed Ian McCann, a senior officer at SNP Headquarters of the details of an alleged assault by Alex Salmond, well before the receipt of formal complaints from Ms A and Ms B.

Mr McCann responded saying: “We’ll sit on that and hope we never need to deploy it.” Peter Murrell, CEO of the SNP maintains he was not informed of the allegations notified to Mr McCann.

06 Nov: Liz Lloyd was approached by several civil servants who raised concerns that Mr Salmond and his representatives were reportedly contacting other civil servants to ask that they provide supportive statements to his legal representatives relating to the matters raised by Sky News The civil servants indicated that the approaches were unwelcome. Lloyd was asked if she or some other Special Adviser could ask Alex Salmond to go through appropriate channels rather than approach people direct. She was informed shortly after that the Permanent Secretary’s office had also been approached by the same staff and was taking their request forward, so she made no approach to Alex Salmond.

Afternote-1 : In the 2018 trail of Alex Salmond, Ms H was questioned by the QC for defence as to her reasons for not timeously notifying the police of the alleged attempted rape, she said she only wanted the SNP to know, “so they could use it for vetting purposes should Alex Salmond return to the political front line.” The QC followed up asking Ms H, if was a “coincidence” she’d contacted Mr McCann only a day after an SNP, MSP had ben forced to resign and suggested “You didn’t want Alex Salmond to pass any future vetting process, did you” Ms H responded “I don’t think I linked the two events together. I wasn’t aware he (Mr Salmond) wanted to stand for the Scottish Parliament again. It was not a coincidence in terms of the #MeToo movement and the whole issue of women basically being abused by people in positions of power.”

Afternote-2: The Criminal Trial of Alex Salmond: Ms McCall challenged Ms H on her contacts with a senior SNP official, Ian McCann, and three other women after the Daily Record reported on August 23rd, 2018, that a Scottish government internal inquiry had upheld complaints from two women of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Salmond. Ms H told the court she first approached Mr McCann after the Harvey Weinstein allegations surfaced in the US and the #MeToo movement had gained momentum. She did not specify what Mr Salmond had allegedly done to her but warned Mr McCann there had been incidents involving the former party leader.

Ms McCall pressed Ms H to explain why she quickly made contact with other accusers after the Record story and after Mr Salmond disclosed he was suing the Scottish government over its inquiry. She asked Ms H whether two other accusers encouraged her to contact the police. In a text to another accuser two days after the Record story, Ms H wrote: “I’m mulling too. But I have a plan. And means we can be anonymous but see strong repercussions.” Challenged on what she meant, Ms H said she and the other accuser “had discussed in the past issues around Mr Salmond’s behaviour”. Ms McCall asked why she contacted another accuser who was a participant in a “ring around” of people who had worked with Mr Salmond. Ms H said she was trying to find out what was happening. “I was trying to figure out what the party and police process was, so I could figure out our path forward,” Ms H said.

08 Nov: 1233. The first draft of a new harassment policy “Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints Against Former Ministers.” written by top official James Hynd was circulated, It stated that if a complaint was lodged against a former minister and he/she was a member of the party in power, the First Minister should be informed immediately.

10 Nov: Leslie Evans appointed Gillian Russell, Scottish Government, Director of Safer Communities as the “confidential sounding board” for complainers.

10 Nov: Ms A told Gillian Russell of an incident involving herself and Alex Salmond following which Russell, with the consent of Ms A, updated Ms Richards, who in turn alerted Leslie Evans and through her Judith Mackinnon.

The essence of the experience Miss A related was: At the end of a long evening, in Bute House, after dealing with “Chinese business” Alex Salmond suggested to her that they could share share some “Maotai”, a highly potent Chinese “rice” drink, a few bottles of which had been gifted to him. She accepted the invitation. There was no central heating in the lower floors of Bute House at the time and they retired upstairs to Alex’s bedroom where after indulging more than a few drinks they ended up quite tipsy. They both dozed off on a bed, fully dressed and enjoyed a “sleepy cuddle”. After a short period they both awakened. Ms A collected her papers. Alex kissed her on the cheek and she left to go downstairs. There was no intention of any non-consensual sex. Not long after, Ms A lodged a complaint against Alex. The matter was resolved to her satisfaction, using approved Civil Service procedures, following an unreserved apology from Alex. Ms A was also offered a transfer away from Alex’s office without loss of rank or earnings but declined stating a preference to retain her employment and close working relationship with Alex, which they subsequently enjoyed for a number of years after. The complaint surfaced again at the criminal complaints trial of Alex and the jury decided the allegation was “not proven”.

08-10 Nov: Ms B, related to Barbara Allison details of an alleged incident involving herself and Alex Salmond. Ms Richards and Ms Evans were notified.

Details of the alleged incident related by Ms B: A “photoshoot” session had been arranged at Stirling Castle attended by Alex Salmond and a number of his close working colleagues, including Miss B. The session required Alex Salmond to be photographed with one other person at his side on a small balcony. Time, as ever, was a constraint and a rotating routine was in place requiring four people to be present on the small balcony throughout the shoot. Ms B said that Alex had fondled her “bum” at the time she stood next to him on the balcony. There were no witnesses to the event and Ms B had never reported it previously. At the criminal trial called witnesses to his defence who were present on the balcony at the time of the alleged incident who said they had not witnessed any such incident. Alex was found by the jury to be innocent of the charge.

08-10 Nov: Both Ms A and Ms B were determined that they were not interested in making any formal complaint against Alex Salmond and expressed this to Gillian Russell and Barbara Allison at the time. Their express wish was to be provided with a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon. On both counts the civil service failed them and they paid the price of failure.

13-15 Nov: In an exchange of emails with senior civil servants, Mr Hynd advised, “officials will also need to alert the First Minister if a complaint is lodged against a minister because she’d “want to know straight away”.

16 Nov: McDonald suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him.

16 Nov: 1205. Hynd emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Leslie Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.” As requested”. James.

16 Nov: Hynd sent a copy of the proposed policy to the UK Government’s Cabinet Office seeking “thoughts/advice”.

17 Nov: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Liz Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”

17 Nov 1048: A senior Cabinet Office official in London responded saying: “This feels very uncomfortable to be highlighting a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers”. And went on to ask if the policy could wait until they had conducted their own review, and also questioned whether the policy for ministers was “more than you have in place” for civil servants. “Might be getting Nicky’s take on the question about Civil Servants.”

17 Nov: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office in London response to an unnamed private secretary in the Scottish Government, (possibly Somers) who replied: “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but the First Minister and Leslie Evans are keen to resolve quickly and discuss on Tuesday. I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants. But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct which includes a recent SG Minister?”.

Afternote 1: Questioned by the Inquiry Hynd said: “Given the commission from the Cabinet and given that Nicola Sturgeon had written to the Presiding Officer and was keen to take national leadership on the matter and given that Leslie Evans was keen that her duty of care to staff was full and comprehensive, delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for consideration.”

Comment: But of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.

Afternote 2: Lloyd stated that the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code, if necessary since the code was the responsibility of the First Minister.

Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure were the business of the Civil Service and Miss Lloyd had no legitimate input.

Afternote 3: Ignoring the protocols Lloyd and the First Minister’s, Principal Private Secretary (PPS) John Somers, decided to compile an “instruction from the First Minister” which would be sent to Ms Evans providing clarity that implementation of a policy relating to ministers and former ministers was within the scope of the original cabinet commission and they compiled a “final draft” note and forwarded it to the First Minister for her consideration over the weekend and signature ensuring work on the procedure would continue without delay.

20 Nov: Somers said  complainer, Ms A, arranged a meeting with him at which she told him of her past experiences in a way that would improve the organization and make sure that no one else would have to go through that sort of thing again. She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess her options for how she could best share the information. Her wish was to be allowed to speak to the First Minister which was why she had approached him.

Somers said he felt “overwhelmed” by the disclosure and  informed his line manager Barbara Allison and the Director of Safer Communities, Gillian Russell.

21 Nov: Somers and two unnamed officers met with Ms A and advised she would need to further discuss the matter with his line manager Barbara Allison, with a proviso that if she felt she was not being taken seriously or no one was listening to her, she should get back in touch with Somers who would set-up a personal meeting for her with the First Minister. He never heard from her. He went on to say that he did not tell the First Minister that Ms A had confided in him because it wasn’t his experience to share and had he done so he would have put the First Minister in a state of knowledge about something she could not have taken action upon at that point?”

Afternote 1: This is weird. Ms A advised Gillian Russell on 10 November.  His decision not to inform the First Minister denied Miss A the informal meeting she had asked for and escalated events from informal to formal. His reasoning was flawed since it was based on a rebuttable assumption. His choice of words is also significant. “at that point” could be a reference to the draft policy which he was working on with Lloyd. He fine well knew what he was doing.

Afternote 2: In her statement to the inquiry the Scottish Government’s Director for Communications, Ministerial Support & Facilities, Barbara Allison, who was Director of People from 2009 to 2016, said that Alex Salmond was a “visionary and dynamic” and although demanding and difficult to work for people also expressed that they enjoyed working for him. She had never heard of sexual misconduct concerns about him while he was the First Minister. Nor had she heard of any concerns being escalated to the status of formal complaints while she was in charge of human resources.

Afternote 3: Allison said she had not raised any issues of bullying or harassment with either Evans or Nicola Sturgeon and for clarity, she emphasized to the inquiry that she was not aware of any issues about sexual harassment” and added that she was a “huge advocate” for informal resolution, stating that if a matter could be resolved through this process, then “absolutely people must have recourse to a formal process”. She went on to tell the Inquiry that she was first notified of concerns in November 2017 when two unnamed female civil servants, (Ms A and Ms B) raised them with her.

22 Nov: Somers emailed the First Minister’s “instruction from the First Minister” to Leslie Evans, the Head of the Civil Service in Scotland. It read:

“As is clear from the continued media focus on cases of sexual harassment, in many instances, people are now making complaints regarding actions that took place some time ago. I wanted to make clear that in taking forward your review, and the new arrangements being developed, you should not be constrained by the passage of time. I would like you to consider ways in which we are able to address if necessary any concerns from staff, should any be raised, about the conduct of current Scottish Government ministers and also former ministers, including from previous administrations regardless of party. While I appreciate that the conduct of former Ministers would not be covered by the current Ministerial Code, I think it fair and reasonable that any complaints raised about their actions while they held office are considered against the standards expected of Ministers. I would be grateful for confirmation that this particular aspect is being included as part of the review you are leading.”

