Thursday 31 March 2016

Time To Open The Floodgates

Police Scotland have been criticised because they dropped an investigation in to a young woman who was photographed on the top deck of a bus smoking crack in broad daylight.

The young woman, Lisa McGhee has pretty much admitted to it all on social media but still police have taken no action.

There is a bit more to this story than meets the eye and, you may be surprised to know, in some ways I actually even have a little bit of sympathy with police here.

Lisa McGhee has a drug problem - she's admitted that. From what we gather from the reports, she was doing well trying to get off crack until there were problems with her prescription. Without knowing all the details, it seems she couldn't get access to medication she needed here in Scotland because her prescription was from England.

Whatever the full circumstances, it looks like this wasn't just some wee ned on a bus, lighting up, and thumbing her antisocial nose at everyone and anyone. Rather, it looks like it may have been a young woman, ravaged by addiction, in a pretty hopeless and difficult situation, who was seriously in need of help. And perhaps a bit of red tape in our society let her down a bit. I don't know.

What I do know is that Police Scotland had a choice whether to arrest her or not and they decided not to.

Police Scotland were probably correct in this particular case because it's beginning to look like there may have been unique circumstances here - especially if her actions were down to desperation rather than any mal intent (and especially if the publicity around this event has perhaps prompted her in to seeking genuine help for her problem). Let's face it, there seems to be more drugs inside our prisons these days than there are outside them so Ms McGhee might have a better chance of recovery outside than inside. I don't know.

What I do know though - and it's the problem I have with Police Scotland and the Crown office - is that they have sole discretion when it comes to deciding who to arrest and prosecute and who not to arrest and prosecute. They may have got it right on this occasion but they don't always. And that's a problem.

Yes, of course, I do understand that there are many circumstances which are not clear-cut and Police Scotland and the Crown office need to make a decision on whether to prosecute or not.

This is not ideal though and it's not good that they get to decide alone who faces a court and who doesn't.

Many police and Crown office decision makers are actually corrupt themselves so they should not be allowed to take these decisions themselves.

I do realise that someone has to take the decision to prosecute or not. I get it, believe me I do.

What I do NOT get and I will never ever accept is that the decision of police to arrest or not and the decision of the Crown office to prosecute or not should rest SOLELY with them. It should NOT be entirely their decision. They are not trustworthy enough to take these decisions alone.

Three police officers acted corruptly in a case I was involved in (and in front of witnesses). I even have a VIDEO of them doing it!

But their colleagues in the police refused to arrest them.

And their friends in the Crown office refused to prosecute them.

So they got away with it.

They never saw the inside of a court.

A judge or Sheriff was never allowed to hear the evidence or see the video (if he had done, those three police officers would be sitting in a jail cell right now).

That's why a separate organisation should be set up to investigate when a member of the public complains that police have refused to arrest or the Crown office have refused to prosecute. 

It should be an independent 'group' made up of ordinary random members of the public who are not connected to the police or the Crown office in any way. 

They would look at complaints from the public about cases the Crown have refused to allow to go to court and decide if they should indeed be pursued. 

The group would not decide innocence or guilt in any way - the courts alone are the only ones who decide innocence or guilt. The group would just simply decide whether a case, which the Crown office have refused to pursue, should be pursued and heard in court of law or not, that's all.

This way, if a member of the public is unhappy that the police have failed to arrest when he feels they should have, or the Crown office have failed to prosecute when he feels they should have, he can take his case to a group of his peers, made up of random ordinary members of the public who would have the power to reverse the police and Crowns decisions and force them to arrest and prosecute where appropriate.

There's no good saying we already have that with bodies like the ombudsman, the PIRC, the SPA etc etc - we don't.

We have Sheriffs, and jury's, and trials. But you cannot do anything to get a baddie anywhere near a Sheriff unless you can get them through the doors of the court first - and the corrupt Crown office guard the doors to the court room.

No one sees the inside of a dock unless the Crown office say so first. It's not right.

Every member of the public I have shown my video to and the police statements to, are absolutely convinced that the three officers involved in my case acted corruptly. Everyone. So I know that a group of members of the public looking at the same thing would overturn the Crowns decision not to prosecute the three police officers. I'm sure of that.

I'm sure that the same group, looking at the bin lorry tragedy, would overturn the decision by the Crown not to prosecute the bin lorry driver too.

I'll remind you again that just because I'm saying police and Crown office decisions not to prosecute can be overturned using my suggested system, this doesn't mean that those who face prosecution will necessarily be found guilty - that'll be entirely up to the court, not the group who agreed to send them there.

All I'm suggesting here is that we put a stop to the Crown office being the sole guard to the door of the court room and the sole decision maker as to who gets access to justice and who doesn't.

The current system cannot continue the way it is at this moment.

Police and the Crown office are acting as judge and jury and abusing their powers every day by blocking their friends and connections from facing justice.

And that's just plain wrong.

Unfit To Police

There was a minor crash at Trottick Circle in Tayside recently. Nothing serious thank goodness, but a driver fled the scene and had to be chased by police.

Police Scotland won't say whether they caught up the culprit but according to an eyewitness it would be fair to assume they didn't - well certainly not right away anyway.

The the member of the public who witnessed the chase is quoted on his Facebook page as saying "judging by the comical job of trying to chase down the guy who crashed at the Trottick Circle this afternoon, the officers involved in the ‘chase’ were far from fit".

The witness then rated Tayside Division three out of five stars on their official Facebook page.

Tayside police then rated Dunkin' Donuts five out of five stars on their official Facebook page.

OK, ok, I made that last part about rating Dunkin' Donuts up.

Wednesday 30 March 2016

Smokey And The Bandit

Seems there was a big 'rammy' at De Vitos nightclub in Arbroath, the town famous for the Arbroath smokies.

The disturbance, on Friday the 5th February was so serious that Police Scotland had to be called...only to find that it was Police Scotland officers who caused the 'rammy' (allegedly).

Two police officers have been charged with assault.

So where are the two police officers while they await their date with 'the beak'?

Languishing in a jail cell?

Off on gardening leave?

Don't be silly - the usual 'guilty till proved innocent' that we, the public, get slapped with from police doesn't apply when it's one of their own.

They have simply been moved elsewhere within the force while their case is ongoing.

Yes siree. These two officers are still out there, on duty, in their uniforms, wagging a haughty finger at us members of the public every day and pontificating to us about our behaviour.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that Police Scotland are correctly treating their colleagues as being innocent until proved guilty.

I just wish they'd do the same for us, the public. After all, it is the law.

Tuesday 29 March 2016

Following The Money

Here's a strange one that might stump you a little bit (until you know why, that is).

Local campaigners in Dalbeattie have asked police to reduce the speed limit on a section of the A710 from 60mph to 30mph.

But police have refused.

Police have argued that a 30mph limit would just be ignored by motorists.

Yeah, I know, very strange. I mean, if police know that drivers will ignore the 30mph limit surely that would be a great place to stick a couple of plods and a camera to catch all those speeding motorists. This one should be right up their street surely (pun intended).

So let me translate.

Police have limited resources. They only have so many cameras and trained police officers to operate them (and staff to process the fines). They know the area very well and they know that they won't make a ton of money with a speed camera on this particular stretch of road.

But they do know they can make much, much more money putting a plod with a speed camera on another stretch of road in the area that will catch them lots and lots more motorists.

Police harp on about speed cameras being all about safety. Let's be clear on this - 'safety' is little more than an excuse police give to justify fleecing the motorist for money.

Dalbeattie residents have now learned what many of us have known for years - money is the only language untrustworthy Police Scotland understand.

The SPA Are Unnaccountable

The Scottish Police Authority (SPA) oversees Police Scotland. But who oversees the SPA?

Chris Marshall, a journalist from the Scotsman newspaper has asked the question about who is watching over the police service watchdog.

It's a fair question. Especially since the SPA have curiously decided to stop publishing board papers in advance - making it more difficult for journalists to get a heads up and keep track of what they're up to.

The SPA has already faced criticism for failing to properly scrutinise Police Scotland - and now the SPA appear to be making it more difficult for us to scrutinise them.

At a most basic level, the answer to who scrutinises the SPA is simple. It's the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) - who, in turn, are scrutinised by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

Problem is, the SPSO can do nothing about your complaint except check to see that the necessary complaints procedure was followed.

In other words, they can't change the fact that the SPA or PIRC acted corruptly by throwing your complaint out.

If you also add to this the fact that in the real world we live in, Police Scotland, the PIRC, and the SPSO are littered with friends and connections of the SPA, you don't have to look very far to find the answer to the question about who scrutinises the SPA.

Answer: No-one.

Glad to have cleared that up then.

Monday 28 March 2016

One Down, Thousands Still To Go

It's not often the public manage to get a rare win against untrustworthy Police Scotland.

But a hearty vote of thanks goes out to Sheriff John McCormick at Glasgow Sheriff Court, for having the courage to convict Detective Constable Stuart Galloway from Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire, who falsely told two women that their alleged abuser had been arrested and was going on trial - when in reality he had failed to act on reports that they had been sexually abused.

He admitted neglect and violation of duty.

Sheriff McCormick has warned him "all options including custody must remain open."

Wonderful as this news is, there are thousands of other Police Scotland officers who follow this culture of cover-up just like DC Galloway out there.

