Lessons need learned and change is required. The alphabet women and their allies have demonstrated the gross unfairness of granting anonymity to the complainants in sex cases while not affording the same privilege to the “accused”. All Scotland has witnessed that unfairness and that it continues today brings shame on our political environment, media sectorContinue reading "URGENT CHANGE REQUIRED"

Still the victim.

Lessons need learned and change is required.

The alphabet women and their allies have demonstrated the gross unfairness of granting anonymity to the complainants in sex cases while not affording the same privilege to the “accused”.

All Scotland has witnessed that unfairness and that it continues today brings shame on our political environment, media sector and in particular our police and. justice system which has witnessed a complete collapse in public support and respect in the last few years.

So how can it be repaired? Neale Hanvey MP yesterday on this site laid out the crucial importance of a proper separation of powers between Government, Crown Office and the rest of the Justice System. That “separation” has not been in place in recent years and enormous damage has been done.

Someone once wrote “Justice must be done AND SEEN TO BE DONE”. Put plainly that has not, and is not happening in Scotland and therefore urgent changes must be made to repair this situation. Not least because it is those functions that ensure our freedoms. Valuable freedoms that are crucial to our wellbeing and which, if lost will cause much damage, as well as heartache and perhaps even bloodshed to recover. This is no small matter.

I will leave it to those more qualified in the law to come up with the solutions to ensure proper separation of powers but I have a couple of common sense solutions to the problems created by the Alphabet women and their allies. I think there are two obvious solutions and also a strict condition that should apply in all cases where anonymity is granted. These are

  1. Extend anonymity to the accused as well as the complainants. This anonymity to be lost the minute the accused is found guilty of any accusation. The justification for this is completely evidenced by Alex Salmond’s experience who has been extensively smeared in advance of the trial through the malicious leaking of the charges he was facing. Also during the trial where the MSM studiously avoided reporting the defence witnesses evidence, and after the trial where the alphabet women, aided and abetted by the Government funded Rape Crisis Centre, thought it appropriate to issue the same smears all over again in a press release despite the fact that Mr Salmond had been cleared by a mainly female jury of every charge he faced. We now have a book being produced for profit using the same discredited “evidence” from anonymous sources.
  2. An alternative to the above would be to recognise the very significant privilege it is to be granted lifetime anonymity. It should not be handed out in every case. There should be a judgement made by a judge as to the severity of the accusation before consideration of anonymity should be considered. For instance one of the alphabet women who is currently enjoying lifetime anonymity made the accusation that Mr Salmond once touched one of the twirls in her hair while in a lift with other people, none of whom noticed the supposed “offence”.
  3. Anytime lifetime anonymity is granted and the jury find the accused innocent then any further public comment made either by the original complainant or through a connected third Party about the case or the innocent party should result in the anonymity privilege being removed and a suitable legal penalty should be applied in punishment, this to include possible imprisonment of the offender if it can be shown the damage inflicted on the innocent Party is sufficient to merit it.

Now of course I am aware that the reason anonymity is not currently afforded to the accused is the hope that by publishing their name other potential victims will come forward to strengthen the case against the accused. I can see that reasoning however as the Alex Salmond case demonstrates conclusively it can be grossly misused when a coven of politically motivated complainants plot a series of malicious, often trivial accusations, solely for the purpose of enabling the Moorev Doctrine to be introduced to make lifetime anonymity available for all the complainants. This doctrine can be used as a substitute in terms of evidence to suggest a pattern of behaviour or dubious character in terms of the accused. This explains the pathetic nature of many of the “charges” Alex Salmond faced. Indeed there are WhatsApp messages where one of the complainants boasts of discovering a way they can all be granted lifetime immunity if only they can arrange these minor complaints. It was a tactic.

The alphabet women toyed with the justice system, by maliciously revealing the charges and the identity of Mr Salmond to the Daily Record they effectively removed any ability to review and dismiss many of the charges before they ever came to court. Given the fact it was a former First Minister that was the accused any such decision would have harmed Mr Salmond as it would be open to smears of favoritism. Instead they had to be eventually dismissed by a jury, as they were, at the end of a very expensive trial.

When I say an expensive trial it was not expensive for everyone. No the Alphabet women were not of pocket. They made their malicious accusations, they never had any legal costs, no the Crown Office through the taxpayers covered all their costs. The “accused” however, even after every single allegation failed to attract a single guilty verdict, was left with a huge bill for his defence costs. There is no justice in this.

Readers should pay particular attention to this point with the Hate Crime laws coming there is nothing to stop people, even these same people, making malicious allegations against anyone, secure in the knowledge the accuser attracts no financial cost in doing so but which will, even if their target is eventually found innocent, have the impact of leaving them financially ruined. Let nobody tell me this is not a risk. I have seen it operate against the former First Minister of Scotland. If he can be targeted in this way and face huge financial cost, despite his innocence, then everyone of us, male or female could face the same problem. It becomes more likely if the Hate Crime Legislation comes into operation. Think about that would you?

It wasn’t just the anonymity issue that worried me about the Salmond trial. By far the most serious charge came from Miss H who accused him of “attempted rape”. As we all now know in the course of the trial that allegation was shown to be false. That Miss H was not even in the building on the night she alleged the attempted rape took place, there are even reports she wasn’t in the same city.

Now I am not saying attempted rape is not a serious offence. It is all too common but let me ask you this? Have you ever heard of a team of officers interviewing over 400 people in a series of over 700 face to face interviews in the lead up to trial. Worse those interviews turned up ZERO other offences to add to the list of malicious, minor allegations made by the Alphabet women. This is a scandalous level of investigation cost for such a crime. Does anyone believe there has ever been another named accused facing the same charge who has had their “crime” investigated at such cost to the public?

Who sanctioned this exhaustive fishing exercise at such huge cost to the taxpayer? Did the police not wonder after 100,200,300,400, 500 interviews that had turned up nothing what was going on? Who was directing this huge task? We are told budgets are tight, why was that particular case made an exception? Who decided that and why? I am told the police did ask those questions but were told by the Crown Office to forget any budgetary concerns on this specific case and do as they had been directed. Who has the power to make such a exceptional decision and where was this direction coming from?

The Alex Salmond trial from start to finish was a political plot planned by senior Scottish Civil Servants and Scottish SNP politicians. The Crown Office was complicit in this and acted as a barrier to disclosing the information required for the original inquiry. Those barriers will no longer exist in the subsequent legal actions Mr Salmond has initiated and we might finally get the information we need to cast the full light of a proper investigation into what happened, when and why it happened and who really was behind it all. I can’t wait. For all of us that live in Scotland and who believe in honesty and justice this disgusting example of political persecution and plotting must be fully exposed.

I am, as always



Unfortunately a number of pro Indy sites have turned out to be merely pro SNP sites and have blocked a number of bloggers, including myself. We have managed to frustrate these efforts to close us down through our readers sharing our articles and building our audience. In addition many have taken out free direct subscriptions. I very much appreciate this support.


Free subscriptions to this site are available on both the Home and Blog pages of this website. This ensures you are notified of all future postings. You will be most welcome to join the growing army of people who have already registered for this free service.