Salmond v Sturgeon Round 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Previous thread here.

@WaxOnFeckOff

Would someone be willing to fill me in? I think I sort of know but sure I'm missing something?

Me too?

Can't wait to see Janey Godley's latest take on all this!

I would ask but I feel like any extra info might burst my brain entirely! It feels like everything I learn only makes it more confusing.

I'm reading back some of Murray's previous articles - one about the texts and whatsapps at the moment and the fact that they are confirmed to exist but wont be released.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

I agree with Murray about selective prosecutions as someone who has recently completed a 2 piece jigsaw without reference to his blog and thanks to the Daily Record and The Guardian.

Dani Garavelli should absolutely have been prosecuted for it IMO. She clearly did not do her due diligence, I honestly don't understand why it's been ignored whilst others have been prosecuted

It, rather uncomfortably, does seem like what matters is whether you are on the “right” or “wrong” side of things, rather than whether your publications enables jigsaw identification. It is hard to fathom.

I love Janey Godley in general but she seems to think it is a misogynistic attack and comparing Prince Andrew (does anyone actually think he's innocent?) to Nicola.

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want all these process errors fixed so women might actually get justice next time. Calling the investigation misogynist is depressingly reductionist.

okay, during the referendum every single Scottish newspaper was strongly unionist - apart from the Sunday Herald which ran a fair amount of pro-independence stuff. Following the ref obviously The National was set up, which is more favourable to independence generally, but can still be pretty critical of the SNP.
I wouldn't say they get an easy time on education at all - papers have been pretty damning on that have they not?
maybe the reason they're not so harsh on Covid is the government's done a pretty good job? They've certainly been taken to task over things too though - how fast the vaccine was being rolled out initially etc
are there any in particular you feel are soft on them? Which papers do you read?

@ATieLikeRichardGere

It, rather uncomfortably, does seem like what matters is whether you are on the “right” or “wrong” side of things, rather than whether your publications enables jigsaw identification. It is hard to fathom.

It does look like that to me. And that has had a big impact on the committee too

I think we see what we want to see as regards the press. I see the exact opposite other than more anti SNP pieces in the last few weeks than normal. We clearly look at things from different viewpoints.

I was trying to work out the timings of various things last night, when the text messages were going on. Murrell's contact with the police is unclear, but the text about making sure Salmond had lots of fronts to fight at the one time or putting pressure on the police was Jan 19.

This is from Salmond's statement:

"The First Minister’s team felt threatened by the process as did the civil service. The documentary evidence shows that special advisers were using civil servants and working with SNP officials in a fishing expedition to recruit potential complainants. This activity was taking place from late August 2018 to January 2019, after the police investigation had started."

The legal advice covers almost the same period, and the activity Salmond describes (from I assume the memory stick he was handed by the police) was happening alongside this. Salmond says the SNP & SPADs were working with the civil service, who were the recipient of the JR and I'm taking from that it's those people's belief that the sist would benefit those concerned for their jobs.

And when you look at this, it does make me wonder how many of them were privy to the legal advice being given.

There's a court hearing early November mentioned in the legal advice docs, but a gap on anything within November. As well as no minutes for the meeting where presumably the SPADs, civil service & others have been discussing the litigation etc. All this missing (so far) with the text messages as well not being public.

There's a huge chunk of very key information missing which I suspect is pretty damning for those involved & would (like most of the newly released info) support Salmond's claims.

This section from the legal advice is interesting as well.

Reading through all this, there's an argument that the IO's conduct & prior involvement with the complainants (bordering on encouragement) which is damning & was the reason they had to cave, but this extract covers the DO (Evans) conduct. She isn't seen to have been 'tainted by bias' and their assessment of that argument by Salmond's lawyers was weak.

This was advice given by Scotgov's lawyers while still being deprived of full disclosure (even at that stage) of key documents and information. They didn't know Evans had met 1 complainant & telephoned another. Their assessment of her in terms of 'bias' was hampered by wilful failure to disclose to their own counsel.

Again, the hypocrisy of people here damning others for leading people toward identification - while simultaneously providing details to guide people toward identification - is astounding. Even worse, because the examples given have been accidental while on here it's deliberate. As was Craig Murray's efforts - as he freely admits.
Quite sickening.
Obviously not an ounce of empathy for anyone who could be harmed

@TheShadowyFeminist according to a report from the court case the 'strong repercussions " message was late August 2018, so around the time the judicial review was filed

I am not specifically critical of the articles sharing info that identifies people because I don’t know what’s right - I’m just critical of the way in which some people have been charged with contempt and others not, the lack of clarity around the what the rules are, the inequality of who has access to the legal advice to protect them and who doesn’t, and the inequality of who has the ability to confer with other media sources to ensure that they don’t jigsaw identify etc. It’s a very difficult balance because obviously it is in the public interest that we do know some information about the trial.

I just don't buy into the idea that anything sturgeon said to explain or dismiss 'conspiracy theories' as she called them, is accurate. The fact we still have the November gap, no meeting minutes, text messages from the same period Salmond says is the basis of his accusations against Murrell, McCann, Ruddick, Lloyd etc. not in the public domain, sturgeon can maintain the lie that there was no belief that sisting the case would get them 'off the hook'.

Salmond said it was the efforts of his solicitor that pushed back on the police interview date & which meant the JR case was able to proceed & be resolved prior to any criminal charges etc. So Scotgov can say they didn't try & sist the case, but they didn't have to do anything active until the charges were made. And it was Salmond's side that held that off.

I can well believe, even without seeing the texts, they those likely to be impacted by the fall out, were clinging onto the hope there was enough evidence found to charge Salmond. The efforts made by those who were trying to find others to make complaints - by the civil service, the SNP etc. after the police were supposed to be investigating - seems disproportionate to the position claimed.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

I am not specifically critical of the articles sharing info that identifies people because I don’t know what’s right - I’m just critical of the way in which some people have been charged with contempt and others not, the lack of clarity around the what the rules are, the inequality of who has access to the legal advice to protect them and who doesn’t, and the inequality of who has the ability to confer with other media sources to ensure that they don’t jigsaw identify etc. It’s a very difficult balance because obviously it is in the public interest that we do know some information about the trial.

The inconsistencies are problematic, as is the appearance of politically motivated prosecutions. There's another journalist taking a malicious prosecution case at the moment.

@TheShadowyFeminist - great post.

I don't think anyone sat down at the beginning of this and decided to mastermind a conspiracy. But I do think that as events happened, advantages and opportunities were taken by various people at various times and the rolling stone gathered plenty of moss. I think PM, despite the Mr Magoo act, is up to his oxters.

Ooft that mumsnet outage had me thinking they were on to us.

Well if you want a conspiracy theory, militant transactivist SNP supporters have to been attempting to pull down Mumsnet! An inverted compliment perhaps?

@WaxOnFeckOff

I don't think anyone sat down at the beginning of this and decided to mastermind a conspiracy. But I do think that as events happened, advantages and opportunities were taken by various people at various times and the rolling stone gathered plenty of moss. I think PM, despite the Mr Magoo act, is up to his oxters.

This is broadly my thinking too

Must be. Exhilarating.

@WaxOnFeckOff

I don't think anyone sat down at the beginning of this and decided to mastermind a conspiracy. But I do think that as events happened, advantages and opportunities were taken by various people at various times and the rolling stone gathered plenty of moss. I think PM, despite the Mr Magoo act, is up to his oxters.

I too agree with this.