Reproduced at the direct request of Mark Hirst. The original was first published on Gordon Dangerfield’s excellent blog.

Gordon Dangerfield Gordon Dangerfield8 hours ago

Last week my firm sent the following letter to the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, QC:

“We act for Mr Mark Hirst. Please treat this letter as intimation of a claim by him against your staff.

“Mr Hirst was prosecuted for an offence under section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 following comments which he made upon the acquittal of former First Minister Mr Alex Salmond. On 07 January 2021 the charges against Mr Hirst were found to be irrelevant, and a no case to answer submission was upheld.

“It is clear that there never was any basis for him being prosecuted, and the prosecution against him lacked reasonable and probable cause both objectively and subjectively. We also maintain that the prosecution was brought maliciously for the following reasons.

“First, it is clear and obvious that there was no reasonable or probable cause. This of itself is instructive in proving malice.

“Second, a warrant was obtained against our client when the primary evidence was plainly available. The warrant application failed to specify the threats that were being made, and was fundamentally misleading to the court. It was disproportionate to obtain a warrant and the application was not framed in a proper manner. It made false allegations about threats being made, which were established to be untrue.

“We are of course aware of the terms of section 170 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 which bears to provide immunity from suit for prosecutors when no imprisonment of the accused was imposed. However, having consulted with Senior Counsel, we consider that that provision is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention in that it fails to provide a remedy when a wrong is committed.

“Accordingly, our client’s instructions are that we are to place you on notice that we intend challenging the compatibility of section 170 should you fail to admit liability and offer fair compensation.

“Finally, we wish to make clear that this prosecution appears to have been politically motivated. Mr Hirst was, plainly, a supporter of Mr Salmond. We shall of course investigate whether Rape Crisis Scotland were encouraged to make a complaint for political motives, and indeed whether the complainers in the Salmond trial were similarly encouraged to do so.

“We enclose a copy of a writ that we shall be sending to the Chief Constable which is self explanatory. But prior to service, we would reiterate our demand that you admit liability, and confirm that compensation will be paid to our client, failing which we intend altering the writ to include the Lord Advocate as a second defender.

“Please respond to this letter within 21 days.”

I know that many readers of this blog are interested in Mark’s case and I hope it will be a useful service to you — particularly those of you who are prospective victims of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), and who are contemplating similar action – for me to unpack the contents of this letter a little.

No reasonable or probable cause

Until very recently, it was thought that the Scottish Lord Advocate and COPFS were immune from being sued for malicious prosecution. This was contrary to the position in England, where it was well established that such action was competent.

Partly because of this belief in absolute immunity, and partly because of the extraordinary degree of political protection which they enjoy, COPFS have, for many years now, been a law wholly unto themselves in Scotland, accountable for all practical purposes to no-one.

And so it may have continued had not COPFS made a major miscalculation. They picked for once on victims who had both the resources and the resolve to fight back, namely the liquidators of the former Rangers FC. When the cases against them ended in utter humiliation for the police and Crown, these men sued for malicious prosecution, and a bench of five judges ruled that COPFS, like everyone else in the land, should at last be held accountable for their wrongdoing.

Subsequent decisions in related proceedings have clarified what will be required for such actions to succeed. The first requirement is that COPFS must have proceeded without “reasonable or probable cause”.

There is both a subjective and an objective element to this.

In a very recent case involving one of the Rangers liquidators, the judge said this of the objective element:

“Where, as here, the charges were dismissed as irrelevant, it seems to me that it will normally be difficult to argue that reasonable and probable cause existed from an objective standpoint. A decision that a charge is irrelevant is a decision that even if the Crown were to prove all of the facts narrated in the indictment, the essentials of the criminal charge are not present. As a general rule, it can hardly be said, on an objective assessment, that there is reasonable and probable cause for initiating and continuing proceedings if a conviction cannot result because the circumstances averred do not, as a matter of law, amount to commission of the offence charged.”

As our letter to the Lord Advocate sets out, these were exactly the circumstances of Mark’s case. The sheriff made quite clear in dismissing the case that all of the facts brought before the court by COPFS did not constitute any crime known to the law of Scotland.