Note: The letter of instruction makes no sense since the newly written draft procedure was already in place and circulated within the senior Civil Servant management team. And James Hynd, the person who wrote the new procedure was not copied into the correspondence.

24 Nov: A fifth draft of Hynd’s, policy delegates authority to the Permanent Secretary to investigate complaints but makes clear the First Minister should also be alerted. A copy was also sent to the First Minister.

23 Nov: Nicola Richards sent an e-mail to Leslie Evans, copied to Judith Mackinnon “we would need to consult with the individual before disclosing to another party or the Police because of the risk of the matter getting into the press and the individuals being identified. We have a duty of care for our staff which means we shouldn’t do something that puts them at risk, so if they don’t want us to share information or go to the police, it would be very difficult to justify (sic) doing so (without putting them at risk of being identified and wider impacts.) This was subsequently changed on 9th January 2018 to read “SG as employer will not refer specific cases to police without the knowledge/consent of the employee.”

24 Nov: Lloyd, Somers, Hynd and a member of the Permanent Secretary’s office, attended a meeting to further discuss the content of the “instruction from the First Minister” and to establish and agree clear lines of responsibility between the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary. A second purpose was to reword the second draft procedure inserting changes designed to prevent the First Minister from stopping the Permanent Secretary, who has a duty of care to civil servants, from investigating a sexual harassment complaint made by a civil servant against a minister if the Permanent Secretary judged there was something to investigate.

Additional input from Liz Lloyd included the view that it was essential that the First Minister should be made aware of an investigation or allegation into a serving minister, before the event, in order to determine if, under the ministerial code, that minister could remain in post whilst an investigation was conducted. Yet she later stipulated that on that date she had no knowledge, of any of the allegations against Alex Salmond that were subsequently investigated under the new procedure.

29 Nov: Gillian Russell wrote to Ms A “as agreed, I sent your narrative on in confidence to Nicky (Richards) and Judith (Mackinnon). I have now been asked by Nicky and Judith if you would be prepared to speak to them following receipt of your narrative. As part of this discussion Nicky would like to share with you the developing policy for handling complaints against former and current ministers. This would give you an opportunity to test whether this would have helped at the time and also to consider next steps.” Later that day Ms A agreed to do so but reiterated her wish to speak first personally with Nicola Sturgeon.

29 Nov: Ms Richards, met with Ms Evans, who then went on to have a “summit meeting with the First Minister, “to discuss the development of the proposed procedure”.

30 Nov: Richards emailed Hynd, the Head of the Cabinet Secretariat: “Would you be able to send me the latest version of the process I agreed with Leslie Evans that I would test against some key individuals?”

01 Dec: Hynd sent the “eighth” harassment policy draft to Ms Richards.

04/05 Dec: Richards, redrafted parts of the “eighth” draft procedure completing her work 2334 hours on the evening of 5 Dec. She then forwarded it under cover of an email, to Evans, Hynd, MacKinnon, and an unnamed lawyer. The email stated: “As discussed earlier today, I’ve made some revisions to the process.”

06 Dec: Richards, met with Ms B and shared with her the content of the revised 8th draft procedure, seeking and gaining from Ms B confirmation that had the procedures been in place at the time she claimed she had been sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.

06 Dec: Mackinnon, met with Ms A and after sharing the draft procedures gained from her confirmation that had the new procedures been in place at the time she was sexually harassed it would have been of benefit providing clear instructions as to the courses of action available to her.

06 Dec: At 0528 hours Evans emailed Richards, Hynd, and a third person writing, “Spoke with John S (Swinney?) last night. We agreed you would send up tweaked codes in draft without any letters just now. and as discussed, info on the steps and touchpoints involved in the process also useful. Keep me posted back in the office tomorrow but happy to talk. John (Swinney?) also I’m sure.”

Afternote 1: Evans told the inquiry team that she did not see a “natural role” for Special Advisor (Liz Lloyd) in the Scottish Government response to the judicial review brought by Alex Salmond. But a freedom of information response listed 17 meetings at which lawyers involved in the judicial review met with Nicola Sturgeon or senior staff, with Liz Lloyd present at three meetings in Oct and Nov 2018. Evans, faced with the facts, was forced to correct her evidence to confirm that Nicola Sturgeon’s political special advisor, Liz Lloyd, did fully participate in meetings at which the allegations against Alex Salmond were discussed.

Afternote 2: Somers told the inquiry that he had no involvement in the development of the procedure used against Alex Salmond. This is not true. Somers, in his capacity as Sturgeon’s Principal Private Secretary, had a key role in developing the policy at a critical time.

5 Dec 2017: The “letters” that Somers was subsequently instructed “not” to send to Sturgeon were the “tweaked codes” which Somers and Hynd had been instructed by Evans to draft in line with the procedure as it had existed prior to her discussion with Somers, and for the purpose of intimating the new procedure to former Ministers and former First Ministers when it would be approved by the First Minister in due course. The “letters” disappeared from the development process after the discussions and the Scottish Government has persistently refused to disclose the contents.

Exactly what comprised the “steps and touchpoints involved in the process” was discussed by Evans and Somers but the content remains guesswork since no-one at the Inquiry asked Somers, or has ever asked Evans, what was meant by these terms. But what is clear is that both Evans herself and Somers were “happy to talk” to Richards, Hynd, and the third person about these “steps and touchpoints” in the radically recast procedure.

There is a hugely significant context of the very obvious involvement of Somers, acting on behalf of Sturgeon, in the development, actually, in the complete recast of the procedure. For now, it is worth noting that Somers’s evidence on affirmation was given, as Somers himself pointed out, with the specific advance endorsement of the Scottish Government. Civil Service jargon for “not my words govn’r!!””

05 Dec: First contact between the SG and Police Scotland was initiated by the Deputy Director of People, Ms Judith McKinnon, who on 5th December emailed the Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS), Head of Public Protection at Police Scotland.

An email response was sent on the same date and a physical meeting was arranged, which took place on 6th December, attended by the Deputy Director of People, Ms Judith MacKinnon, the DCS, the Chief Superintendent (CS), Local Policing Commander for Edinburgh Division and Detective Superintendent (DSU) for Edinburgh Division.

In addition to the email contact between Ms Judith McKinnon and the DCS and latterly to the DSU on the dates above, a number of telephone conversations and email exchanges took place between McKinnon, and the DSU on 30th January 2018; 31st January 2018; 18th April 2018; 19th April 2018; 1st August 2018; 2nd August 2018 and 3rd August 2018. The initial email contact indicated that advice was being sought on the SG approach to sexual harassment procedures responding to the #metoo movement, and, SG obligations in response to allegations made by staff or former staff which may constitute a criminal offence.

06 Dec: McKinnon, was provided with information in respect of the existing reporting mechanism within the Scottish Parliament. The mechanism had been established in response to UK wide media reporting of alleged inappropriate conduct involving members of the UK Parliament.

The mechanism had been established in response to UK wide media reporting of alleged inappropriate conduct involving members of the UK Parliament. A ‘hotline’ number had been launched by the Scottish Parliament that day which directed callers to support agencies and, where appropriate, the police. The ‘hotline’ did not report matters directly to the police but would instead direct callers to contact ‘101’ or ‘999’ in an emergency. McKinnon, was also provided with the advice that any potential victim or complainer should be provided with details of support and advocacy services. which would allow concerns to be discussed with an experienced advocacy worker with knowledge of the criminal justice process and to support the individual to report matters to the police. Advice was also given that where criminality was suspected, individuals should be directed to support and advocacy services, to enable them to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police. This advice was reiterated on several occasions throughout the ongoing contact between December 2017 and August 2018.

A number of hypothetical questions were posed during email and telephone contact around the criminal justice process. Police Scotland advised that, without specific details, no appropriate response could be given and no assessment of risk could be made. It was further emphasised that individuals should be directed to the relevant support services as it appeared that the hypothetical questions were predicated upon a specific set of circumstances and the SG response to that set of circumstances, rather than development of a generic procedure. The hypothetical questions also suggested more than one victim of potential criminality and as such, it was stressed that, without knowledge of the detail, any risk that a suspect might present, could not be properly assessed or mitigated. It was highlighted that SG staff were not trained to undertake such investigations, or to engage with victims. No details of potential victims or perpetrators were provided by SG and, throughout the contact, Police Scotland encouraged SG to refer victims to appropriate support services. Police Scotland was not invited to provide comment in relation to a draft ‘procedure’ or framework for the handling of harassment complaints, nor was any draft or final document shared with Police Scotland.

On Tuesday 21st August 2018, complaints against the former First minister were formally referred to Police Scotland by the Crown Agent. This took place during a meeting at the Crown Office, Edinburgh, involving the Crown Agent, the Chief Constable and the DCS, Head of Public Protection. The SG did not refer matters directly to Police Scotland.

Afternote 1:

Evidently the Scottish Government had no interest in developing a comprehensive procedure covering harassment in the workplace. Discussions between Scottish Government representatives and the police centred on a number of hypothetical incidents each of which provided indication that a particular former senior politician was the subject under discussion. The police backed off and raised warning signals about the SG methodology. Police Scotland went on to advise that the Scottish Government was not qualified or trained to undertake investigations on its own and any alleged victims should be directed to “support and advocacy services” who could help them decide what to do and whether to involve the police. The Scottish Government, ignored the advice and went on to conduct its own illegal and biased investigations and found Salmond guilty, and then when that illegality was about to be exposed it reported the complaints to the police AGAINST the express wishes of the complainers, and also against the rules it had itself written after taking the advice of the employees’ trade union.