Getting rid of one of them helps us, the public, but many more corrupt officers need to see the inside of a jail cell before we'll see any changes in the way police operate.

Sunday 27 March 2016

Pay Us £100 And We'll Save You £100

Wow, amazing news just in!

Since I spoke last week about giving speeding drivers the option to take a speed awareness course instead of points and a fine, Scotland's chief constable Phil 'Gormless' has given his backing to the scheme.

It now looks like I'll have to take back all those posts I've written about police speed traps and the fines they impose on drivers being a money making scam for the police.

Oh, wait, hang on a minute. I've just checked the small print on this.

The speed awareness workshops will apparently cost £100.

Ah, I should've guessed that any alternative scheme would still involve police finding some way to scam money out of motorists. Never fails.

You know what they say, if it looks too good to be true....

Not In My Back Yard

Regular readers of this blog know my stance on drugs. While I am non-judgemental on people who use and abuse drink and drugs, I make no secret of the fact that I am anti drink and anti drugs.

And it is with dismay that I see the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be advocating at their spring conference that heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy users should face police warnings instead of prison if found with small amounts of drugs for their personal use.

Now I'm not for one minute suggesting jail is the place for drug users. In fact the opposite is true. Jailing addicts is most certainly NOT the answer to our country's drug problem.

The issue here - which the Lib Dems don't seem to be able to see - is that legalising drugs sends a message to young people that drug use is acceptable.

I know, I know, that's not what the Lib Dems are saying. But it doesn't matter which way they try to dress it up - the message they do want to send is not the message that youngsters are gonna take from it.

Simply put, saying you're not going to prosecute them for it tells them it's ok to do it. It's teenage logic.

I wonder if any of the LibDems have kids of their own?

Since we already know that many kids are introduced to drugs as young as 11 years old, I just wonder if any Lib Dems out there will be sitting down with their pre-teens to assure them that Daddy has fixed it so that the police won't arrest them for possessing heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy if it's only for their own personal use.

Yeah, thought so. You're not so liberal when it's on your own door-step are you eh?

Saturday 26 March 2016

Phil Gormley - King Of The Castle

Many years ago I took a job which meant I had to live away from home.

No problem though - my employers arranged accommodation for me.

Unfortunately the 'accommodation' consisted of a grotty little basement flat - and I had to pay for it myself out of my wages.

I see that Police Scotland's new chief constable Phil 'Gormless' is in the same situation as me.

There are a couple of differences though:

1. That time when I worked away from home, my salary wasn't £212,000 a year like Uncle Phil's.

2. I had to pay the rent for the accommodation out of my wages - whereas Uncle Phil gets his accommodation for free (ie £212,000 a year PLUS free accommodation).

Oh, and I almost forgot...while I was in a horrible little bed-sit flat, Uncle Phil get's to stay in a castle at Tulliallan in Kincardine (pic below).

I wonder if we, the taxpayer, will get the bill for cleaning his moat?

Friday 25 March 2016

You Can't Arrest Me I'm A Councillor

It's no secret that Glasgow Crooked City Council is in financial trouble and has been for a long time.

In fact things are so bad in Glasgow City Council that they are set to cut funding for 100 police officers who patrol Glasgow's streets.

What's that I hear you say?

You didn't know that Glasgow City Council have police on their payroll (and therefore in their pocket)?

You do now.

And I can just see the little wheels in your brain whizzing round now that you've learned this little gem of info.

Ah yes, it now explains a lot of things that have gone on in the past between the police and Glasgow City Council councillors that didn't quite make sense at the time - but it does now, doesn't it?

As I keep telling you, join the dots dear reader, join the dots.

Denying Your Right To Peaceful Protest

There is, supposedly, going to be a demonstration in Glasgow later this year by the 'hacktivist' group Anonymous.

In case you haven't heard of this group, they are basically a loosely associated international network of activists and hacktivists. You've probably seen them on the TV news, demonstrating in public wearing Guy Fawkes masks to hide their anonymity.

Detractors - mainly those in the establishment - say they are a menace, have no legitimacy, act illegally, and should be stamped out and all thrown in jail.

Supporters, on the other hand, view them as some sort of an anti-establishment Robin Hood types who help the public by exposing and holding to account corrupt corporate and government organisations.  

Take your pick.

Either way, the establishment - who are dead set against anonymous - are trying to ban them from protesting in Glasgow.

Police Scotland has said that they will be ready to deal with any 'unauthorised' protest Anonymous may hold.

Me? I lost all interest in computers shortly after Windows Vista was released and I doubt Anonymous would be in any way interested in my expertise on how to get to level 2 on Super Mario.

But this post today isn't to make comment on whether Anonymous are a force for good or evil.

Rather it's to bring to the attention of the public that when any organisation wants to publicly protest about establishment organisations such as, say, the council and the police, they need to get the permission of...the council and the police.

And there's something decidedly undemocratic and not right about that.

Thursday 24 March 2016

SPA Chairman Admits Weakness

The chairman of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) Andrew Flanagan has admitted that there have been weaknesses in the SPA's oversight of Police Scotland.

Yeah, as if we didn't already know.

After Police Scotland were criticised for, among other things, stop and search tactics and armed officers stopping drivers for not wearing seat belts, he has promised that the SPA will conduct greater scrutiny of the police and that police will not be able to continue to "operate as they see fit".

Which suggests that up until now Police Scotland have been operating as they see fit.

Yeah, as if we didn't know that too.

Wednesday 23 March 2016

Goes Without Saying

The chairman of the Scottish Police Authority Andrew Flanagan has been talking to MSP's at the Justice Committee.

He has stated that scrutiny of Police Scotland could be improved.

Someone give him a medal please...

Inscribed with the words:

'awarded to Andrew Flanagan for stating the bleeding obvious'

I despair, I really do.

Corrupt Police Scotland Profesional Standards Department

My heart absolutely goes out to the father of missing man Allan Bryant. All he wants is for Police Scotland to properly investigate the disappearance of his son.

Instead he has been fobbed off with excuses and bluster.

Now Mr Bryant has done what we, the public, are supposed to do when we catch police acting corruptly - he has opened a complaint with Police Scotland's Professional Standards Department (who investigate all complaints in to wrong-doing by police).

Little does he know his complaint will fall on deaf ears.

I know because I have experience in dealing with Police Professional Standards Department - I know the corrupt way they work. They are nothing more than apologists for their buddies in the Police.

Put simply, it's the police investigating the police - they exist to deflect complaints from their colleagues rather than properly investigate them.

Put bluntly, they cover up to protect their guilty colleagues.

Mr Bryant will get nowhere with the motley crew from Police Scotland's Professional Standards Department.

I can see from Mr Bryant's comments in 'The Courier' (link at the bottom) that there are stark similarities to how Professional Standards are treating him with the way they treated me when I complained to them.

And that makes me very, very angry about Mr Bryant's situation.

Mr Bryant's comments, quoted in 'The Courier' pretty much tell me that Professional Standards have managed to successfully pull the wool over his eyes with their first 'trick' which is to gain the trust of the complainer.

Mr Bryant has described his meeting with Professional Standards as "the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do" and "it was so stressful but the officers were very professional and took everything we said seriously" and "they picked up everything that we told them and now it is just a matter of time and waiting for us to be contacted again"

This tells me that Professional Standards have roped him in good and proper and are now about to con him in the same way they conned me.

You see, from my experience with Police Professional Standards Department, they are very skilled in convincing members of the public that they are taking your complaints against their fellow police officers very seriously. But in reality they only serve to do everything they can to let their fellow police officers off the hook.

Any so-called investigations they conduct are geared towards finding reasons NOT to prosecute the corrupt officers you're complaining about. Professional Standards Department is all about protecting their colleagues.

So trick number one is to interview you and make you feel that they are on your side and will weed out all those 'baddies' in the police force you're complaining about. But in reality, they have no such intention.

The next trick they perform is to get you to make more than one complaint (or if you only have one complaint, try to split it in to a number of different parts).

They pretend that they are your knights in shining armour and they are going to help you solve ALL the various problems you've been having with the numerous police officers you've dealt with - a one-stop complaints shop as it were. You see, they know that by the time you get a complaint as far as the Professional Standards Department you've most likely already had the runaround from quite a few different police officers in various departments over a period of time - so you usually have a number of related complaints, not just the one.

Getting multiple complaints or splitting one complaint in to many parts is absolutely essential to making the next part of their con trick work.

And now this is where Professional Standards get really sneaky...

You see, by gaining your trust and getting you to list a number of separate, albeit related, complaints, they can investigate the ones they want to investigate (and conclude that there's no basis for your complaints and reject them) while, at the same time, 'bury' the other complaints that they don't want to investigate (in order to protect their colleagues).

See how it all works now?

Here's my personal, real world, example.

The officer I dealt with in the police Professional Standards Department was an Inspector by the name of Inspector Colin Wylie.

He convinced me that he was one of those untouchable Elliot Ness types - a trustworthy truth seeker and just the man to take these terrible corrupt police officers to task. I was impressed. I thought he was a serious Professional Standards guy.

But he was not serious, he was not professional, his standards were sorely lacking, and he did not do what he promised to do (which is why my heart sank when I heard Mr Bryant say that the Professional Standards Department officers "were very professional and took everything we said seriously").