Any such crime existed only in the minds of Mark’s powerful accusers, and of their mouthpiece Rape Crisis Scotland, and had no business at all in entering the minds of the police or COPFS.

So much for the objective element.

The subjective element can be boiled down to this:

Did the then Lord Advocate and his COPFS staff have a reasonable basis for belief that they had reasonable and probable cause to proceed against Mark even although, objectively, they didn’t? (And yes, I know it sounds ridiculous, but welcome to the world of the law and lawyers.)

I can think of only one argument the Crown can make here, namely that the then Lord Advocate and his staff at COPFS had an understanding of the criminal law of Scotland so far below the level of the average first year law student that they genuinely believed that Mark’s political comments on a matter of public interest were a crime.

I wish them good luck in making that argument.

So much, then, for the subjective element.


As our letter suggests, “malice” in this context has a specific legal meaning which bears some relation to its meaning in ordinary usage but is quite far from being the same. In practice, what it means is that some further evidence of bad faith beyond the complete lack of justification for a prosecution should usually be present for “malice” in the legal sense to be established.

In a case like Mark’s, as in the Rangers cases, it’s likely that only a very little more need be shown and, as our letter again indicates, there is in fact a ton more to be had. Here is a paragraph from the writ we’ll be serving on the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, as set out in our letter:

“Further, the bringing of the proceedings by the police amounted to malicious prosecution of the pursuer without that reasonable or probable cause. The police obtained the warrant to search the pursuer’s home on the basis that it appeared that the pursuer had committed an offence. He had not. The police did not produce any information to the Sheriff which would have permitted scrutiny of the application as, had that been done, it would have been obvious that no offence had been committed. It was in any event unnecessary for a warrant to be obtained and it was disproportionate to seek one. As averred above, the police had obtained a copy of the postings in any event. The obtaining of the warrant in such circumstances was oppressive, an abuse of power and unnecessary and indicative of malice.”

In short, we’ll seek to establish that the warrant to search Mark’s home, itself unnecessary in any case, was obtained by the police and COPFS on fictitious grounds. On the basis of that warrant, the police and COPFS, knowing full well what they were doing, seized items which were part of the tools of Mark’s trade as a journalist, thereby depriving him of tools by which he might make his living.

This is far from the only ground on which we’ll seek to demonstrate “malice” – see, for example, my comments below about Rape Crisis Scotland – so suffice it to say that in our submission there will be more than enough COPFS “malice” in what was done to Mark to meet the legal requirement many times over.

Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

The relevant part of this provision is in these terms:

“No judge, clerk of court or prosecutor in the public interest shall be found liable by any court in damages for or in respect of any proceedings taken, act done, or judgment, decree or sentence pronounced in any summary proceedings under this Act, unless … the person suing has suffered imprisonment in consequence thereof …”

This was a rather extraordinary provision even before the Rangers cases, when it was still thought that the Lord Advocate and COPFS had absolute immunity across the board from civil actions for malicious prosecution. In light of the law as it now stands, the provision is, in my opinion, completely untenable and will inevitably be struck down by Article 6.

There is no reason in law or in common sense why COPFS should be liable in damages for maliciously prosecuting someone who goes to jail as a result but not someone who is, rightly, acquitted of the charges against them. Nor is there any reason why people tried before a jury (in “solemn proceedings”) should be treated differently from those tried by a judge alone (in “summary proceedings”).

On the grounds summarised in our letter, this is a provision which must be challenged, and will be challenged, in Mark’s action. It is a challenge which, if successful, will have obvious and far-reaching consequences.

Senior Counsel

I’ll admit that it goes against the grain for me to instruct senior counsel in any case as I take great pride in arguing all of my cases myself. I’ve been delighted, though, to make an exception for Andrew Smith QC, whose services we’re privileged to have secured for Mark’s case.

Along with a couple of other top QCs, Andrew has been, and continues to be, in the forefront of the successful challenge on COPFS immunity that has made possible the action we’re now taking for Mark. He knows this novel and developing area of Scots law with a thoroughness and grasp of detail that is unrivalled at the Bar.

That in itself is a fact that will in no way be lost on our opponents.