Afternote 2:

Procedure: Para 19: Throughout the process, all available steps will be taken to support the staff member and ensure they are protected from any harmful behaviour. However, if at any point it becomes apparent to the SG that criminal behaviour might have occurred the SG may bring the matter directly to the attention of the Police. Also, if it became apparent that the matter being raised formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour, it may be necessary for the SG to consider involving the Police in light of the information provided. SG, as employer will not refer specific cases to the police without the knowledge/consent of the employee. Should either of these steps be necessary the staff member would be advised and supported throughout.

07 Dec: MacKinnon met with complainant Ms B.

10 Dec: Evidently there was a deadline for the submission of the procedure for the signature of the First minster and this was confirmed in yet another email and document enclosure and to the same people in which Richards wrote: “I’ve updated the timeline and this is the final version of the policy I’ve sent to Evans.” The “air” of finality clearly suggested that the civil service team, supported by legal opinion were confident it would be signed off and introduced.

12 Dec: Leslie Evans and Nicola Sturgeon met and discussed the “new” procedures.

12 Dec: Evans wrote to Sturgeon: “You wrote me on 22 Nov regarding the review of the Scottish Government’s policies and processes on sexual harassment. As we have discussed, we have a shared commitment to ensure that the arrangements that are in place are effective and contribute to the work already in hand to promote an inclusive and respectful culture across the Scottish Government.

Your letter, in particular, asked me to consider as part of the review, ways in which any concerns raised by staff about the conduct of current or former Ministers could be addressed. I have developed, for your agreement, a process for how complaints of harassment, including sexual harassment, might be taken forward.

This new process aims to ensure that I am able to fulfil my duty of care to staff by taking the necessary steps to support the member of staff and to put in train any further action that might be required within the civil service as a result of the issues raised.

As far as current Ministers are concerned, the process will also assist you in taking forward your responsibilities under the Scottish Ministerial Code.

It also sets out how complaints against former Ministers will be handled. Given that the process engages the responsibility of the First Minister for the application of the Ministerial Code, we will seek approval for the ongoing application of the process on each occasion the Ministerial Code is updated.

I should be grateful to learn if you are content to adopt the process set out in the annex. As you have requested, I am happy to update the Cabinet about the outcome of the review whenever you wish.

14 Dec: 0841. Richards emailed Private Secretary (2) to Evans, Hynd, Mackinnon, and the Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. I’ve amended the letter and policy in line with our exchange. If this looks OK I’d like first for us to run this past the unions before the final exchange with the First Minister.

I think I would just share the part about current ministers because that is what would form part of our revised F@W policy. I think the former minister’s process is more for us to know what we would do rather than to have out there as a published policy. Although we would share it if asked.

I copied in Head of Branch, People Directorate (1) and Judith because I’ll be on leave from close today. It would be good to get this tied up quickly. Head of Branch, People Directorate (1) – in preparation for sharing this with the unions could you abstract the current ministers part? cheers Nicky.

14 Dec: 1043. Hynd emailed Richards, Private Secretary 2, Mackinnon and, Head of Branch Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Thanks for this. Some formatting wrinkles had crept in which I have now sorted in the attached version (‘final’). Other than the removal of references to ‘sexual’, the text remains the same as that which went to the First Minister and on which she commented.

14 Dec: 1120. Private Secretary 2 to Evans emailed Hynd, Richards, MacKinnon, and Head of Branch, Peoples Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. I’ve just spoken with Hynd about another few small adjustments – just to ensure using consistent terms throughout. Nothing substantive. Hynd is kindly making those adjustments and will circulate the final version shortly so Head of Branch, People Directorate 1 you may wish to hold off your preparation of the version for Unions meantime.

In terms of timing to the First Minister, we will put the procedure to the First Minister once we have the green light from Richards. If we want to appraise the Permanent Secretary of timings and sharing with Unions, she is tied up in interviews today till 15:00 and then on leave until Tuesday – but contactable.

14 Dec: 11:32. Hynd emailed Private Secretary 2 to Evans, Richards, Mackinnon, and Head of Branch, People Directorate 1: Policy on Complaints Against Ministers. Dear all. With sincere and deepest thanks to Private Secretary 2 to Evans, here is yet another ‘final’ version.

20 Dec: The First minister signed off the new procedure.

 

 

 

Gender Bendering

The views of the vast majority of Scots have been bypassed by politicians at Holyrood who are determined to impose gender neutralism on the nation. It appears other governments in the UK are ready to embrace and legislate in the same way. The portents for the future health and wellbeing of our nation are unhealthy. But there is a better solution. Ask the people to decide the way forward in a referendum. Thank goodness the Australians have seen sense.

 

 

18 March 2021: Use of Distorted Gender Neutral language Banned in Australia

The Australian Senate passed a motion banning the use of “distorted” gender-neutral language in official government materials. It stated:

“Fundamental biology and relationships are represented through the following descriptors – mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, boy, girl, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, female, male, man, woman, lady, gentleman, Mr, Mrs, Ms, sir, madam, dad, mum, husband, wife broad scale genuine inclusion cannot be achieved through distortions of biological and relational descriptors.

An individual’s right to choose their descriptors and pronouns for personal use must not dehumanise the human race and undermine gender.

The use of distorted language such as gestational/non-gestational parent, chest-feeding, human milk, lactating parent, menstruators, birthing/non-birthing parent is deprecated and all federal government and federal government funded agencies are not to include these terms in their material, including legislation, websites, employee documentation and training materials”.

The motion was debated in Parliament following a furore over the 2020 publication by the “Gender Institute” of the “Australian National University”, of its “Gender-Inclusive Handbook”, which said that the terms “mother” and “father” should be replaced with “gestational” and “nongestational” parent.

Meanwhile, a UK hospital last month issued similar “gender-inclusive” language guidelines, telling staff to use terms like “birthing parents”, “human milk” rather than “mother’s milk”, “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” to avoid offending transgender people.

 

Green Party Senator Janet Rice slammed the government for voting in favour of the “bigoted” motion which denied the identity of trans and non binary people. Adding. “What happened to governing for all Australians? Scumbags!” (paraphrased: Frank Chung, News Australia)

 

Australia Speaks (The response from news readers was overwhelmingly in favour of the actions of the Government. Examples below:

So to not offend the 0.005% of the population, we demean and offend 99.5% of the population? seldom heard anything wackier in my 65 yrs…selfish, self-centred, distorted and unnatural.

Finally the tide is starting to turn against this madness. How did it even get to this, where our children worry that calling a biological female a girl or woman might offend someone?????

The Greens (extreme left wing Marxists) are a very dangerous group. Their goal is to destroy western society and cause anarchy, so they can set up their own government and be dictators. They want to control everyone and not allow freedom of thought, freedom of expression or free speech. They want to fine and jail everyone who does not agree with them. The book ‘1984’ comes to mind. The Greens want censorship of books, to ban films and ban anything they don’t like (reminds me of another time in history history in Germany). They want to “cancel” (destroy the lives) of everyone who disagrees with them. I’m surprised the Greens are not formally declared a terrorist organisation and banned.

Thank goodness it passed. Political correctness to appease minority’s ideas will create a generation of confused people when these kids grow up. Chest milk, gestational parents are all bullshit terms.

Last time I looked it was still called breast cancer, not chest cancer, but that would also be correct as men get chest cancer.

Time to take a stand against PC rubbish. Well done. Shame on Janet Rice for her language. Oh, that’s right, she’s left so it’s ok. Not.

The “inclusive language” leftists champion is just woke speak for the leftist elite and is solely used to exclude others who don’t agree with their ideology. It has zero to do with protecting people’s feelings.

That’s interesting, because one can’t get the truth from a Liberal or National party politician and you agree with them ….. best you have a rethink on your standards in life very quickly.

Just who is furious at common sense prevailing. We need to push back against stupidity

Good to hear some common-sense finally! PC has gone too far & it is confusing for our children to work it out.

About time someone stood up to this leftist woke bulldust! And also, calling other party members scumbags is Absolute hypocrisy!

Typical of the left. We must respect their version of normal but they can insult us when we stand up for ours.

Ok so Janet Rice has gone through the experience of her husband Peter transitioning to Penny. He/she died 2 years ago, so no negative comments from me. They have 2 sons. She is definitely qualified to talk about the thoughts and feelings of trans people and put forth their opinions. However, just because she has strong opinions, that should not overshadow the very vast majority of the population. For her to put forth the idea of removing everyday terminology because of her small circle of family/friends, is as selfish and irrational as someone asking that society stop reading and writing and only use braille as they think their blind friends will feel better about themselves.

All must be made to suffer to meet their demands. That is the twisted world they live in.

It is great individuals can still be protected in a society for their human right lawful way. A contributing foundation of a civil environment is protection from annihilation of the primary basics of humankind.

When I was in high school, a few decades ago, we were taught that there are only 2 biological genders, and to create a new life requires one of each. No matter how you ‘slice and dice it’, there are only 2 biological genders. How people want to be known throughout their life is up to them, but for goodness sake, stop trying to erase the majority who identify with their biological gender just to appease the minority.

All this talk of violence against women lately, and here you have Janet Rice trying to cancel and erase them entirely.

The next logical step is for the Federal government to mandate that everyone must use the toilets and changing rooms that correspond to their birth sex, and that transgender people must only compete in sports in events that correspond to their birth sex. That’s something I want to see.

 

 

 

Holyrood to be side-lined then shut down

The May 2021 Scottish General Election is a critical moment in time since the outcome will decide the survival or closure of Holyrood and it is imperative that Scots elect politicians with fire in their bellies taking forward the fight for independence. The established SNP is well able to provide good government but there are reservations about its lack of drive and a growing disenchantment with long serving politicians who appear to be content with arrangements for devolved government as they are and a wake-up call is needed. This would best be delivered by the election of hard-line pro-independence MSP’s through the “list” system. But with only a few weeks left before the election the portents are not favourable to Scots who desire change and progress.

 

Rule Britannia – Never trust a Unionist

Post Brexit the Unionist parties continue to “sing” from the same despised constitutional hymn sheet defying the aspirations of many Scots who wish to withdraw from a “Treaty of Union” forced upon their forebears. The Unionists are aware that England’s hold over Scotland is only political, in their hearts and minds Scots will never hand over their nationality to another State.