The sweet-talking Inspector Wylie said he would deal with ALL the problems I had been having and that I should tell him everything from start to finish, the whole story, every problem, every issue, everything that had happened, everything that I was unhappy with, and he'd deal with the lot.

He took a note of ALL my complaints, not just the complaints I had against police officers. He said he'd look in to every one of them and get back to me.

But he didn't.

I had to chase him up, and more than once.

When he eventually did get back to me, he had completely omitted (i.e. buried) one of the main complaints I had given to him (which is why my heart sank when Mr Bryant said "they picked up everything that we told them and now it is just a matter of time and waiting for us to be contacted again").

The complaint Inspector Colin Wylie 'buried' and didn't want investigated was a complaint that my ex girlfriend, Ms Mhairi McAdam, had lied to police in a false statement she gave to them at Bellshill police station. I had documentary proof that she had told quite a number of lies to police in her signed, witnessed, and dated false statement.

Her false statement and the false accusations therein had caused me to be arrested and thrown in to jail for 3 days. I lost my liberty because of her lies to police. The consequences of her actions could not have been more serious. Inspector Wylie knew this.

I know that the police professional standards department is designed specifically to investigate complaints about police officers rather than members of the public, so it seemed perfectly plausible when Inspector Wylie informed me that he would speak to his superiors about the 'false statement' part of my complaint and pass that particular complaint to his colleagues in another department to investigate.

But Inspector Colin Wylie lied.

He did not pass this part of my complaint on to anyone else. He ignored it completely. He 'buried' it. (*Side Note - astonishingly, Inspector Wylie claimed on the telephone to me some months later that he had never promised any such thing to me - oh dear, liar liar pants on fire Inspector Wylie)!

So why did he ignore this particular complaint?

Simple really.

You see, the false statement my false accuser gave to police resulted in me being arrested and Inspector Wylie hoped that the arrest would eventually result in a conviction when it got to court. So to save himself time and a bit of work, all Inspector Wylie reckoned he had to do was sit on this particular complaint and wait for me to be found guilty in court and then, well, I would have little or no case for going much further with that complaint.

But....when it did go to court, I won.

The Sheriff threw the case out.

At long last it was official. I had done absolutely nothing wrong and was completely innocent of all charges - my ex girlfriend was a false accuser.

This was all bad news for Inspector Wylie of course. He didn't expect that to happen.

As you are probably already aware, police like to close ranks and arrogantly stick like glue to wrong decisions they make. Even after it becomes glaringly obvious that they got things wrong, they hate to admit they were wrong. It opens them up to being criticised, being sued, there's a loss of public confidence in what they do etc, all that sort of stuff.

So despite me having done absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever and completely cleared of ALL charges made against me by a false accuser who made a false statement to police just to have me arrested, charged, thrown in a jail cell, and cause me trouble, my false accuser has NEVER been arrested and charged herself by police for the false accusation she made against me and the false statement she gave to them.

Inspector Wylie has made sure of that.

Also, to date, police have NEVER come to collect the evidence from me that shows the shocking extent of the lies my false accuser told on her statement.

That's why I know that it's absolutely impossible that police have properly and fully investigated the complaint I made against her.

Inspector Wylie 'buried' my complaint because he took a punt that I would be found guilty in court later on. Pure and simple. And now that it has all gone pear-shaped for him and it turns out I was actually the victim, this matter needs to be 'buried' more than ever before because my win in court now exposes the fact that his police colleagues failed to check my false accusers story and wrongly acted on the false statement she made to them. In short, they arrested an innocent man and deprived him of his liberty - not a good outcome for police at all.

His police buddies would have really been dragged over the coals for failing to check the truth and the facts in the false accusers statement before jumping the gun and rushing to arrest. So in order to protect his police colleagues (and himself) Inspector Wylie made sure my complaint got 'buried'.

It remains 'buried' to this day.

Meanwhile the false accuser goes free.

There can be nothing worse in society than an innocent man losing his liberty at the hands of corrupt and incompetent police officers. Inspector Colin Wylie ignored this complaint I made to Professional Standards in order to protect his corrupt police colleagues and even had the cheek to, afterwards, deny he ever said he would send someone to investigate this particular matter.

Police professional standards department have no shame.

So, as you can see, my heart goes out to the father of the missing man Allan Bryant. He is being conned, just as I was, by the the rogues in Police Scotland's Professional Standards Department.

The only expertise he'll see from this lot are the expertise they have at sweeping things they don't want to investigate under the carpet.

Sadly, for Allan Bryant's family, I already know how this one's gonna turn out.

Tuesday 22 March 2016

It's All About Timing

It's no secret that Police Scotland plan to close their call centres in Aberdeen and Inverness this year. Members of the public in the north who call the emergency 999 number (and 101 numbers for that matter) will be routed to the National Virtual Service Centre hundreds of miles away in central Scotland.

It's also no secret that Police Scotland plan to close more control rooms, not just Aberdeen and Inverness.

Opponents of these closures rightly point to the M9 tragedy in which police did nothing while two people lay dead for 3 days in a car crash despite a member of the public calling the call centre to report the accident. There was clearly a failure in the call centre which caused these deaths so we need to know the details and what lessons need to be learned before we go closing call centres.

So it would make sense for Police Scotland to wait for the outcome of the investigation into the M9 tragedy BEFORE going ahead with plans to close call centres. It's not rocket science - it's common sense.

Yet Police Scotland are determined to go ahead with their call centre closure plans and are pulling out all the stops to do it before the M9 report comes out. You can also rest assured their friend, corrupt Lord Advocate Frank 'I'm anything but frank' Mulholland, will be doing everything in his power to help them with the timing.

And you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out why untrustworthy Police Scotland want these call centre closures in place before the M9 tragedy report is released.

Police Scotland know, as everyone does, that the M9 report is going to criticise them for routing emergency calls to civilian staff in call centres miles away.

So in a sneaky underhand move, they want the call centre closures to be in place BEFORE the report comes out.

Sneaky? Underhand? Ahhh, sadly these are words that are all too familiar when describing untrustworthy Police Scotland.

And as I and the many other innocent members of the public who have been wrongly arrested in the past by lying Police Scotland officers can attest, the one thing Police Scotland ARE good at is corruptly manipulating situations to suit their own agenda and their own benefit.

We may have a new chief constable, but we still have the same lying army of Police Scotland officers as before - doing the same jobs day in day out just as before. They will always spin everything to suit themselves instead of the public.

Police Scotland may have recently been criticised for the time it takes them to respond to calls down in the Dumfries area (you may remember that Dumfries residents complained that by the time police turn up the culprits are gone). But when it comes to pushing these call centre closures through before the M9 report is released, make no bones about it - these charlatans at Police Scotland have got perfect timing...when it suits them of course.

Monday 21 March 2016

Where Are Stirling Park Debt Collectors?

Take a look at this picture of a Police Scotland vehicle, parked in a disabled bay.

There are no flashing blue lights and it's perfectly positioned in it's parking space - so you know that the copper driving it had plenty of time to manoeuvre it in to place.

In other words, it wasn't parked there due to an emergency.

It was parked due to laziness and arrogance on behalf of the police driver - another one of those jobs-worths from Police Scotland who think they ARE the law. One rule for 'em and all that.

I'm reliably informed that council wardens did NOT issue them with a parking fine and the vultures from Stirling Park Debt Collection will NOT be phoning Police Scotland and hassling them to pay the fine.

Local councils and Stirling Park, just like Police Scotland (who have clearly parked illegally in this pic), prefer to target the poorest and most vulnerable in our society rather than each other.

The council, Stirling Park, and Police Scotland are tarred with the same brush - and it's a toilet brush.

It's Just Not Cricket

I didn't know that Police Scotland had a rugby team but it turns out they do.

Not only that, but in a recent Scottish police versus English police rugby match they scored a victory over the 'auld enemy'.

I immediately had two thoughts.

1. What team was our chief constable Phil 'Gormless' supporting?

2. Did untrustworthy Police Scotland win fair and square - or did they secretly spy on their counterparts to get information on their tactics?

Sunday 20 March 2016

Phil Gormley Sings Streisand's Greatest Hits

The company BT (British Telecom) have teamed up with Police Scotland to encourage their 7,000 employees to become special constables.


Why would untrustworthy Police Scotland want to jump in to bed with a company who control the telephone and internet communications of millions of members of the public.

Can't think. Can you?

All together now. Papa can you hear me?

Saturday 19 March 2016

'Are We Being Served' By Police Scotland?

New chief constable Phil 'Gormless' has visited the north-east of Scotland and praised the officers in that area for the way they have responded to local policing issues.

Of course it was nothing but a publicity stunt to try to cover up criticism of the one-size-fits all central police force experiment which everyone (except Police Scotland of course) knows has spectacularly failed - especially in remote areas of Scotland.

It's akin to clueless young Mr Grace in 'Are you being served' visiting the shop floor to tell the staff 'you've all done very well'.

What's the betting he didn't drive up to the north of Scotland himself. Even with a Sat-Nav I doubt whether our country's top cop even knows where the north of Scotland is never mind visited the area before.

I am reliably informed that while he was there he instructed the doors of all north-east police stations to be decorated with tartan paint, and officers to be extra vigilant during haggis shooting season.

OK, I made that last bit up.