I know that Andrew is relishing what lies ahead and in particular is relishing our challenge to section 170, which will be of obvious significance to all of the activists who have been and are being prosecuted on political grounds by COPFS at the behest of the Scottish Government.

Frankly, there’s no-one I’d rather have on board.

Political Motives: Rape Crisis Scotland

The following paragraph is taken from the writ prepared by Andrew and which we’ll be serving on the Chief Constable of Police Scotland in due course, as set out in our letter above.

“On 31 March 2020, STV News posted an article online quoting Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland (a Scottish Government funded pressure group) stating that ‘the comments [of the pursuer] are sinister, threatening and to identify the women would be illegal.’ On 02 April 2020, the Daily Record, a tabloid newspaper distributed mostly in central Scotland, alleged that the complainers in the case against Alex Salmond had made a complaint to the police about the pursuer’s post. On 02 April 2020, the pursuer contacted the police to advise that he had heard that the police had received a complaint and he offered to cooperate.”

Remember when reading this that Mark’s accusers – which is to say, Alex Salmond’s accusers – include in their number some of the most powerful people in Scotland.

Remember that Alex Salmond was nonetheless acquitted of all of the charges brought by these powerful accusers by a jury of his peers and on the clearest possible evidence that he was innocent.

And remember what some of the charges brought by these powerful accusers in the High Court of Justiciary – the highest criminal court in the land, where only the most serious crimes are supposed to be prosecuted – actually were:

Touching someone’s leg over her clothing in a car (witnessed by none of the other persons present in the car, including the person’s spouse);

Touching someone’s arms and hips over her clothing and congratulating her that she had lost weight while in a nightclub and in the presence of numerous other people (but again, it seems, witnessed by no-one else present);

Touching someone’s buttock over her clothing during a public photo-shoot (again, witnessed by none of the numerous other people present at the event).

Think of any ordinary person – or Rape Crisis Scotland itself, for that matter – trying to persuade the police even to investigate such allegations, let alone persuading COPFS to prosecute them in the highest court in the land, and you’ll get an idea of just how powerful these accusers are, and just how much of a mouthpiece for them Rape Crisis Scotland, the police and COPFS have become.

Hopefully, you’ll get an idea too of why this is an area which we intend to pursue in detail with the court by way of establishing yet more of the extra elements of bad faith which constitute the clearest possible “malice”.

The Scottish Government’s patronage and control of organisations like Rape Crisis Scotland – and the prominent presence in such organisations of Sturgeon’s personal clique of zealots – goes way wider than Mark’s case, as everyone who has been following their disgraceful attacks on the rights of Scottish women will be all too well aware.

21 days

The period of 21 days for the Lord Advocate to respond to our letter runs out on 12 August 2021.

I’ll let you know what happens next.(ends)


I wish Gordon and Mark every success as they pursue compensation for the blatantly unfair treatment meted out to Mark Hirst resulting in him losing work, being penalized and after many months of worry eventually the case being dismissed as “no case to answer”. It was a malicious prosecution from start to finish and if our legal system is to regain public respect that must be acknowledged and proper compensation paid.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

Free Subscriptions

Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. By taking out a subscription you will receive notification of all future posts. You will be most welcome.

47 thoughts on “THIS IS DYNAMITE!

  1. Wow, just wow. After I’ve picked my jaw back off of the desk, I wish Mark all the very best with his case. It is something that needs thoroughly aired. It’s horrendous what has been done to him and Craig Murray. But most egregious of all, for me, was the prosecution of Alex Salmond. I don’t know what Mr Salmond means to do about all that has happened to him, that’s for him to decide, but they should not get away with it.

    Liked by 28 people

  2. How’s that holiday going? 🙂

    Saw this on Gordon’s site and yes it’s a doozy. Might we begin to hope that the net is drawing in? That between the SNP accounts, the Marion Millar case, and Mark’s case, not to mention Alex Salmond’s new civil case, that the reign of terror might be nearing an end?

    It seems that many in the legal profession are not happy with things in the state of Scotland. This will not end well for the cabal…

    Liked by 25 people

  3. Let’s hope there is a new and positive reason for naming the 12th of August “Glorious”. Great stuff – I have so much admiration for those standing up against the bullies.