Mindful of the need to keep the natives in North Britain happy the Unionist Parties issued a statement saying: “The Scottish Parliament is a fact and it will remain in place, and it will be able to legislate and implement policies for the newly reduced devolved responsibilities. A Tory government will not interfere with that. It will continue to govern Scotland with respect. Scots will see that and that will consolidate our support in the medium to longer term”.

The key words to note in the statement are “newly reduced devolved responsibilities” since they expose the duplicity of Unionist politicians, of all political persuasions. The Tory Government has been evolving strategies for the removal of devolved government from Scotland from May 2010.

 

The man behind the strategy is anglicised Scotsman Andrew Dunlop

The quiet man of UK politics. He has been closely associated with the Conservative Party for most of his adult life. He was a special adviser to the Defence Secretary (1986–88) and a member of Margaret Thatcher’s Policy Unit (1988–1990).

The demise of Thatcher brought his budding career to a halt and he moved away from active politics to found and develop his own strategic communications consultancy business. Over 20 years later he sold the business, for a very tidy sum of money, to the Brussels-based Interel Group (lobbyists).

The return to power of the Tory Party in 2010 sparked his interest in politics once again and he linked up with his friend and former colleague David Cameron, in his former role of special advisor, with specific responsibility as the principal adviser on Scotland and devolution.

He was elevated to the House of Lords in 2015 allowing Cameron to take him into government, where he served as a minister in the UK Government as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland between 2015 and 2017.

He is a member of the UK Constitution Committee and an Expert Member of the UK Civilian Stabilisation Group and retaining close contact with Scottish affairs he is currently a Board member of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry.

An avid supporter of Boris Johnson he is the brains behind Tory Government policies in Scotland. In this respect, he revealed his thinking in a speech, in the Lords, during a debate on the “possible effects of Brexit on the stability of the Union of the parts of the United Kingdom”.

He said:

“Attention should be paid to the machinery of intergovernmental relations, which needs to be strengthened. We also need to look at the cross-UK synergies, weakened since devolution, which need to be reinvigorated.”

“We need to pursue a decentralised, pan-UK strategy for rebalancing the economy, driven by city regions across the country. This means moving away from seeing everything through a four-nation prism.”

“Many of the problems confronting Glasgow, for example, are similar to those of Manchester or Birmingham. They provide embryonic structures which can be built upon.

“There are two years until the next Holyrood elections. Strengthening our union must be an urgent priority whatever our post-Brexit future.”

https://caltonjock.com/2015/05/26/andrew-dunlop-the-murky-world-of-the-lobbyists ( This is a long but very enlightening read)

 

The 2014 Independence Referendum campaign – A lookback at the lies of the Unionist “you’ve never had it so good” strategy

“Better Together”: “Scots enjoy membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.” “The process for removing Scotland’s EU citizenship is? Voting “Yes.”

Ruth Davidson: “I think it is disingenuous of the Nationalists to say that “No” means out and “Yes” means in, when actually the opposite is true, “No” means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

David Cameron, Unionist Party Leaders & Ruth Davidson: “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how Scotland is governed.”

The illegal promises of the Unionists in the purdah period. The Party Leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament, but the award was predicated by a “No” vote on 18 September 2014. Which they got. The subsequent legislation retained 70% of Scottish taxes and 85% of Scottish welfare spending in the hands of the Westminster government.

The cross-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee said: “The Scotland Bill falls short in critical areas.”

A “YouGov” poll found that only 9 per cent of Scots believed that the promise of “extensive new powers” had been delivered. The passage through Westminster of the 2015 Scotland Bill was torturous. 56 Scottish MP’s, representing a majority of Scots, tabled in excess of 100 suggested amendments to the Scottish Bill. Mundell, then Scottish Secretary of State, rejected every proposal. The entire process was a joke.

 

Shipbuilding

Before the referendum, the “No” campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a “Yes” vote. The propoganda included the wide distribution of a leaflet saying “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and promising that only a “No” vote would ensure Govan and Scotstoun would get the order for thirteen Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

In November 2015, the media reported that the programme would be slashed because funding needed to be diverted from ship building to fund the aged and obsolete nuclear submarine fleet and trident weaponry. Later that month the UK government announced that the number of frigates to be built was reduced from thirteen to eight. 800 clydeside workers were subsequently made redundant. From that time the project has been repeatedly delayed and the number of ships to be built further reduced.

 

Energy

David Cameron heavily promoted a referendum “No” vote on the basis that: “when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.

Before the referendum Edward Davey the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs -generating energy and generating jobs”.

In June 2015 the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned. The report also advised that Siemens, a German “clean energy” company had announced it would not invest in any further renewables projects in the UK until the UK Government had decided whether energy generation would be through investment in nuclear energy or wind and hydro. Sotland hammered again!!!

 

HMRC Employment

Before the referendum it was claimed that HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland and that this would be at risk by a “Yes” vote. In 2015 the UK Government announced the closure of many HMRC offices – 2,000 Scottish jobs went.

 

Civil service jobs

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that only the UK Government protected civil service jobs in Scotland. But information in “SPICe” exposed the lie. Between 2011 and 2015, there was a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland, 17.5% than in any other UK nation. The rate in England was 12.4%, Wales 9.3% and Northern Ireland 16.1%.

 

Carbon capture

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as the programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage.” The commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.

Deciding on a nuclear energy future the Westminster Government abruptly cancelled the investment. Peterhead and Longannet, the front runners lost out. Canada didn’t hang about and developed the technology.

 

Social security

Before the referendum, Better Together suggested that independence would be a threat to the welfare state saying: “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland ” with a “No” vote.

Less than a year later the UK Government Chancellor announced £12bn cuts in welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

EVEL

In the weeks before the Referendum Scots were “love bombed” by tv personalities, pop music performers, politicians and heads of state of other countries with the heart tugging message that Scots were an integral and equal part of the UK “family of nations” and a tearful pleas of “please don’t go, we love you.

Only eight hours after after the referendum result was published Cameron announced the Unionist Party’s answer to the “West Lothian” question. Acts of parliament would be implemented, without delay, introducing English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) forming two tiers of parliamentarians in the House of Commons. The ill-judged changes created a myriad of potential political strife situations where Scottish MPs would not be able to properly consider and vote on legislation relevant to Scotland such as the Barnett formula or Barnett consequentials since this would be classified as English only.

 

Barnett Formula

The Vow, which was signed up to by each of the three main parties at Westminster clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of Tory government at Westminster initiating a systematic and cynical erosion of Scotland’s finances. One time Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove again raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

 

 

Social engineering

Social engineering is the control of behaviour through government legislation.

In recent years policy-makers in the Scottish Government have made claim that sex discrimination is the primary source of unfairness in the labour market and encouraged by an ever increasing range of lobbyist groups it has forced radical feminist agendas on Scottish society; eg the equal opportunities act, family friendly employment, sex discrimination and transgender recognition.

But recent research indicates that high levels of female employment, family-friendly and equal rights policies actually reduces gender equality and produces glass ceilings for women in the workforce.

The relentless pursuit of radical feminist equality, by a minority group of work centered women has backfired since its aims defy logic and reality which is that the numbers are stacked against them:

80% of men are work-centred and will retain their dominance in the labour market, politics and other competitive activities, because they are prepared to prioritise their jobs over lifestyle choices.

In consequence they are more likely to survive, and become high achievers.

 

20% of women are work-centred and this group is still a minority, despite an influx of women into higher education and into professional and managerial occupations.

Work-centred women are focused on competitive activities in the public sphere, in careers, sport, politics, or the arts.

Family life is fitted around their work, and many of these women remain childless, even when married.

Qualifications and training are obtained as a career investment rather than as an insurance policy.

 

60% of women are adaptive and are by far the largest group among women, and are to be found in substantial numbers in most occupations.

Their preference is to combine employment and family work without giving a fixed priority to either.  They want to enjoy the best of both worlds.

Certain occupations, such as school-teaching, are attractive because they facilitate a more even work-family balance.

The great majority of women who transfer to part-time work after they have children are adaptive women, who seek to devote as much time and effort to their family work as to their paid jobs.

In certain occupations, part-time jobs are still rare, so these women must choose other types of job, if they work at all.

For example, seasonal jobs, temporary work, or school-term-time jobs all offer a better work-family balance than the typical full-time job, especially if commuting is also involved.

When flexible jobs are not available, adaptive women may take ordinary full-time jobs, or else withdraw from paid employment temporarily.

Adaptive women are the group interested in schemes offering work-life balance and family-friendly employment benefits, and will gravitate towards careers, occupations and employers offering these advantages.

 

20% of women are family oriented and relatively invisible given the current political and media focus on working women and high achievers.

They prefer to give priority to private life and family life after they marry and are most inclined to have larger families.

They avoid paid work after marriage unless the family is experiencing financial problems.

This may be why these women remain less likely to choose vocational courses with a direct economic value, and are more likely to take courses in the arts, humanities or languages, which provide cultural capital but have lower earnings potential.

This group of workers is most likely to drop out of work centred careers relatively early in adult life.

Article compiled paraphrasing the views of: Catherine Hakim: London School of Economics

 

 

 

4 Dec 2015: Baron George Foulkes of Cumnock Proposes the Establishment of an elected upper chamber for Holyrood 

The Scotland Bill is currently in committee stage in the House of Lords.

Coming in the wake of last year’s referendum, the Bill is intended to provide Scotland with a robust set of devolved powers within the United Kingdom.

To this end it includes greater fiscal powers, including borrowing and income tax variation, as well as greater discretion over spending.

These powers are welcome, and highlight the historic opportunity for reform which the Scotland Bill represents.

It is important that we recognise the rarity of this opportunity, and be as bold as possible with the reforms we propose.

The area I think is in critical need of addressing is Holyrood itself. As it stands, Scotland’s unicameral constitutional set up is inadequate.

Having only a single chamber drastically reduces the checks and balances needed in a mature democracy.

It makes the likelihood of flawed legislation being passed much greater, because it does not provide a restraint on a majority government.

The importance of this restraint has been illustrated clearly during the past weeks in Westminster over the issue of tax credits, where the House of Lords challenged the government’s planned cuts.