Wake Up And Smell The Coffee

Quick, lock every door and all the windows - nobody move. There has been a theft from a Starbucks cafe and nobody's leaving till police get to the bottom of it.

Ah yes dear reader, this is the sorry tale of a Starbucks cafe in Scotland which has had just under £17,000 nicked from their premises. Two years have passed and the crime still hasn't been solved by Police Scotland.

The money disappeared over a four-month period from the Starbucks coffee shop and Police Scotland just don't know how it happened. Not a clue.

Perhaps that's understandable. Because let's face it, you can hardly expect police officers to be sitting in a Starbucks cafe every day watching out for a possible crime taking place on the premises can you?

No, that would just be silly.


If the Starbucks cafe in question happened to be in Tulliallan, Scotland where Police Scotland headquarters are that might be a wee bit different.

And if it happened to be the actual branch of Starbucks inside Tulliallan Castle, home to the Scottish Police College where they train detectives and house the top brass of Police Scotland, then I would say that would just be a tad embarrassing, wouldn't you?!

Yip, you've guessed. Embarrassment all round - because that's exactly where the cafe is.

£17,000 got nicked right under the noses of Scotland’s top cops.

That's a lot of egg on their face.

The only way this could be more embarrassing for Police Scotland is if it had happened in a Dunkin' Donuts.

Because that would've given me a wonderful excuse to make jokes about the missing 'dough' and our top brass in Police Scotland not quite being the 'creme de la creme' they think they are and all that.

Hey, hang on. Starbucks sell donuts too don't they?

Oh good, I can leave all those 'stale' jokes in after all.

Friday 18 March 2016

Putting Money Before Safety

Campaigners have called for the Scottish Government to offer speed awareness courses in some cases instead of fines and points for drivers caught speeding.

It makes sense.

These speed awareness courses have been around for many years in England and seem to have proved themselves to be an appropriate way of dealing with otherwise law abiding drivers who have just found themselves to have inadvertently wandered above the speed limit due to a momentary lapse.

Serial speedsters of course get the book thrown at them, and rightly so.

My first thought here was that police will be dead set against this. After all, the primary point of Police Scotland's existence is to make as many innocent members of the public in to criminals to falsify figures and make it look as if they are being tough on crime and doing a great job keeping us safe. (*Note to Police Scotland - prosecuting a dozen so-called 'criminals' for doing 35mph in a 30mph does not prove you're being tough on crime. Catch a dozen burglars and then I might be impressed...).

But the sweetener with speed awareness courses for police is that these courses cost the punter between £80 and £200...of which police pocket around £40.

Ah, so there could be few quid in it for them. Now it gets interesting.

But what a dilemma.

Police now have to decide whether they should opt to make themselves a whole host of £40's...but at the expense of them not getting to falsify the 'crime' figures.

Mmmm, it's a difficult one.

Of course, as everyone except untrustworthy Police Scotland knows, the question should really be what's best for the public and their safety?

But, hey, that has NEVER come in to how Police Scotland operate. Never.

You see, if public safety was paramount to our police then there would be no monetary fines at all. It would be solely points on your licence for everything - not fines.

As well as the current 3 points or more for speeding offences, you could give, say, one point, half a point, even a quarter point, for various minor road traffic infringements. The main thing here is that the serial offenders would very quickly tot up points and lose their licence. And they are the very menaces we want to keep off the roads.

What's not to like about that type of system - sounds perfect doesn't it?

Just one wee teeny thing. It doesn't raise money.

Drivers don't get fleeced, and that's not good for our boys in blue and our government who employ them.

No fines means no income. Putting serial speeders and traffic violators off the road means they don't buy cars (lost VAT revenue), don't pay insurance premiums and vehicle MOT's and repairs (more lost VAT revenue), don't pay road tax, and don't contribute fuel duty every time they fill up.

So, sorry people. Your safety is important to your police and your government - just not as important as money is to them.

Thursday 17 March 2016

Paul Rooney Plays Musical (Financial) Chairs

The chairman of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) Andrew Flanagan has criticised has own board for having a lack of financial expertise.

Before you start applauding him for his honesty and frankness though, don't.

He really didn't have any choice but to criticise his own board - after all they're facing an £85million funding gap.

Financial expertise certainly is NOT the SPA's strong point.

In the wake of the financial meltdown and melee that has ensued, the first scalps have been claimed. Among those who have stood down amid scathing criticism of the SPA's financial mess by Audit Scotland is Paul Rooney.

In case you're wondering where you've heard the name Paul Rooney before, his full title is Councillor Paul Rooney. He's a councillor with Glasgow Crooked City Council.

But he's not just some lowly SPA board member as they would have you believe. No. Paul Rooney once occupied Andrew Flanagan's job. He's a former chairman of the financial mess ridden SPA.

He was once the top man at the top of the mess, no less.

That's not all.

He was also the convener of the £15 BILLION Strathclyde Pension Fund.

That's not all.

He has been the Glasgow City Council treasurer since 2011, overseeing a budget of more than £2.2 BILLION.

Yip. He's been around a wee while and seems to be very attracted to financial types of jobs.

So what's his background then? An accountant? A banker? Book-keeper perhaps? Financial advisor? Insurance actuary? Mathematician even?

Eh, no. He's an ex Procurator Fiscal Depute.

Maybe someone should have pointed out that in Scotland the word 'fiscal' as in Procurator 'Fiscal' really has nothing to do with money and finance.

But, like all savvy politicians, he will probably know that if you keep moving around enough and don't stay in any one position for too long you can actually make quite a good career for yourself.

The secret in public office is never to remain in any one place for too long in case people notice that you're useless. And if any mud does end up getting thrown around at a later date, well, you were never there long enough for much of it to stick to you personally.

Ahhh, the credentials of the perfect politician.

The List Police Scotland Don't Want You To See

The names and identities of Police Scotland officers who have been linked to the secret Met police division which illegally spied on demonstrators and had sex with them to gain intelligence are starting to leak out.

The Pitchford Inquiry has been set up in England and Wales to get to the bottom of the police sex and demonstrations scandals - but it doesn't extend to Scotland. And that's just how untrustworthy Police Scotland want it to stay because many senior officers are up to their neck in this too. They really don't want the enquiry extended to include Scotland.

But fortunately for the public, there are ways and means of exposing those officers who would rather hide away under the cloak of anonymity.

It's called the Freedom Of Information Act.

And in a response to questions submitted under FOI legislation here are the names of those high ranking Scottish police officers who would prefer us not to know that they were involved and don't want to tell us what they knew.

They all attended meetings of the Association of Chief Police Officers Terrorism and Allied Matters Committee (ACPO TAM). In case you don't know, ACPO TAM is responsible for counter terrorism and the national domestic extremism units whose activities are being investigated by the Lord Justice Pitchford enquiry.

The list also includes the names of Police Scotland officers involved in the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005 when infamous undercover officer Mark Kennedy was operating here in Scotland with his colleagues.

So here we go.

Senior officers in Scotland who met with ACPO TAM included

Sir Willie Rae, former Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police.

Paddy Tomkins, former Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police (involved in policing the G8 Summit).

Sir Stephen House, former Chief Constable of Scotland

Assistant Chief Constable Colin McCashey (retired)

Assistant Chief Constable Ronnie Liddle, former counter-terrorism chief (retired)

DCC Iain Livingstone 

Assistant Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson

...and not forgetting of course....ta da ra...

Chief Constable of Scotland, Phil Gormley - who was a boss in the Met so is expected to give evidence to the Pitchford Inquiry because he oversaw both the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).

I'm sure there are many more names still to come out of the woodwork, but for the meantime the above officers have now been named. Let's wait and see if, in time, any of them will be shamed.

Wednesday 16 March 2016

Can The Health & Safety Executive Be Trusted?

Last May an eight year old boy called Ciaran Williamson died after a 6ft gravestone fell on him while he and his friends were playing in Craigton Cemetery.

The easy question to answer is what were the kids doing playing in a graveyard? The answer is simple - kids play where they want to play. They are inquisitive, they seek adventure, and they don't see the same dangers and risks we adults do.

The more difficult question to answer is how did they manage to get in to the cemetery in the first place and why weren't they spotted and thrown out before any harm was done to them or the graveyard?

Was there a lack of oversight and security on the part of the cemetery owners?

What we do know though is that the tragedy prompted Glasgow City Council to review more than 30,000 gravestones across Glasgow. So there would seem to be some sort of issue or concern on the safety/security front.

As you can imagine, the family would like these questions answered. If your eight year old died you'd want answers too. So the family are calling on the Crown office to hold a Fatal Accident Enquiry.

But strangely enough, there has already been an investigation in to this case.

The Health and Safety Executive submitted a confidential report to the Procurator Fiscal in September last year and a spokeswoman from the HSE is quoted as saying “Ciaran died on the 26th May 2015 and we reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service at the end of September with a recommendation for no criminal proceedings in relation to the death.

In case you missed a wee important word in the paragraph above let me put it in bold italics for you: "The Health and Safety Executive submitted a confidential report to the Procurator Fiscal"


Why confidential?

Mmmmm. Why would the Health and Safety Executive want to keep their report to the Crown office a secret from us?

Could it be that their buddies in Glasgow City Council - who legislate for the HSE - could be sued by the family if this was a HSE matter and Glasgow City Council were deemed to be responsible in some way for the tragedy?