    Liked by 16 people

  4. The massive overreach of these people has often astounded me. It speaks of complete lack of caution and no sense of risk. To completely subvert the idea of democracy in a country with the collusion at the heart of government which embroiled an army of willing collaborators including the nation’s law officers, shows a colossal and insatiable ambition with no fear of accountability.

    It would be sweet if the legal establishment should redeem itself by in the end bringing to book those who have made Scotland’s legal system a disgrace by enabling the grotesque ambition of politicians. It’s why in proper democracies they have separated the executive from the judiciary, after all, while ours has been made a broken democracy.

    Thank you Gordon Dangerfield.

    Liked by 24 people

    1. “The massive overreach of these people has often astounded me. It speaks of complete lack of caution and no sense of risk”.

      So true – and the reason for that? There was no risk – they had it all stitched up – until now!

      Thanks to Gordon Dangerfield, Mark Hirst, and we hope Alex Salmond and others seeking redress.

      Liked by 13 people

  5. All the best with the pursuit of justice. I will continue to support you in this when or if needed.

    Is this next bit off topic? It was taken from the Rape Crisis Website.

    “Good Funding News
    Posted on July 25 2021 at 10:00

    We’re thrilled to announce that Rape Crisis Centres across Scotland will benefit from an investment of £2.25 million of funding from the Scottish Government to help address waiting lists for specialist support. ”

    The following is taken from the BBC news website

    “Groups supporting women and girls who have suffered gender-based violence are to receive £5m of funding from the Scottish government.

    The cash is to help the groups with the increased demand for their services during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The bulk of the funding, announced by Equalities Minister Christina McKelvie, will go to Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland.

    The two organisations will share £4.5m of the money.

    The remaining £500,000 will be split between 12 specialist groups offering support services.”

    My query is the term ‘gender based violence’. What is going on here?

    Liked by 19 people

    1. Just tweeted this info. So the alphabet women press office and the arch complainer against Mark Hirst gets millions more to keep the boat afloat. I am sure they do valuable work but their involvement in the Salmond and Hirst cases damages their entire organisation.

      Liked by 18 people

      1. Iain, it’s obvious this massive amount of funding is politically motivated.
        As well as reward for ‘services rendered’, from the hounding of female politicians ( eg Jo Cherry and Joan McAlpine), the exclusion of women from protection under the HCB and recently the procecution of Marion Millar, the notion that Scotland is a place where women are discounted / discriminated against has gained traction (even internationally).
        Sturgeon’s plan is presumably to point to the funding as another uptick on her (feminist to my fingertips) CV.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. What’s going on is that Sturgeon’s mouthpiece is being amply rewarded for its Salmond-hating megaphone services in her name. And don’t forget that Rape Crisis Scotland is run by a trans person. Who lied their way into the job, and who should not be in it.

      Liked by 7 people

  6. The political hijacking of the Police and Judiciary by the SNP government under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon and a sycophantic clique of powerful supporters needs to be exposed to the nation so that measures can be enabled bringing the perpetrators to account. Social media bloggers fear annihilation in the face of threats of criminal charges and draconian punishments well in excess of anything applicable to accredited journalists. Aka Craig Murray!! whose only offence was to get up the judges nose before the trial of Alex Salmond even started. Other than point out the obvious ( there was only one charge that justified a prosecution and without corroboration it wouldn’t stick) he did nothing wrong. Yet he is to be locked away to protect society from his excesses. I suspended posting to my blog for a period for the aforesaid reasons and I am in awe of Gordon and Mark who have my support in their pursuit of justice.

    Liked by 18 people

  7. On the accusers one claimed that Salmond tried to rape her, but it turned out she wasn’t even in the same building when the claim was supposed to have happened. On Rape Crisis Scotland, they’ve just received a huge chunk of a five-million pounds package given out by the Scottish government

    As for the COPFS and the ex-Lord Advocate the Rangers farrago has cost the Scottish taxpayers tens of millions of pounds in compensation. The Lord Advoctae and COPFS staff must be held accountable for their actions, if they find themselves being held accountable, then they’ll surely think twice before going off the reservation as they’ve done recently.