This was bad legislation, forced through the Commons by a Tory majority, and the Lords fulfilled their constitutional duty by forcing the Chancellor to reconsider and eventually scrap his plans.

It is this sort of check which Scotland badly needs, or else it is vulnerable to similar legislation.

That is why I am tabling an amendment to the Scotland Bill which will provide for the creation of an upper chamber at Holyrood, a Scottish Senate.

The Senate will be empowered to function much as the House of Lords does in Westminster:

* To undertake pre-legislative scrutiny.

* To consider and propose amendments to legislation agreed by the Scottish Parliament for future consideration by the Scottish Parliament before it receives Royal Assent.

* To debate and make resolutions on devolved matters.

* To set up committees with the power to call or require Scottish Ministers to give evidence on any devolved matter.

The House of Lords in Westminster does great work, but its present system of selecting peers is undemocratic and anachronistic.

A Scottish Senate, comprising of 46 Senators elected from across the regions of Scotland, will provide a democratic, legitimate and effective guarantor of good government in Scotland.

For some time now, Holyrood has suffered from an increasing lack of accountability, stemming from a lack of checks and balances built into the system, and this is made worse by one-party rule.

The Scotland Bill represents an opportunity to insert sensible structures which will guarantee Scots a legislature which not only represents them, but also protects them from misgovernment. (Labourhame.com)

 

 

Gradualist Kirsty Blackman Interview-The Guardian

She is markedly less keen to talk about Scottish independence, the SNP’s founding principle. She says she is not in Westminster to pressure the government for a referendum.

“I don’t think most folk in their daily lives give two hoots about whether Scotland is a member of the union. The constitutional issues are not the biggest concern for an awful lot of people and, in fact, I very rarely talk about Scottish independence in the chamber.”

Comment: But differences between the Gradualists and Radicals is not new. Will the current unrest result in a repeat of the 1955 expulsions?

An Essential Political Marriage

In the period 1930-1936 the SNP and the NPS (National Party for Scotland) campaigned separately each fighting, in vain to gain a political foothold in Scotland. But in 1938 there was an acceptance in both Parties that they would only achieve political success by joining forces. This they did under the banner of the SNP.

Merging is not always easy

The (NPS) “Gradualists” political preference was for “Home Rule” within the Westminster system which would bring with it a devolved range of policies for Scottish politicians to enact. Over time, with the agreement of Westminster, it was expected controls would be expanded as the competence of Scottish politicians improved.

The Party established a dialogue with the Labour Party in Scotland, forming a “Scottish Convention and in 1938 the Labour Party in Scotland, presented its pre-war Scottish manifesto, claiming that their support for Home Rule was second only behind supporting the war effort against Japan, but in the 1938 British manifesto for Labour, (which had precedence over The Scottish labour Party) there was no reference to Scottish Home Rule.

SNP “Radicals” were not slow in broadcasting to Scots that the labour Party would never commit to Scottish Home Rule if there was any risk of it losing electoral support in England, through an article published in the “Scots Independent”: “Scottish Labour, Your pledges have been cast aside; the English Government formed by your Party refused facilities for the introduction of a Scots Home Rule Bill.” The “Radicals” of the SNP continued to challenge Unionist Party’s in Scotland, keeping the Party firmly in the public eye. But the continuous campaigning for independence irked the Unionists who controlled the media and through it they labelled the SNP as unpatriotic and communist.

The “Gradualist” dominated leadership of the SNP persuaded the “Radicals” to moderate their attacks on Unionist Party’s so that progressive Nationalist policies could be adopted and taken to the Scottish Electorate improving the prospects of SNP candidates at elections. The tactics were successful and although there was no political breakthrough the SNP attracted a solid base of voter support.

In 1955, after ten years without any major success the SNP was in danger of breaking apart and “Radicals” called for major policy changes including the adoption of more confrontational policies against the Westminster Government. The “Gradualist” Party leadership refused and expelled 55 “radicals”. The Party continued with its slow build to legitimacy and acceptance by the Scottish Electorate as an alternative system of governance.

 

The Tortuous trail to a United Ireland

The Irish Free State, comprised of 32 counties, came into being in 1916 and seceded from the United Kingdom under the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922. 6 counties under the control of Unionists, opted to remain with the United Kingdom.

The Irish Government introduced a republican constitution in 1937, which included a territorial claim to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland). The Oath of Allegiance to the British monarchy was abandoned and an elected President, Head of State, appointed.

In January 1939, the IRA Army Council declared war against Britain, and began a “Sabotage Campaign” a few days later. The plan involved IRA operatives based in Britain bombing British infrastructure, with a view to weakening their war effort.

But the British and Irish Governments cracked down hard on the dissidents and the campaign petered out. At the war end the severely depleted IRA membership faded into obscurity for a short period but recovered and formed a Dublin Unit which called for a ceasefire with the United Kingdom.

In 1947 a rebuilt and growing IRA held its first Army Convention since World War II and a new leadership was elected. It believed that a political organisation would be necessary to assist the progress of increasing its influence and members were instructed to join Sinn Féin. By 1950 the IRA had established complete control of the Party.

In 1949 the 26 counties formally became a republic under the terms of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, and terminated its membership of the British Commonwealth.

 

At the start of the 1950s the IRA started planning for a renewed armed campaign in the North and in the 6 counties, and in 1956 “Operation Harvest” was launched.

The border campaign, as it became known, involved various military units, “flying Columns” carrying out a range of military operations, from direct attacks on security installations to disruptive actions against infrastructure.

The Irish and United Kingdom Governments eventually curtailed IRA operations by breaking its morale through the introduction of internment without trial, first in Northern Ireland and then in the Republic of Ireland. The campaign faded and ended in February 1962.

The failure of the border campaign brought about a review of tactics between the leaders of the two distinct groups in the movement. A faction consisting of older IRA men who had served prison sentences together in the Curragh favoured traditionalism and now controlled Sinn Féin and a faction of younger, left-wing IRA members who now commanded the IRA Army Council.

It was made clear by the Army Council that Sinn Féin answered to the IRA, not the other way around. A hard-line stance that alienated the Curragh faction many of whom resigned from Sinn Féin in protest.

Sinn Fein/IRA adopted class-based political policies and rejected any action that could be seen as sectarian, including the use of IRA arms to defend one side, (the beleaguered Catholic communities of Northern Ireland) against the other.

 

In the period 1962-1969 the conduct and failure of international politics throughout the World brought with it an increasing incidence of USSR confrontational challenges to the Western nations of NATO coupled with sponsored proxy wars in Africa and South America and the Middle East. The Vietnam War resulted in the deaths and major injuries of many thousands of American and Australian service personnel.

The carnage went on for years but eventually people called time on the excesses of politicians and demanded that their voices be heard and their wishes acceded to.

The Civil Rights movement was born and millions marched for “equal rights” between 1967-1969.

In the six counties John Hume and other civil rights campaigners, appealed to the Unionist Government to ease its grip on the public, claiming they had a “right to march” and argued that other groups should be afforded the same right. But their pleas fell on deaf ears.  Unionist politicians were not inclined to permit any civil rights protests or marches.

 

But, adding insult to injury, on 12 August 1969 an Apprentice Boys march was given the go-ahead in Derry and proved to be the spark that lit the flame that became the Battle of the Bogside.

Nationalist protestors threw stones and bottles at the loyalist parade as it passed close to a Catholic area and Protestant supporters responded in kind.

Royal Ulster Constabulary officers (RUC) moved in and became involved in pitched battles with the nationalist in support of the Protestant rioters.

The rioting in Derry continued until 14 August 1969, attracting worldwide media attention. Within a few days, the trouble spread to Belfast ad the British army was deployed to Northern Ireland in August 1969.

From that time the population became totally polarised, sectarianism prevailed and barricades went up to keep protestants and Catholics safe within their ghettos.

But the citizens of the six counties wanted only to be afforded the same basic democratic rights enjoyed by other people of the United Kingdom and their wishes could have been conceded without any detrimental effect to the political arrangements in place at that time.

Luddite Unionist politicians in the six counties and London, with their stranglehold over the electorate, ignored growing tensions within the community, brought about by civil rights marchers and campaigners who encouraged civil disobedience and this led to a rapid escalation of violent clashes involving nationalists, unionists and the police. Unionist were bereft of vision and their stupidity brought the six counties to its knees.

The Provisional IRA wing of Sinn Fein took on responsibility for the defence of the minority Catholic population a policy change that morphed into a thirty-year armed struggle against the British presence in Northern Ireland.

Operation Demetrius, (Interment Without Trial) was introduced in Northern Ireland, by the Stormont Unionist Government, in the early morning of 9 August 1971 in response to warnings of a Protestant backlash if it did not act against the IRA.

Approximately 340 people from Catholic and nationalist backgrounds were arrested and locked up. The intelligence used in making the arrests was seriously faulty and scores of people ended up detained who had no connections with the IRA. Of those arrested more than 100 were released within 48 hours.

Internees were taken to the new built Long Kesh camp near Lisburn, (later known as the Maze Prison), Magilligan British army camp in Co Derry and the “Maidstone” ship in Belfast Harbour.

The operation prompted serious violence within the Catholic communities. 23 Catholic protestors were killed between 9 and 10 August, including 10 who died in the Ballymurphy Massacre in West Belfast.

The extreme measures alienated Catholics and Nationalists and provided a recruitment boon for the IRA, just as Bloody Sunday would do six months later in Derry.

Internment also added impetus to the unrest and it is estimated that nearly 150 Catholics were killed and many more severely injured by the end of 1971.

Many Catholic families fled to the Republic to escape the violence and were housed in special camps.

Internment, in which over 2000 people were locked up without trial, ended in December 1975. Of that total just over 100 were loyalists. The first loyalist being interned early in 1973.

 

The first years of the war were intense and ferocious. In 1972 alone the IRA killed 100 British soldiers, wounded another 500 and carried out 1,300 early warning bombings. In that same year 90 IRA activists were killed, a heavy toll.

But the tactic appeared to be vindicated when, in July 1972, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, William Whitelaw, secretly met their leadership in London.

The talks came to nothing because IRA demands were too high and a fragile truce broke down in contentious circumstances. But the process convinced the Republican Movement that Sinn Fein/IRA possessed the motivation and the means to force Britain’s departure from Ireland.

In 1974 the political wing of Sinn Fein/IRA addressed its less than harmonious relationship with the 26-County Irish Republic with the issue of a new mission statement:

“Sinn Féin will lead the Irish people away from British 6-County and 26-County parliaments and reassemble the thirty-two County Dail which will legislate for and rule all of Ireland”.

The content of the statement was the subject of widespread discussion over many months since its acceptance would bring about an adoption of new political thinking while ensuring that the military campaign remained paramount but closely harmonised with the advancement of a political dialogue.

But the new pragmatic Northern Ireland leadership of Gerry Adams was determined to get Sinn Fein to occupy the political vacuum South and North of the border with the purpose of getting the opposition to the negotiating table and this meant participation in elections and required the abandonment of the Sinn Féin/IRA constitutional ban on taking seats in Dáil Eireann, the issue which split Sinn Féin/IRA in 1969-70 and led to killing feuds between the two factions for a number of years after.

Adams won the argument and with his enlightened pragmatists on board they worked hard to ensure there would be no new splits in Sinn Fein or the IRA.

Political progress over the next 10 years was hindered, stalled and often reversed due to sustained Unionist military activism against the minority population, the intransigence of ruling political establishment figures and armed para-militant organisations in the 6-Counties.

The military campaigns of both sides intensified and casualties soared amongst the innocents of the population of the 6-Counties and in England. (There were at least 10,000 bomb attacks and 3,635 killings up to 1998, including 257 children.)

Yet the impact of the setbacks also proved positive for Sinn Fein/IRA who developed sophisticated strategies and gained political support in the USA and military assistance of Libya who supplied large amounts of weaponry and explosives, (purchased using £3m, the spoils of bank robberies and kidnappings.)

In 1979 the Tory Party, under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, took control of Westminster and adopted a hard-line policy against Sinn Fein/IRA .

In May 1980 on the day she was due to meet with Charles Haughey, to discuss the future of Northern Ireland, Thatcher announced in Parliament that “the future of the constitutional affairs of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, this government, this parliament, and no-one else”. Thus setting the tone for the discussions which achieved nothing.

Thatcher’s mettle was tested again in 1981, when on 1 March a number of Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Irish National Liberation Army prisoners in Northern Ireland’s Maze Prison went on hunger strike to regain the status of political prisoners, which had been revoked five years earlier under the Labour government.

On 5 March 1981, the nationalist MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone, Frank Maguire, died creating the need for a by-election and on 9 April 1981, after 40 days on hunger strike, Bobby Sands ran for the vacant Westminster seat from his cell and won gaining Sinn Fein worldwide support and significant financial contributions.

Thatcher continued to refuse a return to political status for republican prisoners, declaring “Crime is crime is crime; it is not political” and Bobby Sands died of starvation few weeks later. Still she would not relent and nine more men died.

Rights were finally restored to paramilitary prisoners, but recognition of their political status was not granted. She later asserted: “The outcome was a significant defeat for the IRA.” In all, ten men died.

Thatcher’s determination to face-down the hunger strikers, against strident international opinion, sent a message to Gerry Adam’s that the British intended to remain in Ireland.

Sinn Féin, boosted by the election of the hunger strikers entered into politics in the North in 1981 and contested seats for the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1982 on an abstentionist ticket.

Results were encouraging. The Party polled around 65,000 votes making deep inroads taking votes away from the long established SDLP.

In the June 1983 Westminster election, Gerry Adams’s stood as the candidate for Sinn Fein and won West Belfast. In his acceptance speech he said that Sinn Féin’s longer-term objectives (beyond 1985) was to “become the majority nationalist party in the North” and to make considerable political inroads in the 26 counties of the Republic.

The Republican Movement had finally demonstrated that it could fight an armed struggle and win elections at the same time. Most importantly they proved beyond doubt that they had a mandate acceptable to the electorate.

The gap between Sinn Fein and the SDLP also closed significantly. Sinn Féin got 102,601 votes and the SDLP, 137,012.

The cumulative results shocked politicians and provided impetus to the UK and Irish Governments to conclude the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Gerry Adams Statement to the Speaker of the House of Commons:

“My party holds a policy of abstentionism when it comes to the House of Commons. We believe the interests of the Irish people can only be served by democratic institutions in Ireland, not in Westminster. I will not swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. In adhering to this statement we are fulfilling the wishes of the electorate that sent us here.”

The Speaker’s reply:

“I understand your position. You will not be permitted to attend the House of Commons or participate in debates until you have complied with all requirements of this house. In recognition of your electorate’s wishes you will be afforded office space, an allowance for living accommodation and unrestricted use of the full facilities of Westminster, including allowances for the costs of staff, offices, and travel.”

Unfortunately on 17 December 1983, just as a dialogue with Unionist politicians was being established the IRA (acting out with the authority of Sinn Fein) placed a bomb in Harrods of London. There was confusion over the content and length of warning of the bomb and it exploded in the midst of Christmas shoppers, killing 8 people and injuring 80. The bombing was condemned by public opinion in the UK and Republic of Ireland and resulted in the cancellation of a political dialogue

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were furious and convened an urgent meeting with the IRA Army Council at which, with the support of the “Falls Road Think Tank”: Danny Morrison, Richard McCauley, Joe Austin, Tom Hartley, Alex Maskey, Paddy Doherty and Vincent Conlon, they re-established control by retiring a number of high ranking officers and local commanders.

There remained unfinished business with Thatcher and the Tory Party who would be made to pay for the deaths of the hunger strikers. In the early morning of 12 October 1984, the day before her 59th birthday, Thatcher escaped injury in the Brighton hotel bombing during the Conservative Party Conference. Five people were killed and many injured.

The attack was the prelude to another IRA bombing campaign, but with a major change of tactics. Attacks on Military and political targets would continue but the main thrust would be to damage the British economy and cause severe disruption through the destruction of infrastructure and commercial targets in England. This would put pressure on the British government to negotiate a withdrawal from Northern Ireland.

In February 1991 the IRA launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street, the official residence and office of the British Prime Minister, as John Major, then Prime Minister, was holding a Cabinet meeting. The mortars narrowly missed the building and there were no casualties.

In April 1992, the IRA detonated a powerful truck bomb in the Baltic Exchange bombing in the City of London, the UK’s main financial district. The blast killed three people and caused £800m worth of damage, more than the total damage caused by all IRA bombings before it.

In November 1992, the IRA planted a large van bomb at Canary Wharf, London’s second financial district. Security guards discovered it and immediately alerted the police and the bomb was defused.

In April 1993, the IRA detonated another powerful truck bomb in the City of London killing one person and causing £500m worth of damage.

In December 1993 the British and Irish governments issued the Downing Street Declaration accepting the right of Sinn Fein to contribute to peace negotiations, provided the IRA committed to a ceasefire, which it did in August 1994.

By 1996, the Tory Government lost its majority and had become dependant on Ulster unionist votes to stay in power. Irish nationalists accused it of pro-unionist bias as a result.

The government began insisting that the IRA must fully disarm before Sinn Féin would be allowed to take part in fully-fledged peace talks. Arguing that the IRA could use violence, or the threat of violence, to influence negotiations.

On 23 January 1996, the international commission for disarmament in Northern Ireland recommended that Britain drop its demand, suggesting that disarmament begin during talks rather than before. The British government refused to drop its demand. Responding to the commission, Major said in parliament that, for there to be talks, either the IRA would have to disarm or there would have to be an election in Northern Ireland. Irish republicans and nationalists wanted talks to begin swiftly, but noted that it would take months to organize and hold an election.

Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams argued that the British government and unionists were erecting “one obstacle after another to frustrate every attempt to sit down around the negotiating table” and warned American diplomats that the British government’s actions were “threatening the ceasefire”.

Th intransigence of the British Government infuriated the IRA Army Council who said this was one concession too much and a betrayal of the terms of the negotiations that had been previously agreed. Discussions foundered.

In an attempt to break the impasse, the British and Irish governments created an international decommissioning body, chaired by former US Senator George Mitchell. This was part of a ‘twin-track’ approach, with decommissioning to accompany political talks rather than precede them. Mitchell delivered his report in January 1996, setting out six principles that should be endorsed by all parties to the talks. This included a commitment to exclusively peaceful means. Mitchell recommended that all parties should sign up to these principles and that some decommissioning could take place during the talks. However, this was not enough to prevent the slide back to violence.

On 9 February 1996, the IRA released a statement announcing the end of its ceasefire. Two hours later a flatbed truck bomb detonated in the London Docklands, killing two and injuring nearly 100 people. Damage to buildings was widespread and estimated repair costs were put at £150m.

On Saturday 15 June 1996 the IRA followed up the attack when a truck packed with 1500kg of Semtex and combustible ammonium nitrate fertiliser, (the largest bomb of the campaign) was exploded in Manchester. The IRA gave a one hour warning allowing the area to be cleared of shoppers. There were no deaths but 212 people suffered injury. The explosion caused around £1bn of damage and destroyed the commercial heart of Manchester.

The 1 May 1997 election landslide of the Labour Government proved to be the catalyst for change since it provided Blair with the opportunity to deal with the Northern Ireland problem without the constraints of the Unionist politicians of Northern Ireland.

The IRA renewed its ceasefire on 20 July 1997, opening the way for Sinn Féin to be included in the inter-party talks that had begun under Mitchell’s chairmanship. The question of decommissioning remained though, and the British and Irish governments sought to fudge the issue rather than allow it to derail the process again.

This led to Ian Paisley’s hard-line Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) walking out of the talks, never to return. The DUP rejected the notion of making any concessions on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland or negotiating with Sinn Féin, whom they considered terrorists.

While deeply unhappy, the more moderate UUP remained in the talks. Given the DUP’s declared desire to break the talks, Mitchell wrote later in his memoirs that their decision to walk out actually helped the process of reaching an agreement. However, it was to have a lasting impact on the politics of Northern Ireland, as the DUP’s opposition to the Good Friday Agreement severely hindered its implementation.