What if Glasgow City Council hadn't maintained the gravestones properly? What if Glasgow City Council hadn't provided adequate security around the perimeter of the graveyard to stop kids getting in? What if Glasgow City Council hadn't provided adequate security within the graveyard to catch and turf out any unauthorised persons who do get in there?

That's a lot of 'what ifs'.

And there's an even bigger 'what if'.

What if the Health & Safety Executive wrote this secret confidential report to the Crown office advising them not to take action against Glasgow City Council in order to protect their friends in Glasgow City Council from being sued?

Surely that couldn't happen, could it?

I mean, just for example, if a Glasgow City Council bin lorry was to, say, kill 6 people, you wouldn't get the HSE meeting with the police and Crown office the next day advising them NOT to treat it as a HSE issue but a road traffic accident in order to keep Glasgow City Council out the frame and protect them from being sued by the families for employing the driver in the first place?

Nah, that's so far-fetched it's ridiculous - that could never happen.

Make All Calls To DWP Free

I have signed a petition today asking Iain Duncan Smith to make phone calls to all the various Department Of Work & Pensions offices free. Every number to every office should be an 0800 number.

I have commented that people on benefits make up the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and many can ill afford the costs of telephone calls to ask for help.

No one should be making money off them, not the telephone companies, not the Government, no one.

If you feel the same, please consider signing the petition at below:

Government Mole Inside Police Scotland

A lady called Fiona Wilson is due to start a new job this week. In case you haven't heard of her, she used to be the head of news (press) for the Scottish Government.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has loaned her out to Police Scotland for six months to be their head of communications.

The hope is that Ms Wilson will be able to sprinkle her fairy dust on untrustworthy Police Scotland and spin them some good press and deflect some of their bad publicity.

This raises two very concerning matters.

Firstly, why waste time and money employing a spin doctor to deflect all the bad things that Police Scotland do? Instead just get all the coppers in untrustworthy Police Scotland together and tell them to start acting honestly and with integrity.

Hey, if police stop doing bad things they'll stop getting bad publicity. Simple.

But the matter that concerns me most is the Scottish Government 'lending' Police Scotland a member of their publicity machine.

It just demonstrates yet again the many ties and connections between all the public bodies in Scotland who are supposed to be independent of each other.

A Scottish Government press secretary moving over to Police Scotland is merely the tip of the ice-berg. All the main public organisations in Scotland such as Police Scotland, the Crown office, Glasgow City Council, Health & Safety Executive, Scottish Police Authority etc are all dangerously incestuous. Each have friends and connections in each others organisations. I've written extensively about this.

Fiona Wilson's secondment from the Scottish Government to Police Scotland is just another example.

And it helps explain yet again why, when you complain about one public body about another public body, your complaint always ends up being swept under one of their carpets.

Tuesday 15 March 2016

Police Scotland Lie Again

Untrustworthy Police Scotland tell us that armed officers are not routinely out on our streets.

Below is a photo taken of an armed officer stopping someone for...wait for it...not wearing a seatbelt.

Increduously, chief superintendent Elaine Ferguson defends it.

She says "These officers were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Drivers and passengers who do not wear a seatbelt are placing themselves at considerable risk if they are involved in an accident."

But wait a minute. Police Scotland continually tell us, the public, that armed police officers do NOT routinely roam our streets.

You are liars Police Scotland.

While it's nice that you're admitting you lie to the Scottish public - that certainly makes a welcome change - it's a disgrace that you still try to justify it.

Shame on you.

Monday 14 March 2016

The Closing Bell

With police stations and call centres closing down right left and centre, thank goodness we can at least walk in to the few police station counters that are still open and get help from the police when we need it.

Except we can't. Because they're not always open when they should be.

A Freedom Of Information request by the Lib Dems has shown that in the space of just six months police station counters were closed 560 times when they should have been open to the public.

I'm not sure what Police Scotland propose to do about this.

Perhaps they'll ask all burglars, murderers, and rapists to restrict their criminal actions to the times that police are 'open' for business?

A sort of 'get your crimes in quick before we close' kinda thing.

They could even ring a bell and shout 'last (antisocial behaviour) orders please'.

Arrest Beyonce?

I absolutely loved this tongue in cheek article which pokes fun at the ridiculous way Police Scotland apply the law regarding football matches (if your browser isn't displaying it properly click on the picture or this link).

Sunday 13 March 2016

Is Phil Gormley Admitting Failure?

New chief constable Phil 'Gormless' has been rather busy lately setting out his stall to MSP's regarding his vision for Police Scotland.

He has said that local police commanders will be given a greater say in influencing decisions taken by Police Scotland at a national level.

Errrrm, isn't that the way it used to work? Local police taking local decisions on local matters at a local level?

In other words, what Uncle Phil seems to be saying is that policing should go back to the way it used to be before this stupid failed experiment of merging Scotland’s police service in to one massive cost cutting and inefficient one-size-fits-all force was introduced.

The only people in the country who continue to espouse the opinion that the failed new national Police Scotland experiment is a success is Police Scotland themselves.

Is it just possible that the new chief constable may be beginning to see the light?

Interesting times.

Saturday 12 March 2016

Collaboration And Trust Is NOT Always A Good Thing

The relationship between Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority has been not always been a happy one.

On occasions the relationship has been very good, very close. That's been a bad thing.

In recent years it hasn't been so cosy, it's been rather frosty. And that's been a good thing.

New chief constable of Police Scotland Philip 'Gormless' has told the Scottish parliament that he intends to cultivate a better relationship with the SPA than in recent times.

According to Uncle Phil, his approach to the SPA will be all about "collaboration and trust".

He continues by saying, "I have no interest in exchanging formal letters with the chairman, I think the relationship needs to be predicated on trust and transparency."

This is bad.

You see, I personally fell victim to the 'close relationship' the SPA had with untrustworthy Police Scotland.

The SPA are supposed to hold Police Scotland to account. But they simply can't do that while they are tucked up in bed together.

So Phil Gormley MUST exchange formal letters with the chairman of the SPA and the chairman MUST NOT trust Phil Gormley.

If the relationship between the SPA and Police Scotland ever becomes 'close' again, I know I'll be the first to find myself in a jail cell again due to their collusion.

I have many enemies in Police Scotland and the Crown office. As long as there are still ex procurator fiscals, ex police officers, and ex councillors connected to the SPA I still have enemies in the SPA. And if untrustworthy Police Scotland know the SPA will not hold them to account, I can expect a loud knock on my door from corrupt Police Scotland officers (again). Guaranteed.

The connections between the SPA and Police Scotland have been dangerously incestuous for a very long time.

It's all fine when they don't see eye to eye because when they are in conflict with each other we, the public, have a chance that the SPA will hold Police Scotland properly to account.

But when they start to cosy up to each other (as they were doing at the time of my false arrest in 2012/2013) you just know that even more corruption and injustice is just around the corner for all.

And you can rest assured that I won't be the only innocent member of the public who will fall victim of their closer relationship of so-called "collaboration and trust".

Friday 11 March 2016

Murdered Disabled Man Failed By Police

Kevin Duffy is a police officer who is originally from Glasgow. He worked with Avon and Somerset Police.

He and a fellow officer have been convicted and sent to prison in connection with the death of a disabled man in Bristol.

The disabled man was punched and kicked to death by a neighbour who believed he was a paedophile. His body was then set on fire.

But the neighbour got it wrong - the disabled man was not a paedophile at all.

PC Duffy got it wrong too.

He failed to respond to numerous pleas for help from the disabled man two days before he was murdered, saying he viewed him as a nuisance and a liar.

It's pretty clear PC Duffy was of the opinion he was a paedophile too.

Once again, when you look a little deeper in to this you see the bigger story and the real problem with our police.

I have written exhaustively about a worrying culture in the police where they form opinions on people and pursue those people as per their incorrect and biased opinions. Police decide who the bad guy is then try to cobble together as much evidence as they can to support that 'opinion'.

And when their opinion is wrong - which all too often it is - they are far too arrogant to admit they got it wrong. So the witch-hunt against the innocent member of the public continues. In the end, an innocent person gets convicted and sent to jail (or dies), but hey, that's a good trade-off for the police. As far as police are concerned an innocent man in jail or dead is just collateral damage - a cost of doing business. Far better an innocent man goes to jail or dies than police have to admit they got it wrong.

That's the way it works and it's disgusting.

It goes against EVERYTHING that is good, honest, and decent in our society. And our police are at the forefront of promoting this corruption.

It is of vital importance that the police should NOT pursue people based on their personal opinions and their own prejudices - but they do. Every day.

The opinions of a police officer are unimportant and completely irrelevant to a case. Police officers are supposed to be merely reporters. They get called to incidents and report what they find (to the Procurator Fiscal). Opinions must not enter in to it or justice is defeated.

Only the courts decide guilt - not police officers or the Crown office.

Yet EVERY SINGLE DAY we see police officers arresting people based on their own opinions. We see them scurrying around trying to cobble evidence together to fit their own opinions and agenda. We see them utilise every resource at their disposal just to get convictions against people they don't like. They celebrate and high-five each other when they make the arrest - yet it's not their job to determine guilt.

Of course the only reason they get away with acting in this wrong and corrupt way is because their friends and colleagues in the Crown office collude with them to do it. They both sing from the same hymn sheet as it were.

Police exist to arrest as many people as they can and the Crown office exist to prosecute as many people as they can. This allows them to deflect any criticism of what they do - they simply point to the arrest and prosecution 'figures' and claim they prove they are keeping us safe. Job done.

Until both the police and the Crown office change their ways and start to act honestly and with integrity towards members of the public, injustice will continue.

Innocent members of the public will continue to find themselves, as I did, sitting in a jail cell when they've done absolutely nothing wrong - just because it suits corrupt police officers to do it (yes, take a bow corrupt PC Susan Glendinning, corrupt PC Jamie Collins, and corrupt PC Brian Fowler).

This culture of corruption must stop.

No wonder members of the public do not trust the police.

Thursday 10 March 2016

Rewarded For Failure

You may remember the tragic case of Chinese delivery driver Simon San who died from a racist attack which shocked communities the country over.

The police were heavily criticised for their investigation, especially when senior officer Gareth Blair described Mr San as being the victim of a “fairly minor assault”.

Simon San is dead.

This was far from a “fairly minor assault”.

So in one of those 'where are they now' style stories, I invite you, dear reader, to guess where Gareth Blair is now.

Sitting in a police call centre filing reports on missing cats?

Demoted to helping old ladies across the road in some remote Scottish island?

Long since retired in to obscurity?

Eh no.

He has just been promoted to Scotland's top murder detective.

So do you feel safer sleeping in your bed tonight then?

Sacked - Unless You're A Councillor

Glasgow Crooked City Council are to axe 1500 jobs in the next year to make up for a £130m shortfall.

Thousands of people working at Glasgow City Council are on tenterhooks right now, wondering if they'll be one of the 1500 who'll be out of a job shortly and wondering how they'll pay the mortgage and feed their family.

Except the councillors of course.

None of them will lose their jobs.

Nuff said.

Wednesday 9 March 2016

More Translations

Here we go again.

Yet again I find myself having to translate for untrustworthy Police Scotland (they should give me a job doing this - I'm really good at it even if I say so myself).

So here goes.

The former head of the Scottish Police Authority, Andrew Flanagan, has spoken about whistle-blowing in Police Scotland. No, I don't mean police officers blowing whistles every time they see a masked man with a stripey t-shirt, and a bag with 'swag' written on it slung over his shoulder.

No, I mean those few courageous and honest police officers who joined the police force for all the right and just reasons who, faced with a mire of sleaze and corruption, decide to do the right thing and blow the whistle on the illegal activities of their corrupt colleagues.

Since the whistle-blowing scheme came in to force to try and clean Police Scotland up a bit, there has only been 133 referrals - out of a workforce of 22,000. Mr Flanagan goes on to say "I’m not sure 133 necessarily reflects success."

Let me translate.

Police Scotland is corrupt to the core. If any officer in Police Scotland dares to expose the corruption of his fellow officers he or she will very quickly find themselves kicked out the door, real pronto.

Police Scotland is built on corruption and those at the top will trample on and destroy any officer who dares to try to expose it. Even the police's Professional Standards Department who were set up to investigate in to police corruption are corrupt themselves!

THAT is why there are very few whistle-blowers willing to come forward.

Need any more translations done?

Keep 'em coming.

The Corrupt Crown Office Just Got Castrated Today

There has been a very important development in the bin lorry tragedy today.

Very important.

Justice Secretary Michael Matheson has announced that MSP's have made a decision to give legal aid to the families to help them bring about a private prosecution against the driver Harry Clarke.

This is fantastic news. But maybe not for the reasons you think.

You see, no matter what happens, the bottom line is that the driver Harry Clarke is NEVER going to be held accountable for his actions. From day one, the corrupt Crown office, the Health & Safety Executive (on behalf of their buddies in Glasgow Crooked City Council), and Police Scotland got together and made absolutely sure of that.

Even a private prosecution by the families, helped and funded by legal aid money, is doomed to fail. Quite simply there has been so much reported in the press about this case Harry Clarke's lawyers will very quickly, easily, and successfully claim he cannot possibly get a fair trial.

That'll be the end of it.

So if the legal aid offered today by MSP's is all in vain and won't change a thing, why is todays granting of legal aid for this private prosecution so important?

It's important because the Scottish government, on behalf of the public, have today slapped the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and his Crown office right in the face. In fact it's more than that - Frank Mulholland has been kicked by MSP's in a very tender area and right now is rolling around on the floor in agony.

That's how big this thing is.

No matter which way the Crown office try to dress this up and spin it (and mark my words, they will try), MSP's and the public have given an emphatic vote of no confidence to the Crown office today.  We have sent a stinging message to their whole corrupt organisation that we will no longer tolerate them and their crooked ways.

We, the public, are no longer prepared to sit back and allow the Crown to do what they like. Yip, the times they are a-changin' as they say, and today they just changed in our favour, not the Crowns.

The Crown office work for us. They are duty bound to do what is in the public interest. But the public have been screaming out at the Crown office to prosecute the bin lorry driver Harry Clarke and the Crown office have consistently and arrogantly thumbed their nose at the public.

Well today Frank Mulholland has just been taught a lesson he'll never forget.

My message to Frank Mulholland is clear. You thumb your nose at the public at your peril. We put you where you are Frank, and if we so wish, we'll remove you just as quickly. You are NOT untouchable and today you just felt our wrath.

Now it's no secret in legal circles that Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland has had egg on his face over this matter for a long time. But he is so arrogant that, up until now, he didn't care because he knew he was the top dog, he made the decisions, and to hell with the public and what they want - nobody tells the Frankie boy what to do. He just oozes a 'do you know who I am' attitude. Yeah, a real charmer.

Until this morning.

My prediction now is that Frank Mulholland will be sacked or he'll resign very soon.

And the new Lord Advocate, whoever he or she will be, will be under no doubt whatsoever that the Lord Advocates job and the Crown office has changed forever as of today.

The Crown office can and WILL be held to account by the public from this day on.

Sadly this is still a bad day for the families of the bin lorry tragedy. They still won't get justice. They will never get justice. It's heartbreaking.

But at least today, we the public have just taken a major step forward. The Crown office's closed shop has been dismantled, their barriers have been breeched, and the first slash of the surgeons knife in the castration of this corrupt Crown office and the unchecked power they used to wield has begun.

Todays events won't stop the Crown office cheating the public - you can't change a culture of corruption overnight. But after today they know that when they do cheat the public, it may just come back to bite them in the bum like never before. And that's a good thing.

I'm ecstatic at this news today.

As my readers already know, I'm tee-total and don't drink alcohol, but if I did, I'd be popping the champaign corks right now.

Police Need More Training To Spot False Accusers

Rather a long post this one but it is well worth a read so please bear with me dear readers.

Police Scotland in the north-east have increased their efforts to help victims of domestic abuse including working closely with victim support groups.

Detective Sergeant Drew Sharp said, "Our officers are trained to recognise the signs of domestic abuse and to work with partners to ensure victims receive the support and protection they deserve."

This is welcome news.

And I believe DS Sharp's efforts should be an example to all and rolled out all over the country, not just in the north-east. Domestic abusers are a scourge and their behaviour is unacceptable in any civilised society.

I just wish the increased training and resources being spent helping Police Scotland officers to recognise domestic abusers would be include training police how to spot FALSE ACCUSERS - people who just want to cause trouble for their ex partners.

You see, just like domestic abusers, false accusers are also the scourge of society. Not only do they cause immeasurable damage to the lives and reputations of the innocent people they falsely accuse, they also waste time and money as police divert resources from other areas of crime detection in order to pursue their vindictive and baseless accusations.

I know. Because I was the innocent victim of a false accuser.

As regular readers of this blog know, I NEVER shy away from standing up for what's right, fair, and just. So when I was faced with a false accusation of stalking from a disgruntled ex girlfriend, I did what any decent, honest, innocent person would do - I demanded we go to trial.

I took on the Crown office and my false accuser in court - and I won.

To this day I thank God that I had the strength and courage to take on my false accuser and her lies in a court of law. I know many others who don't have the robustness of character that I have to stand up for truth and justice and would have caved in under the pressure of facing such a charge and a criminal trial - and that's not right.

Anyway, the end result was that I won a decisive victory and my false accuser, ex girlfriend Mhairi McAdam, had her lies exposed in a very public way in a court of law.

It turns out she had accused her previous boyfriend of stalking her too.

So why did the false accuser do it?

Well, we may never know her entire motives exactly and I'm sure there are probably many disgruntled ex girlfriends out there who have tried to make trouble for their ex boyfriends for all sorts of different reasons. But what we do know is that she was able to disappear with around £5,000 of my property by making the false accusation. So, in my case, money would seem to have been at the heart of her false accusation.

When you consider that her false accusation - had it been successful - carried a prison sentence of up to one year in jail, I'd say that the £5,000 she made was a pretty insignificant amount in comparison to such serious consequences. Ahhh, the greed and vindictiveness of a disgruntled ex partner.

Thankfully her story was not believed in court and my innocence was proven.

The case was promptly thrown out with a 'no case to answer'. When throwing out the case, Sheriff Douglas Brown stated "Mr Campbell should never have been brought before a criminal court" and agreed that this was nothing more than a property dispute between a couple splitting up and belonged in a civil court.

Sheriff Brown also stated that "The only abuse in this case has come from the complainer".

That's pretty damning words from a Sheriff at a trial if ever I heard them. As well as leaving absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to my innocence, it also heaped scathing criticism on to my false accuser. I would also add that Procurator Fiscal Calum Forsyth didn't come out exactly smelling of roses in this whole debacle either but that's another story for another post.

So how did the false accusation get as far as a court room and a trial?

How did the police and Crown office manage to get it all so wrong?

And why didn't they stop when they realised they'd got it all wrong?

This is where the story get's rather long so please bear with me.

You see, it all started with a simple property dispute between my false accuser and I over two properties we jointly owned. It was a simple 'civil law' matter which all couples who own property together go through when they separate. Here in Scotland you draft a document known as a 'minute of separation' (commonly referred to as a 'separation agreement') and it details how your joint assets are to be split. We couldn't agree on how the properties should be divided. Nothing unusual in that though - most couples disagree on who get's what when they separate.

But trouble flared up when my false accuser took it upon herself to change the locks on BOTH the properties we owned and decided she wanted to reside in both properties and keep all the contents of both for herself. Yip, she wanted two houses, two coffee tables, two dishwashers, two sets of knives and forks, etc etc. She wanted the lot, everything.

As if that wasn't bad enough, she did all this before any separation agreement had even been reached between us. She had no legal right to do this and no legal right to exclude me from my properties.

So there was I, the owner of TWO houses, left with nowhere to live (and her keeping all my stuff in to the bargain)!

Now you don't have to be a genius to work out that if a couple have separated and they own two houses, then it would make sense for one to live in one house and the other to live in the other house - simple. Yes, I know, there may be a bit of debating over who gets to stay in which house, but, in general, it should be a fairly simple situation to work out. I'm sure most couples going through a separation would be absolutely delighted to be in a situation where they owned two houses and could have one each - that's got to be better than having to play out their separation while still living together under the one roof! It makes things an awful lot easier (or so it should).

Except my false accuser wanted to live in both properties - she wanted to live in our luxury flat in the city centre (near her workplace) Mondays to Fridays, and then live in our bungalow in the suburbs at the weekends. I obviously refused to agree to this ridiculous arrangement, therefore she changed the locks on BOTH properties so that she had exclusive use of both whether I liked it or not. Presumably I was expected to sleep on the streets.

I called my solicitor at the time and asked for legal advice on the situation and was told she had no right denying me access to my houses and contents and if she refused to give me keys to the new locks she'd fitted I should make a forced entry i.e. drill through the locks.

Of course I didn't just barge over to my house with a drill in my hand (although I'm sure many people knowing they were within their legal rights to do so would have done just that). No. Before I did anything at all, I first asked police for their advice on how best to handle this situation and, on their advice, I ensured that she was not present at the property before drilling through the locks. The police officers I spoke to wisely suggested this would be the most appropriate course of action so as to avoid any confrontation with her. I just wanted my stuff and to take up residence in one of my properties.

But alas, that's not how my false accuser spun the story to the police she spoke to after I had drilled the locks.

Instead, she walked in to Bellshill police station, spouted a pile of untruths to a female officer with a sympathetic ear, made up a cock-and-bull sob story about not feeling safe to sleep in her bed at night in case Wee Willie Winkie with his Black & Decker should come a-calling etc. Complete nonsense of course, but she really laid it on thick.

And as you can guess, instead of checking out her story, our bold boys (and girls) in blue leapt in to action - without bothering to check her statement to see if what she was saying was actually true. Within hours I was sporting a lovely shiny pair of handcuffs as bracelets. It must have been a slow news day that day I guess.

It possibly didn't help matters that around that time the then Chief Constable Stephen House was on a bit of a mission to clean up the mean streets of Glasgow before the upcoming Commonwealth Games and had instructed all officers to throw anyone and everyone with a domestic element to complaints against them in to the slammer, no questions asked. He even used buses to transport 'doms' (police speak for people arrested on domestic complaints) all the way over from Edinburgh to Glasgow because the cells in Edinburgh were bursting at the seams with so many 'doms'.

So it seems I wasn't the only innocent person who, around this time, found himself banged up in a jail cell by police for absolutely nothing.

Even the Lord Advocate was in on the game around this time and instructed all his Procurator Fiscals not to drop any charges with a domestic element to them even if there was no chance of a conviction! Astounding.

Either way, the upshot of it all was that I, an innocent man, found myself wrongly arrested by police, spent the weekend in a police cell, and was paraded in front of the local Sheriff on the Monday to face a false charge from a disgruntled ex girlfriend who's statement police had never bothered to check.

My whole point here is that if police had been better trained to spot false accusers and to investigate and check statements for discrepancies, my false accuser would have been given a stern talking to by police and promptly shown the door the minute she tried to make her false statement - and I would never have had to go through the humiliation and ordeal of being detained and arrested by police, put in jail for 3 days (Fri-Mon), and a year of my life spent waiting for a trial to prove my innocence. 

An awful lot of damage and expense could have been avoided from all sides if only police had bothered to actually investigate the claims she made to them at the time instead of rushing to arrest. It wasn't as if the case was complicated - it didn't need Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this was a simple property dispute, not a domestic dispute.

All police had to do was apply the most simple basic checks to the statement she gave to them to see if what she said was actually true or not - and they would have very easily seen that it was...well...not true!

It wasn't as if police even had to wait to interview or speak to me to get the proper way of the story - there were so many lies on her statement that could easily have been disproved right there and then, in the police station, at the time.

If police had just simply asked her to back up the claims in her statement she couldn't have done it.

But they didn't even ask.

As my Member of the Scottish Parliament John Mason later said to me, "It's an all too common problem. Police are far too quick to rush to detain". How correct he is.

Police don't realise (or care) about the damage they do.

This rush to detain is a serious failing of Police Scotland. Police Scotland in general are, at best lazy, and at worst incompetent. Older and retired officers I speak to are horrified at what goes on in Police Scotland today. Police just don't investigate things any more.

I'm sure a shrinking budget and lack of resources may be part of the problem but this alone doesn't excuse the apathy of our police.

Nowadays, instead of investigating properly as they should, police just form an opinion of who they think the 'baddie' is and run with it, cobbling together any evidence they can find along the way which may help to support their opinion.

When the evidence is flimsy - as is often the case, especially when they've got the wrong guy - the police 'bury' all other evidence that may show the person to be innocent. They hide everything and anything that could possibly show the person they want to arrest in a good light in order to try and tip the balance of the flimsy evidence they want to use against him more in the police's favour.

Having done a sloppy job, they then throw their 'report' and the so-called evidence over to the Procurator Fiscals office for them to sort out and hope there's enough good stuff in there to squeeze a conviction out of it.

It's quick, it works reasonably well most of the time, and it saves police having to spend time properly investigating things.

But this is essentially why mistakes happen - often with devastating consequences.

For example, in her statement to police, my false accuser painted me out to be some sort of 'baddie' who took all the money out of our joint bank account and left her penniless. She was lying of course. I did not. But the incompetent and lazy investigating officer (take a bow PC Susan Glendinning) was quick to form an opinion that I must be a 'baddie'. Had PC Glendinning actually bothered to ask my false accuser to show her the bank statement to support this accusation, she would have seen that when we separated as a couple and split our finances I withdrew less than half the money from the joint bank account and actually left Ms Mcadam the lions-share of the money. Instead of me being a 'baddie', I had actually been more than honest, decent, and fair with Ms Mcadam.

Making a simple and basic check on the facts would have revealed this.

Just as crucial, this simple check alone would have revealed that Ms Mcadam was lying and would then have been enough to ring alarm bells with police that something wasn't right and prompt them to scrutinise more carefully the other parts of her statement too and the truth would've been outed.

But police didn't do even the most basic of checks.

Her lies to police continued.

In one of her other, more bizarre, accusations on her false statement she lied that I had been driving up and down the street and staring at the house i.e. stalking her. There were no witnesses to this (oh, there's a surprise eh)?! Only Ms McAdam's insistence that it happened and happened regularly. Of course the reason there were no witnesses is because it wasn't true - she made the whole thing up (and repeated it again under oath on court).

The astounding thing that made this particular lie and accusation really stand out to me was that at the time I was supposed to be driving up and down her street and staring at the house, I was 2,000 miles away in Spain.

I and all my friends and family had well distanced ourselves from Ms Mcadam and had minimal to no contact with her at all. I don't do Facebook or Twitter so she had really no way of knowing that I was in Spain at that time. In a nutshell, she didn't expect to be so easily caught out.

But the whole situation has a far more sinister side to it than just a disgruntled ex telling a few lies to police to make a few quid. It was very much pre-meditated to cause the maximum damage.

You see, Ms McAdam already knew how to go about making an stalking accusation because she had previous experience of doing it, having accused her previous boyfriend, before me, of stalking her too.

She knew that the drilling of the locks at my own house, to obtain my own possessions, was too shaky a reason on it's own for pursuing a 'fear or alarm' complaint. She knew it was impossible to make a Section 39 Stalking charge out of a perfectly legal forced entry to a house I owned, while the house was empty, when there was no-one there to disturb or cause fear or alarm to.