    Mark Hirst’s prosecution as with that of Craig Murray’s has been a travesty of justice, the last I read Mark still didn’t have computer gear back, and Craig Murray still has the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head as to when he’ll be locked up.

    There’s something very rotten at the heat of the COPFS, and the Scottish government in Scotland.

    Liked by 20 people

  8. All we need now are some honest men and woman who are willing do their work in accordance with the law and within the strictures of their job descriptions. Only time will tell. That MH and his people are making a stand and taking on the Scottish establishment (sic) is wonderful news!

    Liked by 13 people

    1. And the Moorov Doctrine, dating back to 1930, has been used and is still being used by many sheriffs and judges (sitting alone) to great effect for jailing people. Fortunately in the Salmond trial, the jury ignored Lady Dorrian’s parting advice on alleged incidents, with no corroboration, before making their acquittal decision. Others have not been quite so “fortunate”.

      The Moorov Dctrine really must go.

      Liked by 9 people

      1. Scotland having the highest prison population per head in Western Europe may arguably be the outcome of an oppressive justice system, the latter now increasingly found to be malicious. This is not only due to Moorov; if Scotland is a colony then it might be argued that its institutions are therefore colonial in nature, including its justice system. This also relates to what Professor Michael Hechter described as Scotland having a ‘cultural division of labour’ within the ‘UK internal colonialism model’.

        Liked by 8 people

  9. This could be dynamite as well Iain.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Kenny MacAskill’s speech in Westminster last week, the Police ‘probe’ elevated to ‘investigation’ of SNP accounts, Marion Miller’s case taken by Joanna Cherry and now Gordon Dangerfield acting on behalf of Mark Hirst versus COPFS.

    The fightback is well and truly on.

    Liked by 12 people

  11. It is the ‘no fear of being held to account’ that intrigues me. Comment made by Kathy above.

    Even to think about engaging in corruption in office at all. And on this scale makes me think we haven’t heard the half of it yet. Why when you are gifted such advantages on taking over do you even think about employing corrupt practices? Fitting folk up, nepotisim, stitch-ups, corrupting christ knows how many of our institutions, trial by media, bringing in laws that crush our rights, and on and on it goes.

    Does anyone have any idea why this has developed the way it has? I would be fascinated to hear your opinion and the opinions of others on it.

    There has to be a higher power giving this group cover apart from that I am at a complete loss but I am extremely keen to hear folk’s opinions on just how this has developed the way it has.

    Liked by 11 people

    1. Personally I think it’s because Nicola Sturgeon is politically compromised, vengeful, lashing out wildly, and mad as a March hare, but we will see.

      Liked by 6 people

  12. Ach, don’t bother replying. it is pointless speculating. A devious but essentially useless FM and an amoral clique without a conscience between them. Things have got way out of hand.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Aberfeldy

      The clue lies in “Honi soit qui mal y pense”

      Although Old French, it is an English concept relating to the sovereignty of the King. It is the motto of the Order of the Garter. This is being imported into Scotland under cover of the Royal Standard.

      It translates as “shame on him who thinks ill of it”.

      You might think you have natural justice on your side, but if you think ill of what the King does, then the shame is upon you.

      That is exactly what happened to Craig Murray.

      He thought ill of what the “Crown” was perpetrating on Alex Salmond.

      And he did something about it.

      In Scotland, the people should be sovereign with the right to choose their leader. But the English are attempting to break that and put the King (Queen) as sovereign over the people.

      And those acting for them are never held to account, no matter what they do.

      It is politics pure and simple.

      Liked by 5 people

  13. It beggars belief that certain people in high places can instruct the police to act on the flimsiest, and indeed complete lack of, evidence. And worse, the police comply. It should be blindingly obvious that no putative democracy could tolerate a situation where individuals can anonymously instigate raids, confiscations and charges based on hearsay and their political prejudice against others. There is no concept of justice which could be consistent with the personal vendettas of powerful people who remain unnamed and unaccountable.
    And yet this is modern day Scotland, like some kind of medieval despot’s fiefdom. A picture of a suffragette’s ribbon on a fence? Arrest that woman for a death threat to an over sensitive individual. Couldn’t happen here? If only.
    Hopefully this action will expose the corruption and changes will have to follow. If only we had a press willing to hold power to account, eh?