Sinn Féin entered the all-party talks on 15 September 1997, having signed-up to the Mitchell Principles and after marathon negotiations, agreement was finally reached on 10 April 1998.

The Good Friday Agreement was a complex balancing act, reflecting the three strands approach. Within Northern Ireland, it created a new devolved assembly for Northern Ireland, with a requirement that executive power had to be shared by parties representing the two communities. In addition, a new North-South Ministerial Council was to be established, institutionalising the link between the two parts of Ireland.

The Irish government also committed to amending Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic’s Constitution, which laid claim to Northern Ireland, to instead reflect an aspiration to Irish unity, through purely democratic means, while recognising the diversity of identities and traditions in Ireland.

Finally, a Council of the Isles was to be created, recognising the ‘totality of relationships’ within the British Isles, including representatives of the two governments, and the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Referendums were held in both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland on 22 May 1998. In Northern Ireland 71 per cent of voters backed the Agreement, with 29 per cent voting against. While this was a significant endorsement, an exit poll for the Sunday Times found that 96 per cent of nationalists in Northern Ireland backed the Agreement, compared to just 55 per cent of unionists.

On 15 August 1998, 29 people were killed when dissident republicans exploded a car bomb in Omagh. This represented the largest loss of life in any incident in Northern Ireland since the start of the Troubles.

While the Omagh bombing was committed by republicans opposed to the Agreement, it returned the spotlight to the question of decommissioning paramilitary weapons, which the Good Friday Agreement had stated should happen within two years. Unionist anger at the refusal of the IRA to give up its weapons was combined with frustration at the refusal of Sinn Féin to accept the reformed Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).

Power-sharing proved impossible to sustain and voters in each community started to turn away from the moderate parties giving their support to Sinn Féin and the DUP, displacing the SDLP and UUP.

For a significant part of the decade following the Good Friday Agreement, devolution was suspended because of the inability of the largest parties from each community to reach agreement on power-sharing.

Progress was made on decommissioning, which was confirmed to have been carried out in September 2005, but political agreement remained elusive.

Eventually, the British and Irish governments hosted crunch talks at St Andrews in October 2006. There, Sinn Féin finally agreed to accept the PSNI, while the DUP agreed to share power with Sinn Féin.

In May 2007, an Executive comprised of the DUP, Sinn Féin, UUP and SDLP was finally able to take office. This time, the institutions created under the Good Friday Agreement remained in place until the current political crisis led to the collapse of the Executive in January 2017.

Despite the fragility of the institutions created and the continuing bitterness between politicians representing the two communities, the Good Friday Agreement remains an important landmark in Northern Ireland’s history.

The Good Friday Agreement was able to bring to an end 30 years of violence allowing Northern Ireland’s two communities to pursue their contrasting aspirations by purely political means.

At 2015 Northern Ireland elected 8 Sinn Fein MP’s to Westminster all committed to the abstentionism policy which prevents participation in any of the activities in the House of Commons.

But the power and influence of Sinn Fein is progressing well in Northern Ireland and in the Republic and the heady ambition of reuniting all of the people of the island of Ireland under one parliament is very much on the horizon. The Abstentionism policy has been vindicated.

Content largely extracted and paraphrased from The LONG WAR: The IRA & SINN FÉIN’ authored by Brendan O’Brien (1999)

 

 

 

Rape Crisis Scotland

Sandy Brindley and her staff have been at the forefront of the organisation for many years and are to be commended for the work they do supporting victims of rape and abuse, very often in very difficult circumstances.

But the relentless increase in the incidence of rape, sexual assault and complexity of the work has stretched the organisation well beyond its capacity and this has resulted in a growing backlog of cases in which the aggrieved person has yet to be provided with aid or assistance.

According to a 2014 Fundamental Rights Agency survey, one in three women in the EU experienced physical and/or sexual violence from the age of 15. 55% of women have been confronted with one or more forms of sexual harassment (11% have been subjected to cyber harassment). One in twenty have been raped.

Violence against the person, of any nature is abhorrent and perpetrators should be subject to prosecution and penal incarceration, if found guilty by a jury. But the final decision whether to proceed to prosecution or some other remedy should remain with the complainant, (not the police).

Attention should be given to the adverse impact on the health and well being of someone who has suffered sexual and/or domestic abuse and systems should be in place providing emotional, social, spiritual, legal support, guidance and provision of legal aid allowing the complainant access to a barrister of choice.

The Istanbul Convention on Violence Against Women and Girls, adopted by the Council of Europe in 2011 and ratified by the EU in June 2017 should be ratified and implemented by the Scottish Government without further delay.

Scottish Rape Crisis and similar support organisations should be merged and regrouped under one banner discontinuing the need for organisations to canvas Scots or plead for Lottery funding to finance the good works they do and to this end the Scottish Government should ensure that the Convention is properly implemented and enforced through the allocation of funding and human resources and the provision of appropriate training for case workers and other professions dealing with victims.

 

 

 

 

Jan 2019: Sociology student Adnan Ahmed was the subject of a nationwide media scandal

Adnan was a Criminal Justice Practitioner for Turning Point focusing on human/men’s rights. His job was supporting ex-cons and drug addicts to reform and integrate into society. He was planning to study criminology for a BA (Hons) in Criminology (at Abertay university in Dundee). in his 4th year.

In his 1st year he gained an HNC in Social Services (at the City of Glasgow college). In his 2nd he gained an HND in Additional Support Needs (at Glasgow Clyde college). At the time of his arrest he was half-way through his 3rd doing a BA in Learning Difficulties/Disabilities (between Fife college and Abertay university).

He also gained a BA in Business Studies (From Glasgow Caledonian University) and in his own time he produced a blog through which he taught a mix of mindfulness and human behaviour.

No complaints had ever been registered against Ahmed until a “BBC Social” video was aired on national television portraying him as a sexual deviant who sexually harassed women on the streets of Glasgow and other places creating a media backlash against him.

In his defence Ahmed said that all of his approaches were made and videoed, in the daytime on busy streets and in well populated areas, there was nothing sinister or hidden. Interactions were limited to less than 10 minutes and at no time were women made to feel comfortable or with the aim of exchanging contact details.

It was his experience that daytime dating was a safe way to talk to females. Men do the same thing in night-clubs, often under the influence of alcohol and this is deemed to be socially acceptable.

Initially the police said there was no criminal behaviour but the public was misled into thinking Ahmed’s conduct was criminal and he was accused of being a sexual predator on social media and in the newspapers.

The police canvassed for complainants after an MSP and Rape Crisis Scotland got involved, through the placement of a “Me2” type incident report number in the national press

Those that came forward with complaints did so after colluding and speaking to each other on Twitter and Facebook feeds, and through contact with the BBC.

They were further encouraged by an American social media troll,  who fuelled the unsubstantiated allegations through a number of fake social media accounts he maintained for the express purpose of adding credibility to the mischief.

Sandy Brinkley

 

Sandy Brinkley – Rape Crisis Scotland – Exerts her Power

Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland, took it upon herself to approach the police with concerns about the predatory behaviour of Ahmed. A man who had never raped anyone, nor had ever been accused or linked with a horrible word like rape.

Even after viewing Ahmed’s online “game” videos it was clear that he was simply having short flirty conversations with females who were willing participants, ending at most, with an exchange of contact details.

The real predatory stalker behaviour was displayed by Brindley who contacted the police, seeking to justify the existence of the Scottish Government funded quango, “Rape Crisis Scotland”.

Ahmed was not the inventor of online YouTube dating videos, which is a global concept, especially in Western nations.

Social media uploads from massive multi-million pound dating companies occur daily and Ahmed’s videos were tame compared to his counterparts in London and the States.

Brindley’s over reaction exposed the venom within “Rape Crisis Scotland” when compared to open-minded independent thinking women in London and the U.S.A who view the practice as a non-issue.

Brindley’s misogyny is not a crime but to publicly state “I think a number of behaviours shown in the videos were arguably caught by criminal law,” is utter nonsense.

But Brindley was right about one thing – misogyny is not a crime, but labelling an innocent man misogynist (when he was clearly not) was slander and reporting it to the police was an act of malice unbecoming of a Scottish Government funded organization.

 

Jan 2019: BBC Investigation Production Aired

Journalists, pursuing a sleaze story, hounded Ahmed for months forcing him to reach out to them responding with a detailed explanation of his business model and background to his client base as well as the scientific reasoning behind this method of face-to-face daytime speed dating.

They ignored his explanation preferring to warp his responses creating controversy demonising an innocent man.

BBC-The Social’s video went viral on the internet prompting Police Scotland to issue a statement saying “we cannot follow up on this as there is no actual crime to investigate, no crime has been committed.”

But they were forced to change their tune in response to a public witch hunt generated by the BBC portrayal of Adnan Ahmed as a demonic sexual predator.

It was truly bizarre and shocking that Scotland’s police force could be manipulated so easily. They were fully aware of Ahmed’s dating business nearly 3 years before the BBC The Social’s hate fuelled video falsely demonised him. Indeed they spoke to Mr Ahmed about it on a number of occasions in casual conversation and both male and female officers approved of it. There are phone calls and written police reports to confirm this.

Ahmed also worked extensively in conjunction with the police in his job as a Criminal Justice Practitioner. His behaviour was never “predatory”. He ran an online dating business on YouTube for all to see. His clients, video demonstrations and spontaneous conversations with women were conducted in daytime, on well populated busy city centre streets. He hid nothing, so how could his actions be described as predatory, shameful or dangerous?

Police Scotland are mandated to investigate matters neutrally and without prejudice. Instead they contributed to the media mayhem by making comments defaming a man who although innocent of any crime was arrested and charged with 18 incidents of “threatening and abusive behaviour.” He was then held in custody, untried and without the option of bail.

13 charges were subsequently dropped but the prosecutor pursued 5 charges, via a Scottish legal technicality called Moorov’s Law, knowing the jury were heavily influenced by the widespread negative press (radio, TV, newspapers, internet) against Ahmed before and every day of his trial.

The Sheriff Court indictment was framed to convict Ahmed on a technicality of Scottish Law (Moorov/ corroboration) rather than using substantial hard evidence, because there was none.

 

Moorov’s Law

The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law. The requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime.

Corroboration is required in Scots law as the evidence of a single witness, however credible, is not sufficient to prove a charge against an accused or to establish any material or crucial fact. There are two prime facts that are deemed to be crucial; the first being that the crime was committed and the second being that it was committed by the accused. Crucial facts must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by corroborative evidence.

The Moorov doctrine is a doctrine that deals with similar faulty evidence in Scots law, arising from the case of Moorov v HM Advocate in 1930. The Moorov doctrine is used where a series of supposed crimes have been committed and are closely linked by time, character, circumstance and place of commission as to constitute a course of conduct by the accused. The accused must be positively identified in each case. There may only be one witness to each individual crime who can identify the accused but where the offences are sufficiently similar the witness for one offence can corroborate the account of a witness for another offence. A legal technicality which is being abused by corrupt Scottish judges and the police.

 

2019: Glasgow Sherriff Court

Ahmed was not permitted to present vital evidence proving his innocence because Scottish court laws protect prosecution witnesses, even if they are lying.

The worst part is that the Scottish Justice System is designed in such a way that females who make false accusations face limited punishment for their lies, if there are any legal repercussions at all.

Ahmed was found guilty in a jury trial and given a two-year custodial sentence and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for ten years.

Sep 2019: Ahmed’s defence team lodged an appeal stating that their client had been denied a fair and impartial trial.

One year later, in September 2020 Ahmed’s legal team told the appeal court that Sheriff Wood had conducted an inappropriate cross-examination of Ahmed when he finished giving evidence and that he failed to properly explain the rules of corroboration to jurors in the case and he was wrong when he rejected a defence motion to have some of the charges thrown out on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to allow jurors to return guilty verdicts. In his report to the appeal court, Sheriff Wood said he believed there was enough evidence on these charges to be considered by the jurors.

The appeal court disagreed and said the evidence did not show Ahmed to be guilty of threatening behaviour. Lord Turnbull – who delivered the judgement, wrote:

“It does not seem to us that a polite conversational request or complement can be construed as threatening merely because it is uninvited or unwelcome and there was nothing in the appellant’s behaviour as spoken to by the complainers in charges 5, 6 and 18 which was overtly threatening or which could reasonably be construed as threatening. There was nothing in the appellant’s conduct in the city centre encounter as spoken to by the complainer in charge 16 which constituted threatening behaviour. He told her that she looked like Kim Kardashian, which the witness described as a compliment, although she asked him if he was joking. He subsequently sent her a text which was abusive. This was the only aspect of this charge which could have constituted an offence. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the doctrine of mutual corroboration would not have been available as between charge 4 and this aspect of charge 16. Accordingly, we are also persuaded that the sheriff erred in failing to give effect to the no case to answer submissions presented on the appellant’s behalf in respect of these charges also. In the present case counsel was correct to object to the sheriff’s questioning when she did. The exercise which the sheriff was engaged in had already lacked any element of clarification and at the point when she rose to her feet the sheriff appeared to be in the process of arguing with the appellant. It is unacceptable for a judicial office holder to address a responsible practitioner by telling her to sit down. Such behaviour carries the risk of demeaning the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of both the legal profession and of the public.” Ahmed was officially acquitted.

Comment:

The Scottish legal system thoroughly crushes any sane notion of justice under the weight of legal loopholes and strategies exploited by radical feminist politicians and “Rape Crisis Scotland” who shamelessly exploit vulnerable women in their constant posturing for the media. And the public are unconsciously making things worse because of its apparent contentment with a social media cultural circus!

This is a brief summary of the report of a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the BBC, Scottish media, Rape Crisis Scotland and their Government sponsored organisations against Glaswegian, sociology student, Ahmed. The original article (a must read) was first published at https://www.addyagame.com)

 

 

Corbyn rewarded for thirty years of honest endeavour

In 2010, the financial crisis, brought ended thirteen years of a Labour Government. In 2015, under the “wishy washy” leadership of Ed Miliband, Labour lost again. Miliband resigned triggering a Leadership election. Three former members of Miliband’s shadow cabinet were regarded as front runners and entered the race.

Jeremy Corbyn lodged his application near to the closing date for applications and many doubted he would be able to gain the support of  the 35 MP’s needed to be included in the ballot.  He upset the odds when he gathered 36 nominations.

Standing on a platform of “socialism” his message was dismissed as irrelevant by his opponents, Party insiders and the press and media. Odds of 100/1 were available at the bookies for anyone foolish with their money.

But the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and others misjudged the mood of the nation, following 5 years of austerity under a coalition government and that the election of the new leader would not be a decision for (PLP) to make. The Party membership would decide the outcome of the election.

Corbyn was in his element and addressed nearly one hundred rallies across the UK, speaking to ever increasing crowds each time.

Hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters were inspired by his vision of a socialist Government.

Former party members driven out by New Labour’s neo-capitalist policies and first time voters joined the Party increasing the membership from two hundred thousand to five hundred and fifty thousand in a period of less than six months.

He was duly declared Party Leader having gained an unprecedented 59.5 % of the vote, a larger mandate than any recent leader. But ominously, of two hundred and thirty Labour M.P.s only twenty voted for Corbyn.

The right wing press and media, spurred on by (PLP) members failed to support the Party and spread false rumours of coups to topple Corbyn.  But the plotting failed due to the support of Corbyn by the Labour membership.

Lord “Prince of Darkness” Mandelson, one of Blair’s closest advisers and an architect of New Labour remarked, “we are in a situation now where Corbyn is unelectable in the country but unassailable in the Party.”

But not long after, the shadow “Blairite” cabinet appointed by “peacemaker” Corbyn resigned, forcing yet another election on the membership, which the (PLP) tried to rig, only to be thwarted once again by Party members who returned Corbyn to office.

Having failed a second time the (PLP) started a character assassination campaign to overthrow him. When this tactic failed they cut a deal with the Israeli Government Lobby, the (JLM) and with their assistance and financial backing orchestrated an Anti-Semitism campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

The Jewish Labour Movement(JLM) Link up with Parliamentary labour Party (PLP) MP’s to overthrow Corbyn

The Israeli Government psychological warfare campaign against the Labour Party leader included the widespread use of an internet application containing instructions for social media users on how to contribute to the “mission” accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism.

One such allegation falsely accused Corbyn, in a 2010 meeting, of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. The truth was that Corbyn had hosted a meeting with Hajo Meyer, titled “Never Again For Anyone”, and it was Hajo, a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp and a fervent anti-Zionist who raised the comparison of Israel and Nazi Germany in his condemnation of the Israeli Government’s behaviour and his strongly held views in support of Palestinian rights. He once said of Zionist’s: “An Anti-Semite used to be someone who doesn’t like Jews, now it’s someone who Zionists don’t like”.

Read his moving story here. (https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/how-israel-lobby-attacked-auschwitz-survivor-smear-corbyn)

Another post invited Facebook users to click “like” to user “Nancy Saada’s” criticism of Corbyn’s “anti-Israeli” remarks which she claimed were used to disguise “anti-Semitism”. But the ploy fell flat when a photograph was published of an Israeli army uniformed “Nancy” posing on an armoured vehicle, draped with an Israeli flag.

The Act.IL application is a product of Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry, the organisation that directs Israel’s covert sabotage efforts of any opponent of Israel in the world. At its head is a top civil servant and former army intelligence officer whose organisation is staffed by veterans of various spy agencies.

The so called “mission” is yet more evidence of the Israeli psychological warfare campaign and is an aspect of part of long-term behaviour planning influencing operations by Israel and its lobby groups to smear Corbyn as “institutionally anti-Semitic.”

The operation was also aimed at pushing Labour to adopt and maintain a more pro-Israel policy aided by a number of Jewish MP’s in the Labour Party, the overall numbers of which significantly outweigh the Jewish population in the UK. And other MP’s, not of Jewish descent who join Jewish political lobby support groups in the Labour Party.

The Jewish Labour Movement, (JLM) is an anti-Palestinian group, deeply linked to the Israeli Government, and was at the forefront of the campaign to discredit Corbyn.

The group is run by former Israeli embassy officer, Ella Rose who admitted that as the (JLM) Director, she maintained close personal and working links to Shai Masot, the Israeli embassy spy forced to leave the UK after the Al Jazeera investigation exposed him plotting to “take down” a senior UK government minister.

Masot was also spearheading efforts to manufacture a grassroots pro-Israel organization within the Labour Party by infiltrating the Young Labour group using a tactic known as astroturfing. ( More on the Act.IL App here: (https://medium.com/dfrlab/how-a-political-astroturfing-app-coordinates-pro-israel-influence-operations-bf1104fa5c7f)

 

 

Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) force demands on Jeremy Corbyn.

Adam Langleben, (JLM) campaigns officer, issued Corbyn a list of demands including a requirement that Labour adopt “unamended”, the controversial “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) a definition of anti-Semitism which would define it as anti-Semitic to accurately describe the Israeli state as a “racist endeavour.”

Corbyn, instead of shutting down the claims as the bad faith attacks that they clearly were continued with his strategy of concession after concession and in return, offered a “dialogue with community organizations, including the (JLM) to discuss their demand that the (IHRA) document be adopted in full, even, as he acknowledged that some of its provisions had “been used by those wanting to restrict criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic.” This fuelled further attacks and compromised his position on important matters of principle, such as the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement for Palestinian rights (BDS).

It is also unclear just what Corbyn hoped to achieve in “dialogue” with a group with close ties to a foreign power, hostile to himself and his Party and committed to manipulating his Party members against his leadership, from within.

Unsurprisingly, the (JLM) curtly dismissed Corbyn’s opinion piece as “another article bemoaning a situation.” and followed up saying:

“These measures would have been welcomed, and maybe even celebrated, two years ago, but matters have reached the point of no return. Decisive and significant actions, not words, are the only thing that can bring us back from the brink.”

Just what the actions required by the (JLM) were, is left unsaid, but subsequent events indicate they meant the removal of Jeremy Corbyn from office.