So...she invented this 'driving up and down the street' and 'staring at the house' stalking story (plus a few others) in an effort to add spice to the false accusation and help police shoe-horn it in to being a Section 39 'stalking' charge instead of the straightforward civil law property dispute it was.


She never took her eye off the prize as they say, and you can rest assured she knew exactly how to play it.

Put bluntly, my false accuser lied to encourage police in to thinking there may indeed be some sort of domestic element, some distress, fear, alarm, going on here.

There wasn't.

There never was, ever.

This was a property dispute, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less (as Sheriff Brown later confirmed when he threw the case out of court).

But my false accuser was determined to lie to police to push them in to making it something it was not. And her lies worked. Police failed to spot all the inaccuracies in her statement.

This is already a very long post so I've only listed a couple of the lies my false accuser told police. Rest assured there are more, all provable, all documented, and all in her sworn statement to police. I haven't even begun to tell you what she said in court on the witness stand after taking an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth but that's for another day and another post. Thank goodness the Sheriff saw right through her.

So OK, we now know what she did and we also know that ex partners will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to cause trouble for their ex's. But how did she manage to make money out of it?

Well, the wheels of justice turn very slowly. By making a false accusation, lying to police in her statement, and having me arrested and charged, there was a long passage of time before this all came to trial in court (more than a year in fact).

This gave my false accuser plenty of time to remove all my furniture, fixtures, and plenishings out of the two properties we owned - leaving me with nothing.

And she did just exactly that.

As we sit here today, £5,000 worth of furniture, fixtures, and plenishings from both properties have completely disappeared (as has Ms Mcadam). She has long since disposed of the contents of both properties and has skipped the country owing £5,000 to me plus tens of thousands of pounds of debt to others which she has now dumped on me (it's known as joint and several liability - if one person doesn't pay the debt, the other person is liable and gets pursued for it).

Hey, let's hear a big cheer for Police Scotland and the Crown office for helping her do it. Shame on you all.

So why don't the police and Crown office now pursue her and charge her with making a false statement to them?

That would seem to be the right and just thing to do now surely?

Aha, this is where it get's interesting...

You see, from the police and the Crown office's perspective it just doesn't benefit them to pursue her and arrest her for her crimes - that would only serve to shine a very bright spotlight back on to the many police and Crown office failings that went on in this case and would highlight the fact that they got it so very wrong in the first place and pursued an innocent man and took away his liberty.

The police and Crown office would rather bury this whole matter and move on rather than have their failings exposed.

The innocent falsely accused person (me) who the police and Crown office wrongly pursued so relentlessly based on a false statement from a false accuser that they failed to check, turned out to actually be the victim.

But it's better for the police and Crown office that a guilty person gets away with a crime than they get criticised. They have decided to ignore these crimes in the hope that I'll eventually get fed up trying to pursue them for justice and go away.

That's never gonna happen.


I will not rest until my false accuser is sitting in a jail cell where she belongs for what she did.

I have some other options under Scots civil law. I could take Ms McAdam to civil court (assuming we can find her) to get my £5,000 of furniture, fixtures, and plenishings back. However my solicitor has advised me that this will cost me £6,000 in legal fees.

Even if I did have £6,000 to lay out and pursue Ms Mcadam in a civil court (which I don't), if she has already skipped out of the country with all the money it'll be impossible to ever reclaim what she owes me even if I win.

£5,000 out of pocket is bad enough. Throwing a further £6,000 at the case and still ending up with nothing is out of the question. I just don't have that sort of money to throw at a civil case and I have not been given any support from the police and Crown office to pursue this liar and false accuser in a criminal court.

Of course, as a member of the public and an innocent victim of crime, the Crown office have a duty to me and should help me. They should be pursuing my false accuser on my behalf - that's their job.

But what's the chances of the Crown office doing the right and just thing?

What's the chances of the Crown office admitting they got it wrong and doing an about-turn?

What's the chances of the Crown office going after a liar who they earlier jumped the gun and mistakenly supported?

Just ask the families of the six dead people who got mowed down by a bin lorry in Glasgow - they'll answer the above questions for you...

So, in the end, my false accuser may never see the inside of a court of law or a jail cell. She may never be brought to justice for her crimes (although I still continue to push the police and Crown office to arrest her, take her in to police custody, and pursue a conviction against her).

Meanwhile, even though I did absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever in trying to gain my own possessions from my own house and have been proved completely innocent in a court, I've lost everything, I'm thousands of pounds out of pocket, and I lost my liberty.

That's just not right by anyone's standards.

Add to this the fact that going down the civil court route is prohibitively expensive and could still see me ending up with nothing, even after I win in a civil case in court, and you can see what an impossible position the police and Crown office have placed me in.

Justice eh?

You get the justice the Crown give you and you get the justice you can afford.

Neither is fair.

I have to also say that it annoys me immensely that the Crown office arrogantly peddle this totally unfair notion that justice has been done just because someone wins their case and walks out of court innocent and free. They conveniently forget the fact that I was actually an innocent and a free man BEFORE I walked in to that court!

Having spent three days in a jail cell (arrested on a Friday, courts don't open till Monday) and a year of my life destroyed waiting for a trial to come up - not to mention the lost £5,000 of possessions, thousands of pounds in legal fees, and tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt my false accuser has piled on to me - is it any wonder I feel let down by the police and the Crown office?

You would too.

But that's the way it works.

I'm innocent yet it cost me dearly. I end up the victim and the injured party yet I still lose. And all the while the false accuser gets away scot-free, laughing at the police, laughing at the Crown office...and laughing all the way to the bank.

Suffice to say that if police had been trained to spot my false accuser's lies this debacle would never have seen the light of day - and I wouldn't have been left so seriously damaged and out of pocket.

So, coming around full circle to the point of this post, we ask the question will Police Scotland ever be given the proper training and the resources to help spot false accusers before they do damage like this to someone again?

And the answer is 'no'.

Weeding out false accusers would be the sensible, honest and just thing to do. But it won't happen. The police and the Crown office will never allow it because they fear it could be twisted around and spun by the politically correct brigade to criticise police and make it look like they're being hard on genuine 'victims'.

Police attract enough criticism and bad publicity at the best of times without choosing to do something that could add more fuel to their fire. So it's not in their interests to pursue this particular justice.

It would be very much in the public interest, but the public interest is of a much lesser importance to police and the Crown office.

Anyway, police are all about finding reasons to take complaints and arrest people. They are not about finding reasons to dismiss complaints and not arrest people.

False accusers are in the minority (thankfully) and not all people who make complaints to police lie in their statements like my false accuser did. Most are genuine.

But whether we like it or not, every complainer and accuser who walks in to a police station, genuine or not, needs to be viewed with some level of guardedness until their story checks out - this should always be standard police procedure to prevent an innocent person be wrongly accused.

It's about being sensible. Police don't have to openly display to complainers that they are being suspicious of their story, lest the complainer be genuine, but they do need to treat them with some sort of healthy scepticism until their story properly checks out.

It's all about checks and balances. Even the genuine complainer must be checked for honesty and there are discrete ways of doing these things. All it takes is good, honest, thorough, and fair policing. It's really not rocket science.

Sadly I know that these essential checks and balances to ensure justice is being served are being rejected every day and are viewed as a negative thing from a Police Scotland PR perspective. They fear that victims groups will scream out at them and accuse police of discouraging victims from coming forward etc.

Police don't want the hassle.

So injustice is a better fit for them.

The bottom line is that good PR headlines and arrogantly protecting the reputations of Police Scotland and the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service are more important to them than justice and fairness for the public.

Innocent members of the public who rightly confront the police and Crown office after being wrongly pursued by them are cast aside. We are viewed as an acceptable cost of doing business - wholly expendable in their eyes.

The consequences of all of this is that innocent members of the public who find themselves victims of false accusations and wrongly targeted by Police Scotland and the Crown office get treated as nothing more than collateral damage - pieces of unimportant human garbage to be discarded and ignored.

Welcome to justice Scottish style.

Police Scotland MUST protect us, the public, from false accusers.

Urgent police training is required NOW and funds MUST be allocated to aid police to better spot these false accusing charlatans. Changes to the way police approach these types of cases MUST change.

Police MUST check all statements with a fine tooth comb for inaccuracies before they rush to detain and arrest because there is absolutely nothing worse in a civilised society than an innocent person losing their liberty.

It happened to me. It should never be allowed to happen to anyone else.

Oh, and while we're at it, please stop this ridiculous bloody-minded culture that has evolved in Police Scotland and the Crown office where you arrogantly stick like glue to the wrong decisions you make long after it has become apparent to everyone (even yourselves) that you've got it wrong.

The Scottish public know that the Glasgow bin lorry driver lied to the DVLA and should never have been driving. Don't you realise that your Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland is viewed as a laughing stock by the Scottish public every time he shows his face on TV, acting like he is judge and jury, trying to convince the public that the bin lorry driver didn't do anything criminally wrong and that the Crown office knew ALL the facts a mere hours after the tragedy happened so were right not to prosecute?

It's embarrassing guys.

It's like the emperor's new clothes.

If no-one at the Crown office has the guts to tell Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland to his face that he makes a clown of himself every time he turns up on the BBC news spouting the official line that absolutely no-one outside the COPFS believes, set me up a meeting with him.

I'll tell him.