    Liked by 15 people

    1. Who is it that is powerful enough to phone up the Crown Agent or his deputy ( I am assuming it was that way around) and demand that someone is arrested without any evidence that a crime has been committed? What power would they have to have in order to be able to do that? What position or job or rank would they need to have in order for them to be able to command the Crown Office?

      Liked by 4 people

    2. Fantastic that the criminal behaviour of the police and COPFS is now being challenged.

      But the analogy of what has been going on is no different from police or military shooting people dead.

      Bloody Sunday in NI or Sharpesville in SA – the behaviours are the same.

      Or to put it another way, they have the guns, we don’t. And they are using them.

      And that really is where we sit at present.

      An illegal, malicious and physicaly abusive Police and COPFS armed to the teeth, and using those teeth.

      Well done and a grateful thanks to the advocates who are now trying to redress the brutal intimidation of a metaphorically, if not physically armed Police and Prosecution.

      Liked by 7 people

  14. Iain….wonderful article..truly hope Mark get’s the full recompense he deserves, maybe, just maybe, this may halt them in their tracks as the jail time for Craig draws ever nearer. One small niggle…I read the word malice as ‘intimidation!’ You are too kind.. :0) Stay safe.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. Postcolonial theory (Memmi, Fanon, Cesaire etc.) tells us to expect all this, and more, in any colony run by a single dominant national party and its pampered bourgeoisie elite, which:

    – reaches an early ‘accommodation’ with colonialism
    – becomes an ‘administration’ handing out jobs to close associates, but falls well short of true liberation
    – dictatorial leadership, and new tyrant gets on well with old tyrants
    – administration adopts policies that increasingly mystify (and oppress) the natives
    – governing elite lines its pockets and prepares for its retirement
    – uses the forces of colonialism including making laws to attack and persecute so-called independence ‘radicals’
    – leading in turn to the development of new national parties which are serious on securing real independence

    The same process has been played out in numerous colonies and Scotland seems no different.

    Liked by 12 people

    1. All part of the Brigadier General Sir Frank Kitson strategy for quelling independence movements.

      And last year, many many decades on, the British government paid millions in compensation to the relatives of Kenyans brutally suppressed by the forces of the Crown.

      Yes, shoot first, exterminate political opponents, and worry not about the abuse and illegality.

      Sums up exactly the approach against Salmond, Hirst, Murray et al..

      As I say, the law is a political weapon to be used to exterminate political opponents.

      And yes, in Northern Ireland they actually shot pesky civil rights lawyers like Pat Finnucan and Rosemary Nelson.

      Funny that, since Police Scotland now have an ex head of the RUC / PSNI on the management board as Deputy Chief Constable.

      Wonder what his politics are?

      Liked by 6 people

      1. Willie.

        Police Scotland has sent fifty officers to train police in Colombia, Colombia is a staging post for US interventions against socialism in South America, socialism that’s kept at bay by violence, murders and puppet presidents. It’s a good possibility that Police Scotland officers will train there Colombian counterparts in suppression techniques.

        Police Scotland has already sent officers to Northern Ireland to “help out” the PSNI, and I’m pretty sure Police Scotland has also send officers to oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East, to train the officers there in “techniques”. The (SPF) Scottish Police Federation, has said that it will open an office dedicated to sending Scottish police officers abroad to help “train” counterparts in other countries.

        It looks like the oldest police force in the world, is now a rentable trainer in crowd suppression for any country

        Liked by 2 people

  16. Excellent. Not before time that somebody fought back against these Sturgeon zealots and manhaters. I think this information and approach will also be of good use in the disgusting Marion Millar case. These scumbags and their false, life-ruining accusations, that they think they can get away with with impunity, because of their proximity to the corrupt FM, need stopped NOW. Vile, hateful, vicious. malicious people.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Fantastic ! I feel the stirring of sleeping giants – justice and fair play.

    I was brought up to be truthful and honest – I am deeply offended by what has been happening in my country .
    Should I use the new hate crime to report my misery??

