Sunday, 31 July 2016

The Nothing To Hide Nothing To Fear Argument

My post two days ago about Police Scotland illegally spying on us and the lengths they have gone to in order to hide their activities from us has sparked a lot of reactions from readers.

Others I've spoken to personally in the last couple of days are concerned about the extent of their information gathering, and rightly so.

The question that crops up most regularly in these conversations is "How do you know when Police Scotland (or anyone for that matter) are spying on you"?

The short answer is, you don't.

I'm a member of a number of wonderful organisations including Liberty and Don't SpyOn Us who campaign tirelessly to protect our privacy laws and hold the authorities to account. It's a constant battle with corrupt organisations such as the police, the Crown office, and the Government who constantly ignore and circumvent our laws.

It's an on-going battle and can best be described as a never ending game of cat and mouse. Every time police get caught acting out with the law and are taken to task, they simply change tactics and find another loophole and another way around the laws. And so the merry-go-round of cat and mouse games begin again.

Police and the Crown office love to justify their actions with the classic (and critically flawed) argument "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".

And it's not just untrustworthy Police Scotland and the corrupt Crown office who peddle this totally flawed and incoherent argument. It's often quoted by well meaning but sadly ignorant members of the public who simply do not understand what privacy really is or the arguments that support privacy.

Corrupt officials in the Government, the police, and the Crown office especially use it when they want to discriminate against members of the public and cause them harm.

The most powerful and stinging counter-argument against "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear is fundamental to our whole democracy - the basic right of every man, woman and child to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

You see, blanket surveillance of the population turns this most basic God given right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty completely on it's head.

The 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' argument is purely based on an assumption that you are guilty of something, anything, until such times as secret (and often illegally obtained) surveillance of you and your data can show that you've done nothing wrong.

It's scandalous, it's illegal, and it's undemocratic. It has no place in a civilised society and it's completely unacceptable.

Many folks I speak to struggle to understand what the difference is between 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'guilty until proven innocent' and why its so important. They usually see it as just two sides of the same coin. But it most certainly is not, and the distinction is very important.

Those same folks often also struggle to understand 'if you have nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' argument and how it is central to maintaining the corrupt ways the police and the Crown office operate.

So here's a simpler, easy-to-understand example which describes it perfectly in layman's terms.

Imagine I were to ask you to give me your mobile phone, give me all your passwords, then I asked you to drop your trousers and underpants and let me take a photo of you.

You would refuse (I hope)!

If I then tried to argue that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear?" hopefully you would still refuse.

Its pretty obvious from the above example that although you may have nothing to hide, there are some things that you would like to keep private - your genitalia being one of them!

But just as importantly, if you don't know me from Adam, you have no way to know if you can trust me with your passwords and the data on your mobile phone (and a pic of you naked!). You have no way of knowing what I'm going to do with your data once I have it.

Even if you did know me and trust me, what happens if I lose your data?

What if my phone gets stolen and your data is among it so gets stolen too?

Your phone may contain medical records, bank account details, or debt information.

Your phone's browser history may reveal your political leanings.

And that's just your mobile phone!

This, in a nutshell, is what privacy is all about.

Because the one thing that the police, the Crown office, and the Government have shown us over and over again for as many years as I care to remember is that they are really, really bad at protecting our data.

They leave PC's switched on and logged in - the office cleaner can walk up to them and view sensitive information.

They throw documents in to wheelie bins outside their offices without shredding them first.

They use computers that are so old a 10 year old could break the security and hack them.

Who can forget the MI5 agent who left his briefcase full of secret papers on a train (link here).

Then there's Bob Quick, Britain's counter-terrorism chief who was photographed getting out of his car with a page of a top secret document completely exposed under his arm.

And then Jeremy Hunt who was photographed walking up Downing Street exposing a file with sensitive NHS data.

What about when one persons data gets confused with another persons data? We know that medical records and patient data often gets mixed up.

We know that police often wrongly knock on the door of someone with a similar name.

Does it matter that police have pegged you as a pedophile when in fact it's not you at all - it's the guy who lives at 92 Acacia Avenue, not 92 Acacia Crescent who is the pedophile?

You're damn right it matters.

I don't care whether it's the police, the Crown office or the Government - if they have the data of millions of innocent members of the public who have done nothing wrong, then that data can, will (and has) fallen in to the wrong hands. Guaranteed.

There's an old saying which says that there are only two types of computer users - those who have lost all their data, and those who are about to lose all their data.

Ultimately, a computer is where all the data they collect ends up residing - no matter who collects it and no matter how careful they may think they are being with it.

And computers get hacked and data gets stolen from IT systems every day.

The authorities have access to so much information it's mind boggling.

They film you while you're driving, tracking your movements and logging them via roadside pole mounted CCTV cameras (they had 850 million pics of innocent drivers in Scotland going about their daily business on their database at the last count).

They monitor your internet browsing (ever wondered why after you checked the weather in Spain you got adverts popping up for holidays in Benidorm a few days later).

They read letters and mail before the postman delivers it (all mail goes through a scanner), and GCHQ record your telephone conversations (with the help of Police Scotland's undercover Scottish Recording Centre in Glasgow).

Add to this the fact that that they hold your passport, driving licence, car ownership details, the title deeds of your house, your wages and tax, social security data, pension details - the list goes on - and you can see that there's a ton of information about you that the authorities already hold.

Yet they still want more.

So you see, the problem for me isn't that I have anything to hide from untrustworthy Police Scotland or the corrupt Crown office or any other Government agency for that matter.

The problem for me is that I fear what they'll do with my data.

I fear that they cannot be trusted to keep my data safe.

And those are very real fears.

Very real fears which every innocent member of the public should have.

Fears which have been proven to be very, very well founded, time and time again.

If, after everything I've said here today, you're still unconvinced and you still believe that 'if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' (and you still trust the authorities with your data), then I only have one word for you: WIKILEAKS

Saturday, 30 July 2016

How Crown Office Discrimination Works

In the last post I talked about GCHQ and Police Scotland spying on us using secret projects which they first made sure were not covered by current privacy laws.

The illegal blanket spying of innocent citizens is completely unacceptable in any civilised society.

It's especially unacceptable in Scotland.

We are a nation who are supposed to show others in the world how to be a beacon of light and democracy and how to stand up for all things good and just.

So the fact that our police and crown office act unlawfully and undemocratically is not only embarrassing to the standards we hold ourselves up to, but is embarrassing to our once proud stance in the world.

Now, the most despicable thing any government can do to their own people - people they are supposed to be representing and protecting - is to seek to harm them while claiming to work for their benefit.

But that's what's happening in Scotland.

That's why I run this blog.

In my experience, I have found Police Scotland and the Crown office to be worthless despicable organisations run by worthless despicable people who seek to harm us while claiming to work for our benefit.

I can't change that fact.

It has been my experience with Police Scotland and the COPFS, and not just once or twice or the odd occasional time, but over and over again. That's why I know it's their culture - the culture of corruption.

The saddest thing I come across in my travels around Scotland speaking about these things is the large numbers of members of the public who are completely unaware that this kind of thing goes on in the police and in our courts.

I understand their ignorance - I honestly do.

Because in order to maintain their corrupt practices, it's absolutely essential that the police and the Crown office hide their corruption from the masses, lest good, honest, decent people would find out what they really do and how they really act.

If the general public ever got to know what goes on in courts up and down Scotland every day, there would be such an outcry that the police and Crown office would be dismantled and scrapped tomorrow.

Our whole justice system would completely collapse and that would be a good thing because it would then allow us to rebuild from the ground up, only this time it would be built properly and honestly.

But as you can guess, untrustworthy Police Scotland and the corrupt Crown office will never let that happen - their first priority is to protect themselves. You don't have to look too far in to the mountain of scandalous news stories about the police and the Crown office to know that they jump in to self-defence mode at the slightest hint of criticism (Coulson, bin lorry tragedy, Lockerbie, the list goes on).

So the bottom line is that good, honest and decent members of the public rarely find themselves having any interactions with our justice system so they simply have no idea how bad and how corrupt it actually is.

And that's exactly the way the police and the Crown office like it.

The average member of the Scottish public thinks we all live in a society where the police arrest the baddies and the Crown office prosecute them and put them behind bars - leaving us all safe to sleep in our beds at night.

It's an endearing notion, but it's also a fantasy notion.

And the reason that good, honest and decent folk will never get to know that it's a fantasy notion is because they will rarely if ever see the inside of a court room - they never get to see what's going on in our justice system so they remain ignorant to it. And our corrupt police and Crown office want it to stay that way.

The police and the Crown office don't want good, honest, decent folk with a good education and a good brain in their head seeing what goes on in the courts because if they do, they'll speak out about all the police and Crown office corruption and people will listen.

The last line of the paragraph above, especially the last three words, are the most important words you'll ever read regarding how the police and crown office ensure their corrupt ways and injustices continue.

So I'll repeat it again:

...they'll speak out about all the police and Crown office corruption and people will listen...

You see the police and the Crown office pursue the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. Walk in to any court in the land, any day of the week, and you won't see a lot of well educated, well-heeled, middle-class folks in the dock.

But you will see plenty of jeans, t-shirts, and 'trackies' in the dock.

The police and Crown office target the poor and vulnerable for two simple reasons.

1. It's easy to get a conviction against them because they don't have the money or education to properly defend themselves.

2. Lots of successful convictions means it looks to the rest of the public that they are being tough on crime and doing a good job of keeping you all safe.

But there's also a 3rd reason which is not so obvious.

You see, the Crown office don't always get successful convictions.

Now and again some of the poor and vulnerable innocent people they try to prosecute actually get found innocent.

But the corrupt Procurator Fiscals know that when a poor or vulnerable person walks free from a court of law and comments on the injustice of it all saying things like "Aye man, they polis n' that man, tried tae fit me up fur nuthin' n' that, no whit ah mean big man" nobody listens to them.

But when a well educated, middle-class, professional type of person walks free from a court of law and makes the same comments on the injustice of it all but speaks in a properly structured and articulate way, people do listen.

So now you know why untrustworthy Police Scotland and the corrupt Crown office purposely discriminate against and target the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society.

And that's why the only suits and ties you're likely to see the next time you visit a courtroom will be worn by the people outside the dock, not the people in it.

Friday, 29 July 2016

Police Scotland Illegally Spy On All Of Us, Not Just Journalists

The headline of this post says it all.

As if we didn't know already, it has now been revealed that police in Scotland have been illegally spying on more than just journalists.

I'm sure it'll be no surprise to you to learn that GCHQ have been running a spying programme which collects information on all of our communications, movements and our use of social media.

What will surprise you is that this is all done through a secret surveillance unit called the Scottish Recording Centre (SRC) based in Glasgow.

The Scottish Recording Centre is linked up to, and has access to, a classified GCHQ project called MILKWHITE.

So what is MILKWHITE I hear you ask?

Well, MILKWHITE stores data on your usage of smartphone messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Viber, and Jabber.

As well as tracking your movements, GCHQ have been using MILKWHITE to log your location data, track your movements, monitor your login passwords, and your web browsing history.

What is so alarming about MILKWHITE is that it was a new system set up by GCHQ but without any new legislation in place to protect our civil liberties.

The Investigatory Powers Bill (commonly known as the snooper’s charter) is the law that would cover projects like MILKWHITE and protect us, the public, from abuse by the project - but it won't come into effect in January 2017 if it's passed.

So we have a situation where GCHQ and untrustworthy Police Scotland have been in cahoots with each other, illegally spying on us, the public, for years.

And the next obvious question now has to be, is MILKWHITE still on-going?

Are Scottish police and GCHQ still illegally spying on us?

Surprise, surprise, GCHQ and Police Scotland have refused to say.

However, confidential files unearthed by Edward Snowden, the US whistleblower, show that only a couple of years ago GCHQ were seeking £20.8 Million to update an "advanced analytics system" which uses Police Scotland as its interception agent...

We'll take that as a yes then.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14551829.Secret_police_phone_tap_unit_was_run_by_Strathclyde_Police/


Thursday, 28 July 2016

The Law Which Targets The Poor

I'm not a football fan. I couldn't tell you the name of one single Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen, Dundee player - not one.

Sad as it is, I'm afraid I'm completely ignorant to the virtues of the 'beautiful game'.

But I do know a bit about the politics and background to football and the place football occupies in our society as arguably the most popular sport in the country.

For example, I happen to know that the vast majority of football fans in Scotland tend to come from a working class background.

Yes, I know, I know, all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds love all sorts of sports and football is no different - it's loved by people from all backgrounds.

But just for a moment, let's just dispense with the political correctness and just accept that your average polo fan is more likely to be tending to his pony at the stables on a Saturday morning rather than trying to smuggle six cans of cally special on to a supporters bus.

Bottom line, the working class background of the majority of football fans is exactly why the Government decided to introduce their infamous Offensive Behaviour Act. It is designed to target the working classes.

Regular readers will know that I talk at great length on this blog about how untrustworthy Police Scotland and their buddies in the corrupt Crown office purposely target the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society because they know that they can get easy prosecutions against them.

And the Offensive Behaviour Act was, and is, just another way of targeting this section of society.

Procurator Fiscals are notorious for claiming there is sufficient evidence to prosecute someone they want to prosecute - like someone from a poor background - while claiming there's insufficient evidence to prosecute someone who is a friend or connection of the Crown office.

Now it seems those double standards are alive and well and being used in the Scottish Government too.

You see, when previous figures showed that prosecutions for hate crimes had fallen in Scotland, the Government claimed that it was because of the success of their Offensive Behaviour Act.

Yet now, when the latest figures show that prosecutions for hate crimes have risen in Scotland by 49%, the Government similarly claim it is because of the success of their Offensive Behaviour Act!

How can a law be responsible for a cut in crime and a rise in crime all at the same time?

Let's cut to the chase. There has been no change whatsoever in the number of hate crimes - just a change in the number of members of the public arrested by police and prosecuted by the Crown office under the new law.

And when I use the phrase 'the number of members of the public arrested and prosecuted under the new law', what I really mean of course is 'the number of poor and vulnerable members of the public arrested and prosecuted under the new law'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36498081


Wednesday, 27 July 2016

Crown Office Squander At Least £3 million

I blogged a couple of weeks ago about how the corrupt crown office have completed their investigation in to the Royal Bank of Scotland's behaviour over the 2008 economic collapse and how they have incredulously concluded that no one at RBS should be prosecuted for any wrong doing.


Fast forward a couple of weeks and the next question arising is how much their completely fruitless investigation cost the public?

Well, it seems the Crown office haven't a clue how much their investigation  - which resulted in, well absolutely nothing being done and no one charged - cost the taxpayer.

The only figure we have been able to prise out of them is that they paid 'financial experts' more than £3 million during the inquiry.

We have no idea who these 'financial experts' are or whether they are in fact 'experts' or whether they have any expertise in 'finance'. After all, organisations like the Scottish Police Authority and Glasgow Crooked City Council often put people in charge of financials who have no financial expertise whatsoever (and no clue about much else either for that matter).

But what I am sure of is that throwing £3 million at 'financial experts' just so they could tell us RBS didn't do anything wrong in 2008 when we all know the public had to bail them out with billions of our tax money doesn't sound like a particularly good deal to me.

Of course the only real way we'll get to the bottom of how much of our money the Crown office have spent on this ridiculous whitewash of a RBS investigation charade is by submitting a freedom of information request to the COPFS.

Oops, forget that idea...The Times have already tried that.

And the Crown office have responded to their FOI request by telling them "we do not keep that type of record".

So not only can the corrupt Crown office spend as much of our money as they like, they don't have to tell us how much they're spending.

And we have no right to know where the money has gone.

So much for transparency.

Remind me again who the Crown office work for?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/crown-office-paid-3m-to-experts-investigating-rbs-hfxbgb9c0

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

Council Stick Two Fingers Up To Police Scotland

Police Scotland sent a letter to Stirling council in which they objected to a licence being granted for a new hot dog restaurant in the city centre.

The council couldn't quite fathom why police had objected to the license proposal because the hot dog restaurant will be a family friendly bistro which provides specialised gourmet hot dogs, sandwiches, fine coffees, cakes and tea.

The restaurant owners also plan to host traditional Scottish folk music plus acoustic singers and provide a fusion of Scottish and American culture - hence they were seeking a licence to sell alcohol such as various craft beers and wines etc.

So a good niche family restaurant this most certainly is.

A den of iniquity it most certainly is not.

So why did untrustworthy Police Scotland submit a NINE page letter to the council objecting to the licence being granted for the hot dog restaurant?

Well, after taking a good look at police's nine-page letter, council officials realised that it wasn't really a proper letter. It was just one of those bog-standard generic template types of letter that they send out to everyone.

It was packed full of all sorts of blood curdling crime stats for the area including the number of serious assaults, attempted murders, robberies and assaults that take place in the area. I'm sure the stats were correct - but they're just not the sort of crimes anyone would expect to take place in a gourmet hot dog restaurant!

To add to the councils suspicions that the Police Scotland letter was ridiculously way over the top, no one from Police Scotland had even bothered to attend the licensing meeting despite the strong words in their letter to the council.

Councillor Martin Earl said "What concerns me about the letter is it is generic, and Police Scotland have not come to represent themselves, which should be noted. It should be fed back to them that if they have concerns about specific policy or applications they should attend and speak on any documentation they present. They should be here to debate the issue if they feel it’s important enough."

Well said Martin.

This is yet another example of just how lazy and incompetent Police Scotland have become. Without even thinking about the damage their incompetence can cost, they send out a silly ill-conceived template letter that, had the council not been smart enough to see through it, could have resulted in a good decent business in the community being unable to get off the ground.

Of course Police Scotland don't care about people or the community. They just shrug it off.

Anyway, the good news is that the council unanimously voted to grant a licence to the restaurant, The Dawg Hoose in Stirling.

And by doing so the council also gave a big two-fingered salute to the idiots at untrustworthy Police Scotland and their nine pages of nonesense too.

I hope they used the letter for toilet paper.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/police-dawg-hoose-over-objections-8150653#U3Y2ifL9g0LEM3Kz.97

Monday, 25 July 2016

Police Dont Want To Know Unless Its One Of Their Own

It's the type of car accident that happens every day.

A guy and his wife go out shopping to their local retail park when another car 'bumps' in to them.

Nothing serious thankfully. The guys car has a dent, his wife bumps her head, and he receives a bit of whiplash, that's all. Nothing that a couple of paracetamols and a quick call to his insurance company won't sort out.

So it's understandable that when he called police on 101 to report the accident, police told him they wouldn't be attending.

Fair enough.

So why then did Police Scotland strangely change their minds and turn up after all, especially after saying they wouldn't attend?

And when they did turn up, why did they caution and breathalyse the victim, rather than the other driver who had caused the accident?

Well, the other driver who caused the accident was, wait for it, drum roll please...ta da ra...an off-duty policewoman.

Soooooo...police had no interest in this incident when the victim called them on 101 and asked them to attend...but changed their mind when they discovered that 'one of their own' was involved.

Make no bones about it, police cautioning and breathalysing the victim was nothing more than a desperate and corrupt attempt by them to try and shift the blame for the accident from their police colleague to the victim.

The victim had not been drinking, the victim had done nothing wrong, and the victim was not to blame for the accident.

The behaviour of police in this incident was disgraceful.

Oh, and one more thing which makes this doubly despicable.

The couple in the car that got hit by the off-duty policewoman also just happened to be the parents of M9 victim Lamara Bell.

Now I'll refrain from making the sort of obvious comments about how quick police were to attend this minor accident when they realised it involved one of their own colleagues but were not so quick to attend the accident that saw Lamara Bell lying dying in her car on the M9 for 3 days.

What I will say is that, ironic as this whole incident is, it's the type of familiar unscrupulous behaviour that we the Scottish public see from untrustworthy Police Scotland every day - and we're sick of it.

Police Scotland are quick to help one of their own, but slow to help the public.

This incident is also a perfect example of how police approach and conduct every investigation they're involved in.

When they get called to an incident, any incident, they immediately form an opinion on who they want the 'baddie' to be and then try to get as much evidence as they can to fit.

It's a disgrace.

They are supposed to investigate honestly, fairly, and without fear or favour, but they don't.

In this particular incident they had already decided that their police colleague needed to be the goodie and the victim needed to be the baddie. They hoped that a breathalyser test of the victim would help do that but it didn't.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the off-duty policewoman who caused the collision was the one who called her colleagues and that's why police attended after previously saying they wouldn't.

When they arrived they were definitely hell-bent on targeting the victim in order to let their colleague off the hook for the accident.

The two officers have now been formally warned by their superiors, which in police terms basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Which also means that these two bent coppers who tried to pervert the course of justice to save the skin of their own colleague at the expense of a victim they had already let down immensely are still on duty on our streets today wagging their haughty finger at members of the public.

And no doubt still unfairly investigating, arresting, and poorly treating members of the public who they are supposed to be helping, supporting, and protecting.

Despicable.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/cops-warned-after-crashing-car-8115963#IaQjlYgZqYBydyd6.97

Sunday, 24 July 2016

Everyone Loves Sergeant Jon Harris - Except His Superiors

It's the story that has been all over the internet and newspapers - even Gloria Gaynor has commented on it.

It's the wonderful story of Police Scotland's Sergeant Jon Harris's karaoke rendition of 'I Will Survive' at Glasgow's Waterloo bar.

In case you haven't heard about it already, basically police were called out to a disturbance at the Waterloo bar and, after arresting a man in connection with the disturbance, Sergeant Harris, in full uniform at the time, decided to then jump up on the karaoke, take the mic, and hilariously belt out the Gloria Gaynor classic - much to the embarrassment of his fellow officers but to the absolute delight of the crowd!

Good on him. What brilliant public relations from a police officer who fully understands the importance of, well, public relations.

Not so good were the guarded words of his boss afterwards.

Paranoid killjoy boss Chief Inspector Mark Sutherland said "I was pleased to see that once the incident had been professionally concluded, my officers were able to share a lighter moment with those who remained in the pub".

In other words, instead of just praising the officer like everyone else did, Chief Inspector Sutherland just had to go to pains to insist that the karaoke performance occurred, and only occurred, after "the incident had been professionally concluded".

What is it with these idiots at the top of Police Scotland?

They're always on the defensive.

This is one of the many problems with Police Scotland.

Sergeant Jon Harris's actions speak volumes for the way the public want our police to be. We want our police to be human, we want them to support the public, and we want them to be on our side - and Sergeant Harris did all that in spades.

But his boss Chief Inspector Mark Sutherland's comments on the other hand show the cynical defensive stance that those at the top of this suspicious, paranoid, cynical, and untrustworthy organisation always take.

The Scottish public have given Sergeant Harris a very large pat on the back for the way he treated the public, kept us safe, and showed the human side of our police.

But I bet his senior officers didn't give him quite as warm a pat on the back. No, it will have been more of a grudging "OK Harris, it may have turned out alright on this occasion but don't be doing this type of thing too often".

Sergeant Jon Harris and his attitude are exactly what we need in Police Scotland. We need more Sergeant Harris's.

But unfortunately it's the cynics like Chief Inspector Mark Sutherland who get the promotions and in to the real top jobs.

And that's not the sort of thing any of us feel like singing about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36445091


Saturday, 23 July 2016

Police Admit They Were Dishonest

In a rare admission, untrustworthy Police Scotland have admitted that they have been dishonest in their approach to the licensed trade.

For many years police have used what are known as booze stings. It's where they send an under-age teen to buy alcohol and when the licensed premises sell the teen the booze, the police then pounce and charge the premises with selling alcohol to under-18s.

Sounds a bit like entrapment if you ask me, but I'll come to that in a minute.

Anyway, the booze stings have taken a bit of a hit recently due to shortage of teenagers willing to take on the job, the result being that police have now all but shelved the idea and have instead "pledged to take a more 'honest' approach with the licensed trade..."

Yes, I had to read that phrase twice myself as I couldn't believe police actually said it either:

"pledged to take a more 'honest' approach with licensed trade..."

I'm flabbergasted.

Here we have Police Scotland admitting that they have been acting dishonestly for years by coercing licensed premises to break the law.

Now I'm a non drinker so I really have no stake in how licensed premises behave themselves.

But I do care about under-age alcohol consumption and I do agree that licensed premises selling alcohol to under-age kids should have the book thrown at them.

But it must be done honestly and within the law or else the police end up being just as bad as the criminals they're supposed to be arresting.

It's now clear that Police Scotland's tactics regarding the licensed trade were never designed to catch them selling alcohol to under-age drinkers but rather was all about inducing licensed premises to break the law in order so the police could get more arrests and hit targets.

It might be welcome news to hear that police have about-turned and have now come out and pledged to be more 'honest' in future.

It's just a shame that Police Scotland ever thought that it was ok to act in the dishonest way they did in the first place.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14536257.Booze_stings_hit_buffers_due_to_shortage_of_teenagers_as_police_pledge_more___39_honest__39__approach_with_licensed_trade/?commentSort=score


Friday, 22 July 2016

Ex Crown Office Catherine Dyer Should NOT Be Involved In Child Protection

Former Crown office chief Catherine Dyer retired in March.

At the time I speculated here on this very blog that it wouldn't be long before she'd come out of retirement and be involved in some nice little earner.

Well, I was spot on.

Seems Catherine Dyer's so-called retirement didn't even last more than a few weeks.

And the reason I was able to predict this so accurately?

It's because I know that when people in these types of important jobs say they're going to retire, you just know that before anyone can utter the words 'Gardeners Weekly' they've pocketed the retirement pay off and move immediately back in to the job market.

In fact with these types of people, the 'new' job was usually set up before they retired and more often than not it involves them plopping their esteemed name on the headed notepaper of the nearest large corporation who'll pay them an exhorbitant fee for their name, ahem, 'expertise'.

True to form, and as I predicted, the former Crown office chief has now taken a wee job heading up an independent review of the child protection system in Scotland.

She will help with the review of policy, practice, services and structures and will look at child protection committees, initial case reviews, significant case reviews, and the child protection register.

John Swinney is quoted as saying Catherine Dyer will bring "expertise, experience and independence" to the review from her time as chief executive of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

I disagree.

Police Scotland and their puppet masters at the Crown office built a large part of their current infamous reputation from stopping and searching our children.

Catherine Dyer's Crown office prosecuted as many of them as they could and to this today still target the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and haul them before the courts because it's easy to get prosecutions against those unable to defend themselves properly.

A generation of innocent youngsters have grown up who hate the police and the Crown office for what they did to them.

That's why I believe Catherine Dyer is most certainly not the right person to be involved in anything to do with poor and vulnerable children.

It's nothing personal against Catherine Dyer.

But Catherine Dyer headed the Crown office, an organisation who seek to harm the public while pretending to work for our benefit.

I would object to anyone from the corrupt Crown office having any say on anything of any importance to the public - especially the protection of our children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36435448


Thursday, 21 July 2016

Pay Police What They're Worth

Are you unemployed?

Looking for an easy job with security and a good pension?

Why not join the police then.

Renfrewshire Council is offering an 11-month, full-time traineeship where the unemployed can work alongside regular police officers patrolling the streets. You'll be paid the National Living Wage.

Seems like a great idea.

The only people who don't seem to be very happy with the idea though is the Scottish Police Federation (the police union).

They are complaining that using the unemployed as full-time special constables is nothing more than "policing on the cheap".

It's a bit more than that methinks.

The 'policing on the cheap' argument is a dishonest ploy by the SPF to hide the fact that they're actually scared of new police recruits coming in and doing the job for a lot less - and probably doing a damn decent job of it in to the bargain.

It also puts the police and the SPF in a bit of an awkward position.

Because our police specifically like to target the poor, the vulnerable, and the unemployed in our society. They make for easy 'collars' and their buddies in the Crown office get easy peasy prosecutions against them.

But under this new scheme the poor, the vulnerable, and the unemployed will be the police.

So you can now see why the idea doesn't sit too comfortably with the SPF.

I have a message for the police and their moaning faced union.

Shut up, and get on with it.

Because if you don't, and keep pushing this false argument about it being about 'policing on the cheap' - and keep moaning about how much the special constables are to be paid - then we, the public, may just suggest we take this idea one step further.

And as well as paying unemployed special constables the National Living Wage we may just decide to pay YOU, the regular police, what you're actually worth for the job you do.

And trust me, that wage will come in well below the National Living Wage.

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-police-federation-anger-at-plan-to-employ-cut-price-cops/



Wednesday, 20 July 2016

Police Scotland Is An Old Boys Club

The Chief Constable of Police Scotland Phil 'Gormless' says his force must work harder to allow women to progress through the ranks (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/police-chief-worried-by-lack-of-women-for-senior-jobs-1-4139181).

His comments come after Police Scotland failed to attract a single female applicant for two senior assistant chief constable roles.

What a load of old codswallop.

The lack of women in top posts is nothing to do with how hard the administration works to promote women.

The lack of women in top posts is purely because Police Scotland is a dated, sexist, neanderthal, old boys club and network - and it ain't gonna change any time soon.

No one is going to work to promote women in Police Scotland. No one.

The chief constable is doing nothing more than paying this issue lip service.

His comments remind me of an old 'Yes Minister' episode in which the cabinet debate whether more women should be appointed to positions in Government departments (see below):






Tuesday, 19 July 2016

If Police Don't Respond To The Public It's The Public's Fault

Police Scotland have launched a campaign to try and stop members of the public from calling the emergency 999 number unless it's a proper emergency.

Examples they have given of inappropriate uses of the 999 number are a woman who called to say her snowman had been stolen, a man calling police to say he had been given a ‘dirty look’ by his neighbour, and a woman who asked police to remove a spider from her hall.

Police Scotland say these are examples of inappropriate emergency calls and answering these types of calls can tie up an operator who should be dealing with proper emergency calls.

It could even cost lives.

Can't argue with that.

Except, as is always the case with untrustworthy Police Scotland, there's always another angle to everything they do and everything they say.

Now, it won't be long until the M9 tragedy and a few other investigations in to incompetence at Police Scotland call centres, especially Bilston Glen, are completed and, well, everybody knows police are well in line to get the book thrown at them for these cock ups.

So this campaign is nothing more than Police Scotland setting out their stall in advance, in readiness to answer the scathing criticism that they know is coming their way very shortly.

You see, when they get hauled over the coals for leaving two people dead in a car on the M9 for days, their answer will be "but it was because our operators were busy on other non essential calls at the time.." (in other words, it's all the public's fault).

Of course they'll then add "but since then we have run a campaign to help try to stop members of the public calling us needlessly and we are now confident that this can never happen again..".

And just for good measure they'll probably finally finish it all off with the obligatory phrases "lessons have been learned..." and "it happened under a previous regime, the officers have now retired/moved on, and that particular department no longer exists..."

Yeah, you could write the script for this one before it even starts.

http://www.brechinadvertiser.co.uk/news/new-call-campaign-launched-by-police-scotland-1-4135598

Monday, 18 July 2016

Insufficient Evidence - But Only When It Suits Them

What's the difference between the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)?

There is no difference.

They are both the Crown office.

They just use different names north and south of the border to reflect English law and Scots law - they are ancient and historical names for the same thing.

In England we call them the Crown Prosecution Service and in Scotland we call them the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service but they both do exactly the same job, working for us, the British public, prosecuting baddies in all our courts up and down the UK.

And therein hangs a bit of a tale.

In January, a report for the Crown office south of the border (the CPS) concluded that Lord Janner should have been prosecuted three times in the 1990's and 2000's for sexual offences. The police investigation had begun in 2013 and had gathered evidence from 32 witnesses supporting the claims.

Pretty damning stuff and good to know that the CPS in England have admitted the man should have been prosecuted and that they got it wrong.

Just a pity the Crown office in Scotland are not so honest about how things were conducted from their end though.

Because according to the Crown office north of the border (the COPFS) there was 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute Lord Janner.

In other words, the COPFS here in Scotland are claiming they didn't get anything wrong at all. There was simply 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute so that's why Lord Janner was never prosecuted. Yip, no mistakes on their part, no sir-ee.

Now I'll leave you to your own thoughts as to why this very high profile individual, a Lord, a peer of the Realm, was viewed as being a prime candidate for prosecution by some in the Crown office while others in the Crown office appear to think he was a fine upstanding individual who should not face trial.

I have my thoughts on this and I'm sure you have yours.

But what I want to focus on is how the individuals in the Crown office who let him off the hook for prosecution were able to do so and justify it, especially when their colleagues in another part of the Crown office were clearly disagreeing and saying something different?

What excuse did they use NOT to prosecute him?

The answer is a wee phrase that I write about so much in this blog. A wee phrase that allows the corrupt Crown office to prosecute when it suits them, and not to prosecute when it suits them.

I'm talking about the wee phrase 'insufficient evidence'.

 Ahhh, don't ya just love the term 'insufficient evidence'?

The Crown office in Scotland expect the public to blindly believe that when they say 'insufficient evidence' it means just that - that there is not enough evidence to prosecute someone, heaven forbid we should convict an innocent person and throw them in jail. And we can't have that now can we?

So on the face of it, the phrase insufficient evidence makes sense, it even sounds quite good.

But there's a catch.

You see prosecuting someone and convicting someone are two very different things.

The Crown office only prosecute cases (ie bring the case before the court).

They cannot decide guilt, nor can they convict a person -  only a court can do that.

The Crown's job is solely to conduct the prosecution case. They can only present the evidence before the court and it is the court who ultimately will decide if someone has done something wrong and should be convicted.

So why is this distinction so important?

Well, it's important because the Crown office corruptly exploit this distinction and this loophole for their own benefit.

The only way a person can be brought before a court of law is if the Crown office say so.

No one else gets a say in the matter.

The Crown office are effectively the guards to the gates of the court room. No one gets anywhere near a court, no one gets to talk to a judge, whether it be to prove their innocence, defend themselves, whistleblow, or face a charge, a trial or a prosecution unless the Crown office allows them through the door.

So it's not hard to see that if the Crown office want to, say, protect someone from being prosecuted, they can do it no problem.

They simply refuse to take the case to court (ie they refuse to prosecute that person).

The result is that person never sees the inside of a court of law.

Never.

And the Crown office do this more often than you may think.

In fact the corrupt Crown office refuse to prosecute hundreds of cases in Scotland every day.

That's right, not just one or two cases every day - they refuse to prosecute hundreds of cases every day.

Of course they need to justify their lack of action in these cases. The Crown office can't just stand up and say "we're not going to prosecute Jane and John Doe because they are good friends of ours...".

The public would be up in arms against the Crown office if they tried to do that.

So instead they need an excuse not to prosecute cases.

And that's where the phrase 'insufficient evidence' comes in to play.

What the Crown office say is: "we'd love to prosecute Jane and John Doe but, well, unfortunately there's 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute".

It's a very simple wee phrase 'insufficient evidence', but it's implications are enormous.

It means the criminal who is a friend of the corrupt Crown never gets prosecuted and it means anyone who the Crown office fear may blow the whistle on corruption in the Crown office, the police, the Government, or anyone that the Crown office is friendly with, never gets anywhere near a court to do it.

And there's absolutely NOTHING you and I can do about it. Because the Crown, alone, get to decide what is 'sufficient evidence' and what is 'insufficient evidence'.

Anyone with a brain in their head knows that the Crown office use this loophole every day to prosecute who they want and, just as importantly, block prosecutions against people they don't want to prosecute - ie family, colleagues, their friends in the establishment, and other criminals they want to protect.

Anyone with a brain in their head also knows that the corrupt Crown should NOT be the sole gatekeepers to our courts and should NOT be allowed to block anyone from facing court action based on their 'opinion' of what 'insufficient evidence' is.

Only a court can decide on someones guilt and convict them and they should be allowed to do it no matter what the Crowns 'opinion' may be.

By refusing to even let someone get as far as setting foot in a court room, the Crown office are effectively acting as judge and jury.

And that's not right. Not right at all.

In fact it's a disgrace to all things just and fair. This practice has no place in a decent democratic society.

The public already know that the Crown office are corrupt to the core (see http://www.bentfiscals.co.uk) . And as long as we allow the Crown office to keep spluttering out that well-worn old phrase 'insufficient evidence' to prevent a court even getting to see the evidence, they will continue to protect their guilty friends and colleagues.

An independent body, completely unattached to the COPFS and any other legal entity, should be set up to investigate every case the Crown refuses to prosecute and should have the power to over-rule the Crowns decision not to prosecute.

Of course I do realise that if we, the public, could compel the Crown to prosecute a case they didn't want to prosecute they'd probably just sabotage their own case to let the person off with it like they did in the Andy Coulson perjury trial. But at least it would be a start.

Some time ago I recorded a video of three lying Police Scotland officers. In the video they CLEARLY said one thing. The three officers then signed statements which they gave to the procurator fiscal in which they CLEARLY said a completely different thing.

So the video CLEARLY shows and proves unequivocally that the three police officers lied on statements to the procurator fiscal.

CLEARLY.

It's what you would call 'an open and shut case'.

Any court seeing this evidence would clearly see that the three police officers lied.

Yet the case has never ever come before a court or a judge.

A court has never, ever, seen the video or read the statements.

And that's because procurator fiscals in the corrupt Crown office watched the video and read the statements and then concluded that, yip, you've guessed, there was 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute their friends and colleagues, the three lying police officers, who the Crown work with closely and rely on to help them win cases.

Oh what a surprise.

Who'd have thunk it eh?!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36390034


Sunday, 17 July 2016

Crown Office Helps Top Criminals In Big Business

You may remember I wrote not so long ago about the scheme which allows big corporations to self report cases of bribery to the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service.

The idea is that when a large company discovers wrong-doing in their ranks such as one of their managers bribing others to win business contracts or favours, they can report it to the Crown office themselves and receive a fine rather than waiting for police to investigate it and report it to the Crown office.

Of course the big problem with this - which I exposed in my post - is what this law really means is that when a big wig in a large corporation suspects that he's about to get found out for committing a crime (which would normally earn him some jail time), he can simply self-report it to the procurator fiscal and have it changed to a civil offence which means he only has to pay a fine (which wealthy execs in rich organisations can well afford).

It's akin to bribing the Crown office to keep you out of jail.

This new law is already very popular with those in big business as you can imagine.

So popular in fact that there have been calls to extend the scheme to other corporate crimes as well, not just bribery.

Yes folks, when it comes to keeping themselves out of jail for crimes they should really be getting banged up for, you can always rely on big wigs from big business to know exactly how to circumvent the justice system.

Oh, and of course you can always rely on our corrupt Crown office to help them do it.

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/may/extend-scottish-bribery-self-reporting-regime-to-cover-other-corporate-crimes-expert-says/

Saturday, 16 July 2016

Police Scotland Make Money From Torture

Sri Lanka has one of the worst records of human rights abuses in the world.

A report by 'Freedom from Torture' has revealed that in the last year 17 Sri Lankan asylum seekers – including a child – were tortured.

The Sri Lanka authorities used a number of horrendous torture tactics against them including:

Beatings, burning, rape and other forms of sexual violence, asphyxiation, electric shocks, mock executions, stabbings, burning with cigarettes, water boarding, suffocating with the fumes of burning chillies or petrol, slapping, punching, trampling on their heads, hands, feet, genitals and abdomen.

Phew!

When their victims lost consciousness the authorities just waited till they came around and started the torture all over again.

Some were burned with heated pieces of metal - in the style of a branding iron - to ensure that they would be easily identifiable in future to the authorities.

So where did the Sri Lanka authorities learn all these barbaric torture techniques?

Who knows.

But what we do know is that they were trained by Police Scotland!

Trying to defend the indefensible, Chief Constable of Scotland Phil 'Gormless' said that cash-strapped Police Scotland needed to find ways of "legitimately raising revenue" and that Police Scotland's money-making deals to train authorities in brutal regimes such as Sril Lanka and Saudi Arabia were operating "with the full knowledge" of the Scottish Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

I've heard of some disgusting ways of making money and pathetic excuses to justify it, but Police Scotland have really hit a new low by earning money from giving training to these barbarians.

Shame on you all at Police Scotland...and those in the Scottish Government for allowing it.

https://theferret.scot/police-scotland-in-sri-lankan-state-torture-controversy/



http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/police-scotland-cash-crisis-driving-controversial-link-ups-1-4137145


Friday, 15 July 2016

Police Admit They Are Corrupt

Police are under fire for failing to inform the public of the positioning of their mobile speed camera vans in the north of Scotland.

What this means is that any speeding tickets issued in the last year using these mobile vans could be quashed because Police Scotland obtained them by illegal means.

As you can probably guess, police see it different.

A spokesman for untrustworthy Police Scotland has said that drivers would not be entitled to claim a grievance "as they would still be committing an offence."

That's very interesting.

Because it means we now have a situation where Police Scotland have stated that it is quite appropriate for them to break the law in order to catch you, the public, breaking the law.

So there you we it, and from the horses mouth.

It's ok for Police Scotland to break the law but you, a member of the public, cannot.

If police believe you to be guilty of something, they can break the law to catch you.

So much for your right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty eh? And that goes against everything that a decent, law abiding, and democratic society should be.

Police Scotland - by their own admission - have made it very clear to us that they are neither decent, law abiding, nor democratic.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/926356/question-mark-over-speeding-fines/

Thursday, 14 July 2016

Slow Coaches

Gordon Smith, the former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association has criticised police for being 'very slow' to respond to the pitch invasion Scottish Cup Final at Hampden in May.

I have no idea why Police Scotland officers would be described as slow, can you?


http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/14509409.Former_SFA_chief_slams_Police_Scotland_for__quot_very_slow_quot__response_to_Hampden_pitch_invasion/

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

Police Have No Authority To Stop You In Your Car

The executive committee of Falkirk Council are not very happy with Police Scotland.

It's all because Police Scotland have refused to carry out traffic management duties at community events like gala days.

Now you don't need to be Einstein to figure out why untrustworthy Police Scotland no longer want to help event organisers with all the stuff police should be doing like closing off roads, controlling traffic, and generally ensuring the safety of the public for the duration of an event.

Police are trying to save money.

Simple

By making the event organisers take on these responsibilities themselves, the event organisers are forced to do the police's job for them (and pick up the tab for doing it in to the bargain).

So this is a pretty obvious situation we have here.

Even leaving aside the elephant in the room which is that Police Scotland have a duty to ensure public safety, it's pretty clear what Police Scotland are saying to organisers:

"Sorry, we just can't afford to police your event".

But astonishingly this is not what Police Scotland have told the organisers.

Instead of being honest about their financial problems and their need to save money, Police Scotland have told Falkirk council that the reason they can't help them out at events any more is because they (the police) do not have the authority to enforce the law at such events.

This is astonishing.

In a letter to the council, Police Scotland said "It is acknowledged that previously police officers may have assisted organisers of such events on a goodwill and informal basis but without authority. Police Scotland has no desire to jeopardise the future of community events, but responsibility and activity must be restricted to and in keeping with the limitations of current legislation."

Let me translate that and put it in simpler terms.

Police Scotland have all of a sudden discovered that they do not have the power or authority to stop traffic going down a street.

Mmmmm...

So if you have ever been stopped by police driving your vehicle down the street, then according to this letter, police were acting outwith the law and had no legal right to stop you.

Either that or Police Scotland are just lying through their teeth.

http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/crime/police-accused-of-washing-their-hands-of-traffic-role-1-4132359#ixzz4Cz52eXl8

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

Police Set To Target And Alienate Even More Members Of the Public

Police Scotland are in dire financial trouble. They need to find £1.1 Billion by 2026.

It's not known yet where they intend to find this money, but there's absolutely no doubt that top of their cash-cow list will be the humble motorist.

There is no other group of innocent members of the public who nod, submit, and pay up without question every time Mr Plod points his haughty finger at them than the otherwise law abiding motorist.

In fact, it is because the average motorist is an otherwise good and decent law-abiding citizen that he does pay up without question.

Easy money for the police.

On the other hand, catching murderers, rapists, and burglars does not make money for untrustworthy Police Scotland. It costs them money.

Just one in five victims of rape report it to Police Scotland because they have no confidence in police (see http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/671304/rapes-unreported-victims-lose-confidence-Scottish-Police-SNP).

Police really coin it in from lesser crimes like traffic offences. That's why you see so many speed cameras and radar traps when you drive around every day.

The facts are that the vast majority of members of the public would never have any interaction with Police Scotland whatsoever if it wasn't for traffic offences.

So with £1.1 Billion to find in the next 10 years there's no doubt who Police Scotland are going to be targeting.

The motorist.

The fact that all of those otherwise law abiding motorists - completely disgusted at being made in to criminals for a minor traffic violation - then pledge never to help the police ever again seems to be unimportant to Police Scotland.

Amazingly I still regularly see reports in the press where a major crime has been committed and Police Scotland complain that they are facing a wall of silence from the public who refuse to talk to them or help them with their enquiries.

I'm sorry, but what bit of this are Police Scotland not 'getting'?

The public do not trust the police, that's why they don't help the police.

Here's my suggestion to Police Scotland.

When you go in to a community and you're trying to get co-operation from the public, check how many own a motor vehicle.

Check how many used to be teenagers who you used to 'stop and search' for no reason in the past.

Check how many you detained and arrested who hadn't done anything wrong.

Check how many you acted like a 'big man' in front of just so you could throw your weight and your authority around and make yourself feel important.

Then you may just start to begin understand that in this life you reap what you sow.

And you may just start to begin to understand why we, the public, do not help the police any more.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/chris-marshall-police-scotland-hunting-cash-to-make-ends-meet-1-4131066

Monday, 11 July 2016

Lord Advocate James Wolffe Refuses To Give Back Property He Stole


Let's be clear about one thing.

Public buildings belong to the public, no-one else.

The Parliament Hall building in Edinburgh belongs to the people and the common good fund. The people built it, they paid for it, it's ours, it belongs to us.

The Faculty Of Advocates - under the stewardship of new Lord Advocate James Wolffe - had no right to steal it from the people and transfer the deeds in to their own name.

If the Faculty Of Advocates had a shred of integrity they would give it back to the people immediately.

Above, I've published a letter - obtained through Freedom Of Information - written by our new crooked Lord Advocate in which he agrees to a meeting with Edinburgh Council to discuss the matter.

The letter is every bit as alarming as it is curt and arrogant.

In it James Wolffe says: "I would not wish to give any expectation to you or to the council as to the outcome to any discussion".

Not even an idiot can misinterpret exactly what James Wolffe is saying here. 

It's nothing but flowery double-speak language telling us, the public, to get lost - he's not giving it back.

And this concerns me greatly.

Because the Lord Advocate works for us, the people, and everything he does should be for the public benefit.

Yet here we have the new Lord Advocate James Wolffe exposed for all to see as a man who has stole one of the most historic, prestigious, and expensive buildings in the country from the public, and when we, the public, DEMAND he gives it back to us, he tells us where to go in no uncertain terms.

It's outrageous.

The sheer arrogance of the man is breathtaking.

So do you trust the new Lord Advocate James Wolffe to run the Crown office and work for the public's benefit?

Do you believe he's a man of the people and for the people? 

Do you think he'll work tirelessly for the people of Scotland in his role as head of the Crown office and act in the public's interest for the public good?

I know what I think. 

The man is a disgrace. 

He should never have been appointed Lord Advocate and if he had a shred of integrity he would never have taken the job.

He should resign immediately and hang his head in shame.

This new Lord Advocate is nothing more than a crooked establishment figure who will work for his political and corporate masters (and himself), and not the public. He's a friend of the establishment and an enemy of the people.

So remember this the next time a Procurator Fiscal from James Wolffe's corrupt Crown office asks you for your help.

Remember this the next time untrustworthy Police Scotland ask you to appear in court on behalf of the Crown as a prosecution as a witness.

I continually call out the Crown office in this blog as being a corrupt organisation who claim to work for the public while secretly seeking to harm us.

My opinion of them has not changed.

The appointment of new Lord Advocate James 'the big bad' Wolffe has not and will not change a single thing in the way this already corrupt organisation operate. 

In the letter above James Wolffe clearly tells the public we can dispel any expectations of him giving Parliament Hall back to the people.

We, the people of Scotland, can similarly dispel any expectations that this new Lord Advocate will be any friend of the Scottish public.

Sunday, 10 July 2016

Police Targeting Vulnerable People

Police Scotland in Levenmouth have launched a campaign in partnership with Fife Council to stop vulnerable people becoming the target of cruel scammers.

Chief Inspector Adrian Annandale said officers were passionate about protecting the elderly and disabled residents and would do everything they could to ensure they did not become victims.

I have another suggestion for Police Scotland.

If you're really serious about stopping scams against vulnerable people, then stop arresting them for silly minor infringements and crimes they haven't even committed - just because you know they don't have the money or education to defend themselves properly and you can get an easy conviction against them.

We all know you do it to make your crime figures look good.

You see, when it comes to scamming vulnerable people, untrustworthy Police Scotland (assisted by their buddies in the corrupt Crown office) are the biggest scammers you're ever likely to come across - bar none.

Walk in to any court, any day of the week, anywhere in Scotland, and you'll see it filled with the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society.

You could be forgiven for thinking wealthy people and well educated people don't commit crimes when you visit our courts.

It's disgusting what the police and procurator fiscals do.

Oh yes Police Scotland, when it comes to scamming the poor and vulnerable it's you who the public need to be afraid of.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/172960/police-bid-to-protect-vulnerable-people-from-scams/

Saturday, 9 July 2016

Bankers Didn't Do Anything Wrong In 2008

In 2008 the reckless behaviour of bankers caused one of the biggest world-wide economic crashes the world has ever seen.

Here in Scotland the name on everyone's lips was Sir Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin who's actions at Royal Bank Of Scotland cost us, the taxpaying public, £45 Billion in bailouts.

The RBS legacy continues to this day because it has never once made an annual profit since we bailed it out and has amassed more than £50 Billion of losses in the past eight years.

The Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland have now completed their investigation and have concluded that:

There is insufficient evidence of criminal behaviour to bring charges against the bank or any of its directors.

Oh well, it's good to know that no one at RBS did anything wrong. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

But don't just leave us in limbo Mr Procurator Fiscal.

Just who's fault was it if it wasn't the banks fault?

Who caused the RBS debacle and cost the public £48 Billion if it wasn't the RBS bankers?

Or is it just a case of banks are not only too big to fail, but fat-cat bankers are too big to prosecute?

I challenge anyone to walk in to any court anywhere in Scotland on Monday morning, sit in the public gallery, and count how many fat-cat bankers, well educated people, or rich, well-heeled people you see in the dock.

Then, I want you to count how many poor, vulnerable, and poorly educated people from the most deprived towns and villages in our country you see in the dock.

Then you'll realise why the corrupt Crown office couldn't seem to find sufficient evidence to prosecute their fat-cat, well educated, well-heeled banking buddies.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/12/rbs-no-evidence-of-criminal-behaviour-rule-prosecutors

Friday, 8 July 2016

Arrested For Being An Idiot

A man from Coatbridge in Lanarkshire has been arrested by police and is to be charged with putting a video on social media of a dog sitting in front of the TV watching a programme about Hitler while making a Nazi salute.

The dog was making the salute by the way, not the man.

I'm guessing murders, rapes, assaults, and burglaries were all put on hold that day while Deputy Dawg aka DI David Cockburn and his team of Nazi hunters from Police Scotland leapt in to action to arrest the man.

DI Cockburn has been quoted as saying: "This clip has been shared and viewed online, which ultimately has caused offence and hurt to many people in our community".

Look, I don't disagree with Deputy Dawg Cockburn.

I find it every bit as distasteful and offensive as he does.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities told the Daily Mirror that "anti-Semitism is not a joke and is a form of racism which needs to be condemned".

I agree with her too.

But for goodness sake did we really need to use up so much valuable police time and resources to arrest and charge this guy and send the case to the Procurator Fiscal?

With the advent of cable and satellite TV there does seem to be no end to all these Hitler type documentaries on our screens - the history and discovery type channels seem to repeat them on a loop.

There's no doubt this stupid guy thought it would be highly amusing to get a vid of the dog, paw in the air, sitting in front of the telly during one of them.


I don't think it's amusing.

I think it's stupid.

I forgive the dog, but I think the guy is an idiot.

But is he a criminal?

Come on, that's pushing it a wee bit far Police Scotland.

Even the arrested man is quoted as saying in the video "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute her dog is so I thought I would turn her into the least cute thing you could think of which is a Nazi".

Sorry folks but that comment above even on it's own shows that police were NOT dealing with some stereotypical right-wing tattooed skinhead type who spouts vile hate and tries to corrupt the public by disseminating hate speech, but rather a bit of a numpty fae Coatbridge playing a very distasteful prank on his girlfriend - which he was too stupid to realise would offend so much.

It is what it is.

I'm absolutely convinced a stern warning from Police Scotland would have been suffice to have done the job.

Or perhaps it's just that acting like a Nazi strikes a little too close to home for Police Scotland officers.

I don't know.

But if you're really that offended DI Cockburn and absolutely must arrest someone - arrest the dug.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland

https://www.rt.com/uk/342513-dog-nazi-salute-arrested/

Thursday, 7 July 2016

The Health And Safety Executive Are As Corrupt As The Rest

The family of Sheku Bayoh, - still clutching at straws hoping to be given anything even approaching justice - have now asked the Health & Safety Executive to get involved with the investigation in to his death.

They have asked the HSE to prosecute Police Scotland.

Their rationale for this is that police had a duty of care to Sheku when they took him in to custody so their detention techniques - which from a HSE point of view are their working practices - are seriously in question.

They are quite right to insist the HSE get involved but sadly it's never gonna happen.

Here's why.

  • Health & Safety legislation is administered by local authorities - the HSE are in bed with councils.
  • Councils are run by councillors who are ex police officers, ex procurator fiscals and ex solicitors who fund police officers and sit on boards such as the Scottish Police Authority - the councils are in bed with the police.
  • The police are run by the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service who rely on police officers to appear every day as Crown witnesses to help them get prosecutions - the police are in bed with the Crown office.
  • The Crown office are the only people who can prosecute someone - and they're NOT going to prosecute their buddies in Police Scotland. No way.

When you join the dots you can very quickly see how these corrupt organisations are linked...and that dear readers is why it's never gonna happen.

http://www.scotsman.com/regions/edinburgh-fife-lothians/family-of-sheku-bayoh-call-for-prosecution-of-police-scotland-1-4122715

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

A Population Of Criminals In Cars

According to a new report published in the Sunday Mail newspaper, if you live in Scotland and drive a motor vehicle you are more likely to have points on your licence than anyone anywhere else in the whole of the UK.

There can only be one of two explanations for this:

1. Motorists in Scotland are nothing more than a bunch of criminals who break the law more than anyone else in the UK.

2. Untrustworthy Police Scotland are facing an £85 million budget shortfall and are targeting motorists in order to make money from them.

I'll let you decide.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/drivers-scotland-more-likely-points-7923686


Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Those Police Bankers

The whole country was united in revulsion when it was revealed that the fat cat bankers who caused the economic crash of 2008 - and were bailed out with billions of public money - were soon back to their old tricks of awarding themselves millions in bonuses while their banks were still losing money hand over fist.

So if I were to tell you that there are people out there right now who have received £8 million of public money in bonuses just for doing their jobs, while their organisation is facing £85 million in losses, I'm sure you'll be similarly angry.

Well, it's true.

Except this time it's not the bankers who are coining it in from millions of pounds of bonuses.

It's Police Scotland.

Yip, astonishingly thousands of police officers - up to the level of chief inspector - have been rewarded with record bonuses of almost £8 million in the last financial year.

And what did they do to get their grubby hands on £8 million of our money (because remember police are paid for by us)?

Well, to get their £8 million in bonuses all they had to do was:

1. Show a good attendance record

2. Display a 'commitment to police service values' (whatever that's supposed to mean).

In other words, if coppers turn up to work and toe the line, they get £8 million in bonuses.

Disgusting.

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/police-get-8m-bonuses-for-just-doing-their-jobs/

Monday, 4 July 2016

Police Don't Lie - They Just 'Mislead' Us

Everybody knows that Police Scotland illegally spied on journalists from the Sunday Mail newspaper.

Everybody.

The only people who claim it didn't happen is Police Scotland.

Well that's not strictly true - after the evidence against police became overwhelming, untrustworthy Police Scotland found themselves with their arm twisted so far up their backs that they had no choice but to grudgingly admit that it did happen.

However they're still at the damage limitation stage (the stage where they try to say that although they admit it did happen, it didn't happen quite like they've been accused).

Come on. Take it on the chin Police Scotland. You've been caught with your pants down.

It's been almost comical to watch police officers of varying ranks scurrying around like frightened rodents trying to distance themselves from this scandal while feigning ignorance (big boys must've done it and ran away etc).

Everyone's getting the blame - everyone except themselves of course.

At the centre of the scandal is Deputy Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson.

They've admitted that his testimony to Holyrood’s Justice Committee may have been 'misleading' after the Daily Record were given secret emails which show the evidence he gave to the Justice Committee was untrue.

Despite DCC Nicolson's repeated denials to MSPs, the emails reveal that officers were given specific warnings that seizing phone data to find the source of stories would be illegal - but they went ahead anyway.

It couldn't be more damning.

In essence, these secret emails reveal that senior officers behind the spying operation were repeatedly warned they would be acting illegally. 

Which means DCC Nicolson's failure to tell the Justice Committee about this was, as they say, 'misleading'.

Now, I'm intrigued by the word 'misleading'.

Because it's rather a nice word that people such as police officers like to use when they lie. They use it to try and minimise the potency of the lie.

They look upon it as being one step before lying - a bit like a little white lie which, well, to them, isn't really lying at all is it?

Aye right!

The public are not stupid.

Deputy Chief Constable Ruaraidh Nicolson lied to the Justice Committee. Full stop.

Of course if you or I were to tell a lie, police would call us just that - liars.

They'd arrest us, and their buddies at the Crown office would have us in the witness stand of a court pretty pronto pointing a haughty finger at us while demanding the Sheriff throw the book at us for our 'lies'.

But when Police Scotland officers get caught lying to us, they're not lying - they're just 'misleading' us.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sunday-mail-spy-scandal-secret-7922603#IhXR8dysdMygI3R4.97

Sunday, 3 July 2016

It's Official - Police Will NOT Tell You The Truth

Outgoing Chief Superintendent Julian Innes has admitted he "could have done a better job".

While it's nice to hear him admit that he did a sloppy job, it's just a shame he waited until he was retiring and out of the job before telling us about all his failures.

Because while he was in the job he couldn't wait to boast how wonderful he and his officers were doing.

So can we, the public, only expect Police Scotland to tell us the truth when they are no longer working for Police Scotland?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/909703/outgoing-north-police-chief-admits-to-armed-police-regrets/

Saturday, 2 July 2016

Police Swingers

There are all sorts of investigations going on in to Police Scotland and why there is a lack of response from them when the public call them and ask for help.

I've no idea what could be keeping them so busy..



http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2016/05/04/police-scotland-ridiculed-officer-snapped-swing/

Friday, 1 July 2016

Crown Office Will NOT Deliver Justice For Steven Chesney's Family

Steven Chesney is the latest member of the public to die in police custody.

The official police story is that he staggered and collapsed when exiting the police van but his family still do not know why he was arrested and say that there are 'lots of questions' around his death which Motherwell police don't seem to want to answer.

The whole case is being investigated by the PIRC...at the direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Mmm, so let me get this straight.

The investigation in to whether there was any wrongdoing by police officers in the death of this young man is being directed by the very organisation who work hand in hand with police every day to help get prosecutions against innocent members of the public - the same organisation who grant police officers immunity (off the record of course) to lie in court cases to help them get those convictions...

Ah, yes, I think we can close the book on how this one is going to turn out before it even starts.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3945/latest-death-in-police-custody-to-be-investigated-following-bayoh-case