    Liked by 5 people

  18. Hello,

    I may have missed something but is it correct that the Sunday Times and The Timers are the only members of MSM who are reporting in any detail recent legal developments in the Hirst/Salmond scandal? Is everyone else so scared of Sturgeon and her clique, that they are afraid to upset the “Dear Leader”? Or perhaps some of the others know something more!

    I do hope that Gordon Dangerfield’s steps on behalf of Mr Hirst work as surely something is needed to release the internal pressure buildup against the Murrells, Perhaps Alex Salmond’s promised action against a certain SG civil servant will provide the tipping point!

    Here’s hoping.

    Liked by 6 people

  19. Following on from Alf Baird’s analysis of Scotland’s de facto status as a colony, this item appeared in the last couple of days on the msm:

    ‘Scotland’s national police force is training law enforcement officers from Colombia on violence prevention.

    Instructors have been delivering online courses across the world from the force’s new international academy at the Scottish Police College.

    Senior officers say the facility will export their “human rights based approach” to policing.

    Police Scotland say the courses, based at Tulliallan in Kincardine, Fife, will also focus on community engagement.

    In the training with Colombian officers, the force highlighted its policing of the recent protest in Kenmure Street in Glasgow, where demonstrators prevented immigration officials from taking two Indian men into detention.

    Police Scotland ended the stand off peacefully by releasing the two men back into the community and asking the crowd to disperse.

    The force has been criticised in the past for working with police from Sri Lanka but argues that doing so has a positive influence.

    The academy was officially opened by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who said: “This work is not about endorsing bad policing practises in other countries, it’s about Police Scotland taking their human rights based approach to policing and spreading that around the world.”

    Two men are released from the back of an Immigration Enforcement van accompanied by lawyer Aamer Anwar and Mohammad Asif, director of the Afghan Human Rights Foundation, in Kenmure Street, Glasgow

    The head of the academy Supt Helen Harrison said: “One of the key areas is about communication and the style of that communication.

    “Not just running into a heated situation, but taking a moment, assessing and communicating and then trying to bring that tension down in a safe way for all involved.”////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Inspector Harrison, like many or most of senior management of Police Scotland is not a Scot. Who decided this ‘academy’ and its ‘human rights based approach’ was pertinent to anything whatsoever with policing our country is not stated. The so-called ‘policing’ at Kenmure street was a joke. The two men were actually released under the care of (and from the back of an Immigration Enforcement van) lawyer Aamer Anwar and Mohammad Asif, director of the Afghan Human Rights Foundation, in Kenmure Street, Glasgow.
    The non policing of the series of Rangers supporters’ disturbances in George Sq. was a public disgrace and a complete break down of law and order in our largest city. Scotland and its tinpot led dictatorship is fast becoming a very sick and very unfunny joke.

    Liked by 7 people

  20. O/T Iain.

    UK Supreme court rejects Craig Murray’s appeal, he (Murray) will need to surrender himself to Police Scotland soon

    Liked by 2 people

  21. It looks like CRAIG MURRAY will surrender himself to the Police in Edinburgh tomorrow following the refusal of the UK Supreme Case to hear his appeal.

    Atrocious and further proof of the fascist state now emerging in Scotland.

    I have followed Lady Dorrian for several years and thought her a fair judge. I changed my mind after her “instructions” to the jury in the Salmond trial to bear in mind the Moorov Doctrine and her comments about the MSM being “self-regulating” (compared with bloggers etc). Outrageous in both cases.

    So, what’s going to happen? I am re-reading George Orwell dystopian view of the future described in his novel “1984″, written in 1948. Alarming similarities!

    We can blame all the outside forces we want but this is happening today in Scotland with full SNP/SG approval I’m sorry to say.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. The Scottish government and the SNP are a disgrace. Pleased to say I contributed to Mark Hirst’s crowd funder.

    As a lifelong independence supporter it is so sad to see the SNP being led by crooks who clearly are in it for themselves and care naught about independence.

    What has both votes SNP achieved re independence – NOTHING. It has allowed the crooks to continue in their wicked ways.

    WGD has sold out.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: