Wednesday, 30 November 2016

Hey COPFS, Why The Secrecy?

This is the slightly strange news that Police Scotland - on instructions from the COPFS - have started secret inquiries in to the Royal Bank of Scotland asset stripping scandal.

Now there's nothing strange about the Crown office instructing Police Scotland to investigate in to something. That's their job, that's what they do.

The strange thing is that the investigation is secret.

Very strange.

Could it be that the corrupt Crown office have already decided the outcome of the investigation before police have even started the investigation?

Because I reported some time ago how the Crown office have already squandered an unknown amount of public money investigating RBS - estimated to run in to £millions, they refuse to tell us exactly how much - only to conclude that none of the bankers at RBS who we, the taxpayers, bailed out to the tune of £43 Billion did anything criminally wrong in 2008 (see article here).

We also know that the Crown office never admit they're wrong and stick like glue to bad decisions they make even when they know they are wrong and it has harmed or even killed innocent members of the public (Lockerbie, Emma Caldwell, Glasgow bin lorry anyone)?

So it's more than fair for us to conclude that the reason the police probe in to RBS is being kept secret is because the COPFS have already decided the outcome of the investigation, no matter what police find.

We know for a fact that the Crown office have already thrown at least £3 Million at so-called financial experts for those 'experts' to then reveal that there was nothing wrong with the way RBS acted in 2008 and no one should be prosecuted (see article here).

And let's face it, it would be very embarrassing for the Crown office if it turned out that they had got it all wrong, messed up the original investigation in to RBS, and wasted millions of our money while doing it.

The corrupt Crown office are very skilled at "investigate but do nothing". Very skilled. It's the most famous trick in their book and the oldest. They use it all the time when they need to deflect criticism from themselves. The idea is that they will always point to the so-called 'investigation' and claim that it has been 'thoroughly' investigated and conclude that it's 'not in the public interest to prosecute' or there is 'insufficient evidence in law' to prosecute (take your pick - it always comes down to one of those two magical phrases).

A secret investigation makes it even easier for the corrupt Crown office to bury the results of a sham investigation and hide it from public scrutiny.

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/10/17/police-scotland-launches-secret-probe-into-rbs-asset-stripping-scandal/

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Viva Scotland

The situation in the middle-east between the Israelis and the Palestinians is decades (in fact centuries) old and, quite frankly, it's unlikely to be resolved any time soon.

I don't have any particular opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian problem and I don't support one side or the other. Instead, I tend to be of the opinion that we in the West should keep our noses out of the middle-east altogether as our involvement there has caused more harm than helped this tragic region (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria anyone)?

However I do understand that the middle-east is a thorny issue issue which produces very emotive and explosive opinions from those on both sides of the barrier. Most people I speak to have genuine heart-felt opinions on the Israel/Palestine issue and I believe that in a free and fair democratic country like Scotland each person has a right to voice their opinion.

Alister Coutts is 56 years old and he happens to be a supporter of the Palestinian side of the argument. Fair enough, that's his opinion and he has a right to hold it and freely express it.

At a recent rally/protest in Aberdeen, he chanted "Viva Palestine"...and was arrested!

Yes, that's right, Police Scotland and the Crown office have decided that Alister having a political opinion and freely and peacefully expressing it here in Scotland constitutes a crime.

A policeman ordered Andrew to leave the shopping mall in Aberdeen where he was peacefully protesting. Being a good citizen and not wanting to cause any trouble, Andrew did exactly as the policeman ordered. But as soon as he stepped outside the mall he was handcuffed, held for seven hours, and charged.

At first glance, it all seems very strange. After all, the police and the Crown office are supposed to be non-political. The right to peaceful protest is not only perfectly legal in Scotland but is the absolute cornerstone of our democracy and should be encouraged.

So why would Police Scotland and the Crown office act in such a clearly politically biased and dictatorial manner? After all they have no legal right or mandate to act in such a political way. They cannot just arrest members of the Scottish public for their political beliefs.

Well, a Freedom of Information request made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Edinburgh may just have revealed the murky answer.

The FOI reveals the disclosure of a host of secret email exchanges between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service and Zionist organisations. It turns out there exists what has been described as a very 'cosy relationship' between the COPFS and the pro-Israel lobby in Scotland.

So Police Scotland and the COPFS have now made it clear to the Scottish public that:

1. Police Scotland will arrest you if you express a political opinion that they and their friends don't agree with.

2. The Crown office will prosecute you if you express a political opinion that is different from the one that they and their friends hold.

Astounding.

Absolutely astounding.

Here's something else you may not be aware of which makes this whole situation even more bizarre and, quite frankly, very worrying.

Many readers of a similar age to me (i.e. the over 50's) may remember an old 1970's song by Sylvia called "Y Viva Espana". Many of you will have, I'm sure, happy memories of those package holidays to the Spanish Costas back in the seventies where you probably belted out the song "Y Viva Espana" at the top of your voice with a San Miguel in one hand and a jug of Sangria in the other. Admit it, some of you probably had a toy donkey under your arm and a sombrero on your head at the time too!

"Viva Espana" translates to "long life to Spain". Nothing wrong with that. Wishing a long life is rather a nice sentiment to wish to anyone or sing to anyone.

The song "Y Viva Espana" was the most popular holiday song of 1974 and even made it to number 4 in the UK hit parade (the 'hit parade' is what we used to call the singles charts back in those days in case you young 'uns don't know what I'm talking about by the way).

Hey, I even remember the lovely Sylvia singing "Y Viva Espana" live on Top Of The Pops at the time (by the way, "Y" simply translates to "and" so the "Y" bit in "Y Viva Espana" just means "and long life to Spain", just in case you were wondering).

Here's the important bit though.

You see by singing "Viva Espana" and wishing long life to Spain, the seventies singer Sylvia was most certainly not wishing, by default, a short life or harm to everyone else who isn't Spanish. That would just be ridiculous. It's a line from a song, it's a simple phrase, it means what it means and it is what it is.

Yet untrustworthy Police Scotland and the corrupt Crown office are trying to claim in Alister Coutts case that because Alister wished a long life to Palestine he was also wishing, by default, a short life or harm to everyone else who is not Palestinian.

It's a total nonsense.

In another interesting similarity to Alister's case, Sylvia Vrethammar, the singer of the song "Y Viva Espana" is actually Swedish, she's not Spanish (and the song was written by a pair of Dutch songwriters).

So the person who sung and proclaimed "Long life to Spain" isn't Spanish, just the same as Andrew who chanted "Long life to Palestine" isn't Palestinian.

Go work it out Police Scotland!

And as if that wasn't enough, in yet another related snippet of historical information and fact about the phrase "Y Viva Espana", we find that it was actually adopted by the dictator and Spanish ruler General Franco.

Like most dictators, Franco ruled Spain with an iron fist and executed thousands of his political opponents. Not a nice guy by any means.

Many Spaniards still feel the phrase "Y Viva Espana" evokes connotations of the bad old days where you could be jailed or killed by Franco's police for your political views. Other Spaniards feel different of course and yearn for the old days of Franco-ism where you could leave your front door open and nobody would steal anything from your house. Yip, like all political issues, people have political opinions on both sides.

But the most important thing to take from this here is that Spain no longer has a dictator! Spain is now a democracy and has been for the last 30-odd years.

You are perfectly free to chant, shout or sing "Y Viva Espana" in Spain if you so wish. You will not be arrested for it. Whereas here in Scotland...

Untrustworthy Police Scotland and the corrupt COPFS need to get a grip.

Look, I'm Scottish and I love the Scottish people. I wish all my fellow Scots a long and happy life. I hope our great country of Scotland has a long and happy life span and continues to prosper forever.

So today, on this blog, I say, "Viva Scotland" - I wish a long life to Scotland.

And be assured that when I say "Viva Scotland", it doesn't mean that I wish everyone who is not Scottish and every country which is not Scotland a short life or any harm.

However I do realise that according to untrustworthy Police Scotland and the corrupt Crown office, I now risk being arrested for my patriotism.

So I have an important message for Police Scotland:

"If you are coming to arrest me for wishing the Scottish people well in this post today, can you make it a mid-week day please - I'm a bit fed up with you purposely arresting innocent members of the Scottish public on a Friday so that you can hold them in a custody cell all weekend till the courts open on the Monday. PS I'll wait in for you..."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160921-astonishing-as-it-may-seem-chanting-viva-palestina-could-soon-be-a-hate-crime/

Saturday, 26 November 2016

77,670 Calls To Police Abandoned IN A YEAR!

When you phone the police you expect them to at least answer don't you?

Well, a Freedom Of Information request by Heart FM has revealed that in a one year period, 77,670 telephone calls to Police Scotland resulted in the callers abandoning their call and hanging up - no doubt in sheer frustration that their calls were being ignored by police.

In the same month Police Scotland came under fire for failing to respond to a member of the publics call about the M9 car crash that killed John Yuill and Lamara Bell, one caller waited 16 minutes before police eventually answered his call.

I'm sorry folks but the 'sorry, we were busy' excuse just doesn't wash.

When a member of the public calls the police - no matter whether it's via the 101 or the 999 numbers - they expect to be put through to the police, no excuses. End of.

Scottish Labour justice spokeswoman Claire Baker said: "Everyone wants to feel safe in their own community yet when that safety is challenged it is vital that the public have the confidence in their local police to respond. That confidence is being lost."

So ok, now that it's all out in the open and the truth about police and their failures to answer calls from the public has been exposed for all to see in plain hard facts and figures, have Police Scotland apologised for their dangerously inefficient and sloppy service?

Have they apologised to the 77,670 members of the public who tried to get through to them but ended up having to abandon their calls (slamming their phone down in frustration no doubt)?

Don't be silly - this is untrustworthy Police Scotland we're talking about here!

Instead of apologising, Assistant Chief Constable John Hawkins has said: "It is misleading and inaccurate to suggest that in excess of 77,000 non-emergency calls are 'unanswered' by Police Scotland."

He goes on to add "Calls referred to as 'abandoned' are defined as a call where the caller has disconnected without speaking to an advisor. This is not a suggestion that calls are routinely being unanswered but rather that the caller has chosen to disconnect the call."

Thanks for that explanation John.

I'm sure we'll all sleep safer in our beds tonight now that we know that those 77,670 unanswered calls which members of the public tried to make to you and your officers weren't really calls from the public to you and your officers and the calls didn't really go unanswered.

When I was a boy my parents always told me "If you want to know the time, just ask a policeman."

Perhaps those 77,670 members of the public were simply phoning you to ask the time?

Perhaps they thought they were calling the 'speaking clock'?

One thing's for certain.

You and your buddies at untrustworthy Police Scotland didn't give them the time of day.

http://www.heart.co.uk/scotland/news/local/exclusive-tens-of-thousands-of-police-scotlan/#K35ztAms0REtILMC.97

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Chief Inspector Gary Ogilvie - The Arrogant Dictator

The residents of Ryehill and their West End community council are not too happy with Police Scotland's plans to close their local police station. In fact over 200 people have signed a petition asking for the station to remain open.

As the one-size-fits-all Police Scotland charges ahead with its flawed and failing agenda of centralising everything to do with law enforcement in Scotland - at the expense of local community policing with local officers who have local knowledge - the residents have a right to be upset and concerned.

Police should listen to the community's concerns. They have a perfect right to say how they feel about how Police Scotland are spending our money. And just in case you've forgotten, Police Scotland use our money for their resources - remember, we employ them.

However Police Scotland seem hell-bent on shutting down the local Ryehill station regardless.

No surprise there - local station closures has been Police Scotland's agenda since day one. After all, that's what the centralised Police Scotland project has always been about and everyone knows it.

But what is absolutely astonishing has been the response from Chief Inspector Gary Ogilvie to the members of the public in the community council who have voiced their concerns.

CI Ogilvie has said that "The force would not be 'dictated to" by the community council.

What?

What?!

WHAT??!!

How dare he!

I have an important message for Chief Inspector Gary Ogilvie.

Listen up Ogilvie, you arrogant jobsworth. You will, I repeat WILL be dictated to by the public and that includes members of the public on the West End community council. In fact you WILL be dictated to by every member of the Scottish public who pays your generous Chief Inspectors salary and your over-generous early retirement pension.

You will do as we say, not the other way around.

And if you don't like it, remember that we, the public, only allow you to work for us at our convenience, not yours. You can be replaced very easily and don't you forget it.

Know your place Ogilvie. Apologise to the Scottish public NOW for your comments.

And if no-one at the Scottish Parliament, or the council, or Police Scotland is willing to meet with you face to face and put you firmly in your place (which, by the way, is firmly beneath the public, not above us) then set up a meeting with me.

I'll tell you.

And I will not mince my words.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/298083/we-will-not-be-dictated-to-by-police-scotland-community-council-opposed-to-station-closure/

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Top QC Blasts Crown Office Decision Making

The Crown office are corrupt. Every day, up and down Scotland, they attempt to prosecute innocent members of the public even when they know them to be innocent.

At the very same time, they refuse to prosecute their friends and connections.

Wanna complain about it? You can't. Because they, and they alone, decide who sees the inside of a court room and who doesn't.

Their decision to prosecute or not to prosecute a case are based on two fatally flawed 'tests':

a) Is it in the public interest to prosecute?

b) Is there a sufficiency of evidence in law to prosecute?

It's no co-incidence that these two so-called 'tests' are purely subjective. They are nothing but opinions. And that's exactly the way the corrupt Crown office like it - because you can't argue against someone's opinion.

Their answer will always be "I know you don't agree with what we have decided, but that's our opinion". End of.

Clever eh.

If you don't like the Crown office's opinion there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Zilch. If they decide that it's "not in the public interest" to prosecute or that there is "insufficient evidence in law" to prosecute, you're stuffed.

You can't argue with an opinion.

Just think for a moment how the families of the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy feel today. The bin lorry driver has never been held accountable for his actions. Do you believe it to be in the public interest that he should stand trial? I do. Do you believe there is enough evidence that he lied to the DVLA so should not have been driving that day that he should stand trial? I do.

So does the overwhelming majority of the Scottish public.

But the Crown office don't. So that's where it ends.

Let's be clear here, this isn't some sort of vigilante style witch-hunt we're talking about here. No one is asking for the bin lorry driver to be thrown in jail. All the Scottish public are asking for is that the Crown office allow it go to court - and the court will then decide whether he has committed a crime or not (and we, the Scottish public will accept and abide by the courts decision whichever way the court may decide).

It's called justice.

But the corrupt Crown office refuse to allow the families justice.

They continue to hide behind their 'opinions' based on their flawed 'tests' which they know they can spin any way they want, any time they want, to suit any case they want.

I have said from day one that I believe the Crown office, Police Scotland, and the Health & Safety Executive conspired to prevent the bin lorry driver facing trial in order to protect their friends and connections in Glasgow Crooked City Council being sued by the families of the victims (the bin lorry driver was driving for GCC at the time of the incident).

Glasgow City Council have been facing serious budget cuts for many years so the prospect of the families of six dead victims suing them for millions is not something GCC welcomed. So a deal was done - and that deal was done within hours of the tragedy happening. It's common knowledge that the very next day after the tragedy the Crown office, police, and the HSE (who GCC legislate for) all got together and agreed that this should be treated as a traffic incident rather than a Health & Safety incident (therefore letting GCC off the hook and leaving the families with no recourse against GCC for employing the driver).

To this day, the corrupt Crown office are still trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to convince the Scottish public that they knew ALL the facts about the incident just hours after the incident happened. It's a nonsense of course. Procurator Fiscal David Green was still clueless to facts about this terrible tragedy WEEKS after it happened (as he clearly showed during a disastrous meeting with the families and their lawyers)!

There is no doubt that the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy marked a very special mile-stone for me and my crusade for justice against the corrupt Crown office.

You see, that was the time that I finally realised that my 'little' case and complaint against the corrupt Crown office paled in to insignificance compared to the tragic devastating loss of life and issues with the Crown office that these families faced with their case.

And in what I can only describe as one of those 'aha' moments, I realised that if the bin lorry families were unable to get justice from this motley crew at the corrupt Crown office, then I would have absolutely NO chance of getting any kind of justice from them for my (by comparison) insignificant little case.

That was the day that this blog really took off in earnest.

I stopped wasting my time and energy struggling in an uphill fight to sue the Crown office over my case and then started to use that time and energy to fight the Crown office on behalf of ALL the Scottish public in ALL cases in which they act corruptly.

So it's no surprise to me when I heard recently that one of Scotland's top QC's, Gordon Jackson has stated that the independence of Scotland's prosecution service is being "eroded".

He says that "In the real world, any Lord Advocate will be aware of others, press and politicians, looking over his shoulder. To ignore that would be naive". 

He then goes on to say that he believes "correct decisions are not made" and that "the balance is wrong."

I couldn't agree more.

I was wrongly arrested and wrongly prosecuted in order to fulfil political aims, ambitions, and press headlines which the Crown office and their police colleagues had aimed to achieve at that particular time (the upcoming Glasgow Commonwealth Games being one of them).

The fact that I was innocent and had done nothing wrong - nothing, not a single thing - was totally unimportant to them.

That's wrong, so very, very wrong.

Thank goodness I defeated them. That's right folks, I took on the might of the crown office and my false accuser in a court of law and I won.

The issue here is that I should never had had to do it. I should never have had to fight to prove my innocence in a court when the Crown office had all that evidence of my innocence in their hands (which, by the way, corrupt Procurator Fiscal Calum Forsyth tried to illegally withhold from the defence in order to stop the court hearing the truth). Disgraceful and shameful behaviour on their part. Procurator Fiscal Calum Forsyth should in jail for what attempted to do.

Gordon Jackson QC goes on to say that "It needs to be stressed that the prosecutor is NOT the victim's lawyer, but an independent prosecutor in the public interest. I know everyone pays lip service to this principle but I also believe it, too, are being eroded in practice."

How true.

My false accuser insisted that the Crown office attempt to prosecute me even though she knew she was lying. The Crown office knew she was lying too. They had all the evidence in their possession, they knew I was innocent (they had her sworn statement full of provable lies, a number of other witness statements showing a time-line of events that just didn't fit, the transcript from my mobile phone which proved she was the abuser, not me - you couldn't make it up as they say).

You would think with top lawyers all over Scotland telling the corrupt Crown office that they need to change their ways that the COPFS would sit up and take notice.

But no.

Predictably, Lord Advocate James 'the big bad' Wolffe responded by trotting out his usual silly soundbites saying how he has the "utmost confidence" in prosecutors and that Scotland had "good reason to be proud of its public prosecution service".

He then completed his medley of nonsense (that no one except him and the COPFS believe) with such gems such as how Scotland has "skilled and dedicated prosecutors" and how he has "the utmost confidence in them and so should everyone who lives in Scotland".

His most hilarious one though was when he said "There is no inconsistency between respecting the rights and interests of victims of crime and exercising the independence which is inherent in prosecuting in the public interest."

What an absolute load of old tosh.

What planet does this idiot live on?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37339690

Saturday, 19 November 2016

Is This Really The Type Of Procurator Fiscal We Want?

My biggest fear has always been that many of the corrupt Procurator Fiscals who work in the Crown office today will eventually become Sheriffs and Judges tomorrow.

At the moment, Judges and Sheriffs are the only people who can stand up to and block these corrupt charlatans from the Crown office. Judges and Sheriffs throw COPFS cases out of their courts up and down Scotland every day in life, and thank God they do.

But there is an inevitability that tomorrows Judges will be chosen from todays corrupt Crown office PF's and that's worrying.

Very worrying.

We could avoid this catastrophe happening if we could clean up the Crown office right now. I've certainly been campaigning tirelessly for that to happen. But what if it proves to be too little too late?

We already have a whole generation of corrupt judges in the making sitting in the Crown office right now who sorely need weeding. But the cull will probably never happen.

That's a very depressing situation for the Scottish public and for Scottish justice.

If I'm correct and the current crop of bent fiscals are too engrained in to the Crown office and have been allowed to become too powerful to be routed out, then the next best thing we can do is try to stop the rot wherever we can.

We need to stop new fiscals who enter the Crown office from being mislead in to following the poor examples set by their superiors. We must prevent these new fiscals who come through the door from becoming as corrupt as their predecessors.

So what types of fiscals are being attracted in to the Crown office these days?

What types of law students of today are gearing up to become our next generation of prosecutors (and eventually our future judges)?

Well, LawScot have published an article about one particular student, Carol Doherty.

Ten years ago she started at COPFS as a temporary Fiscal Officer and is now a part-time LLB student starting her 4th year at Edinburgh Napier University.

Carol says "Never give up on your dream, no matter your age or background. I actually can see myself working within the High Courts of Scotland dealing with very different and complex cases"

That's quite an ambition.

But what is it that drives her ambition to do so well in the Crown office?

A desire to work for the public good?

A wish to get bad guys off our streets?

A need to help, support, and protect the Scottish public?

Mmmm, well, not quite.

Carol states (and I'm not making this up - it's a direct quote from her) that:

"...my main reason for choosing a career in law was to provide a very secure lifestyle for myself and my daughter – and hopefully to prove to her and others that you can enter back into education at any stage in your life and be successful. (But I have to admit a nice big house,  a few holidays a year, a house abroad and my dream car are also reasons for wanting to become a lawyer)".

Not a single mention of her doing it for the good of the public. Not one.

Astonishing.

So, it looks like the ten years she's been working in the Crown office has already shaped her attitude. Perhaps then it's not surprising that she's all set to fit in very nicely thank you very much with the rest of the motley crew at the COPFS when she qualifies and gets her degree.

Sadly, the future for Scottish justice and the Scottish public has just taken yet another bash.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2016/09/a-textbook-example-of-how-to-achieve-your-dreams/

Tuesday, 15 November 2016

Top Legal Experts All Claim COPFS Is A Mess

I have already stated in a previous post that the Holyrood justice committee's current inquiry and investigation in to the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever to the way this corrupt, inefficient, and incompetent motley crew of rogues run themselves.

And now it's not only me who's calling their investigation a waste of time.

A host of top Scottish lawyers are saying so too, many of whom have come out and said it publicly (which is unusual, perhaps even unprecedented, but never the less, very, very welcome):

- The Faculty of Advocates have expressed concerns about the "decision-making processes" of a "struggling" prosecution service. Roughly translated, the COPFS pursue stupid non-winnable cases where people are quite obviously innocent (like in my case) yet won't pursue other cases where it's as plain as the nose on your face that there has been obvious wrong-doing (like in the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy).

- Brian McConnachie QC, a former senior prosecutor at Crown Office, has said: "there are cases that are not being properly prepared, cases having to be put off on numerous occasions because COPFS has had trouble finding witnesses or providing full disclosure to the defence."

- Advocate Niall McCluskey says "There are huge delays in fixing high court trials as the court service doesn’t seem to have enough resources, while on the defence side, legal aid is also under-resourced"

- Gordon Jackson QC has said "the decision-making processes are not as good as they once were".

That's pretty damning conclusions from some very top people who are right up there in the know.

But, as you would expect, the corrupt Crown office see it a wee bit differently (surprise, surprise).

In yet another of their bizarre 'the emperor has no clothes' scenarios, a spokesman for the Crown Office said it looked forward to:

"working with the committee" to highlight COPFS "strong track record in prosecuting crime in Scotland".

Someone at the Crown office is having a laugh surely.

I'm reminded of the Monty Python movie where the Black Knight has his limbs chopped off one by one yet still maintains "it's only a flesh wound". This describes EXACTLY how the Procurator Fiscals in the Crown office see themselves.

I'll leave the final word to Brian McConnachie QC who, in his analysis of the Crown office's situation, states that the current investigation in to the Crown office will likely prove to be little more than a "long involved talking shop with very little impact".

Well said Brian.

Unfortunately for the Scottish public, you just know that even after this investigation it will still end up being business as usual at the corrupt, incompetent, totally blinkered, and unflinching Crown office.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14736437.Lawyers__Crown_Office_probe_should_look_at_pressures_on_entire_legal_system/?ref=rss

Saturday, 12 November 2016

Police Illegally Using Spit Hoods

Police have a new weapon in their arsenal for restraining innocent members of the public.

They are called 'Spit Hoods' and as the name suggests, they are hoods which they put over the innocent member of the public's head to prevent him or her 'spitting' at the police officer(s) trying to restrain them.

I say 'innocent' members of the public because we often forget that in this country members of the public are innocent until proved guilty - a fact that police tend to gloss over and ignore with alarming regularity.

I'm a member of Liberty and their campaign group director Martha Spurrier has described the spit hoods as "primitive, cruel and degrading tools that inspire fear and anguish belong in horror stories".

She is correct.

However many people, including I have to say myself, will have a little bit of sympathy with the police here regarding this particular issue. No one, and I mean no one, takes kindly to being spat at. It's a disgusting thing to do to anyone at any time never mind a police officer or anyone else simply going about the business of doing their job.

If someone spat at me I would react and take counter measures to protect myself so police are no different.

But as is usual with police, there's always another more sinister angle to what they do.

If the spit hoods were only being used for neds who want to throw a gob at their local plod because he's spoiled their Saturday night by trying to 'lift' them, that would be one thing.

But as Martha from Liberty adds, "We have seen many cases where the police use them unnecessarily and without justification, including on children and disabled people".

Yes folks, you read that correctly.

Police are quite happy to use these hoods on innocent children and disabled people.

And that's a disgrace.

The problem with police is, has, and always will be, that they always take things too far.

Every time they get a new law with a new power, they abuse that power.

Every time they are given a privilege they abuse that privilege.

Always.

No one likes to be spat at, but police already have extensive powers to use force against citizens including tasers, handcuffs, arm restraints, leg restraints, pepper spray, and batons. Police abuse every one of these methods of restraint every single day in life.

So these spit hoods are merely another instrument of abuse that police have used and will use against innocent members of the public when it's not appropriate to do so. Guaranteed.

They always do.

http://www.heart.co.uk/scotland/news/local/spit-hoods/#fJzHVmk7qKoBuCRF.97

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Public In Fife have No Confidence In Police

Police Scotland recently asked the public to rate the level of confidence they had in police responding to their concerns.

And the good people in the wonderful Kingdom of Fife gave them a clear answer.

More than 40% of Fifers told them in no uncertain terms that their confidence in police is either 'low' or 'very low'.

Only 28% said they had high or very high expectations of Police Scotland.

This is absolutely damning for Police Scotland and completely confirms why this blog is absolutely correct in constantly referring to Police Scotland in every post as 'Untrustworthy Police Scotland'.

So will the results of this survey encourage Police Scotland to change their ways and start helping, protecting, and supporting the public rather than targeting them?

No.

As always, Police Scotland will completely ignore the results of the public survey. Because it criticises them.

Police Scotland don't like criticism.

The only lessons police are likely to 'learn' from this fiasco is to stop asking the public how they think police are doing - because they're unlikely to get the answer they want.

Instead, they'll just keep 'tweeting' and 'facebooking' their own silly propaganda to us in the hope that if they bombard us often enough with these messages of what a fandabiedozie job they're doing, eventually the public might actually just start to believe it.





http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/crime/fife-feedback-to-survey-offers-police-scotland-food-for-thought-1-4223651

No Investigation In To Failed £60M Police IT Project

Question: When is an investigation not an investigation?

Answer: When that investigation does not, and cannot, hold any party responsible or accountable for their actions.

It's also known as 'a whitewash' and rest assured our good friends in the corrupt Crown office and untrustworthy Police Scotland are seasoned experts when it comes to whitewashing investigations in to their failings.

The so-called 'investigation' I'm referring to here is of course the predictable news that Audit Scotland will conduct a so-called independent review into Police Scotland's failed £60m IT contract.

In a letter (reprinted below) you can clearly see that the fix is already in and the whitewash has begun even before the investigation has gotten underway!

Note the phrase in the last paragraph where it says that the Audit Scotland investigation will take the form of an "Independent Lessons Learned Review".

'Lessons learned' really means that the investigation will be restricted to only looking at how Police Scotland can prevent such expensive failures from happening in the future.

Which means no-one at Police Scotland will be prosecuted, no-one at Police Scotland will be held responsible, and no-one at Police Scotland will be held accountable for the wasting of tens of millions of pounds of our money.

Yip, close ranks, give the 'illusion' that an investigation has been carried out, and ensure no-one gets held responsible.

Just the way untrustworthy Police Scotland like 'independent' investigations to be...





http://stv.tv/news/politics/1366423-probe-after-police-scotland-cancels-60m-it-contract/

Sunday, 6 November 2016

My Dossier For Holyrood's Justice Committee

Holyrood's justice committee are currently conducting an inquiry into the effectiveness of the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service and have asked members of the public to contact them with any issues they feel the committee should look at to regarding how COPFS is run.

Mmmm. Where do you want me to start guys?!

However, you may be surprised to hear that after I began working on a dossier for the committee, I abruptly stopped and ditched the idea completely.

Here's why.

Upon closer inspection, I discovered that Holyrood's justice committee will not really be investigating in to the workings of the Crown office. They have only given the illusion that they will be investigating in to the workings of the corrupt Crown office.

In reality their investigation is only investigating in to whether the Crown office have sufficient resources (i.e. money) to do their job.

In their own words, Holyrood's justice committee say that their inquiry will examine how effective and efficient the organisation is "and whether it has the resources it needs to carry out its work".

So if Holyrood's investigation decides that the Crown office are doing a great job, nothing will change.

And if Holyrood's investigation decides that the Crown office are doing a sloppy job, they'll give them more money.

The Crown office are the most corrupt, inefficient, and incompetent organisation in the history of Scottish justice and the job they do is so sloppy they are nothing short of a national disgrace.

My dossier would have proved that - and would result in the Crown office getting more money to continue with their corruption, inefficiency and incompetence.

No thank you.

http://stv.tv/news/politics/1366651-holyrood-launches-investigation-into-prosecution-service/

Thursday, 3 November 2016

The Cannabis Dilemma

A British government study has concluded that CBD oil - a chemical compound found in cannabis - can be used with great effect for medical purposes. Most importantly, it does not contain THC which is the psychoactive substance so therefore does not produce a 'high' for the user.

This news about how cannabis oil can benefit patients with a variety of ailments is nothing new. Many medical professionals have argued for years that marijuana extract has a number of beneficial medical effects.

The news that they can now separate the 'medicinal' part from the 'high' part of cannabis is ground-breaking though.

In fact, a company called MediPen already produce and sell a CBD oil vaporiser in an e-cigarette format. Jordan Owen. the managing director of MediPen told The Independent that the company has "...worked hard to obtain our goal of breaking down the negative connotations surrounding cannabis to lead to a reform in the law for medicinal use…now this is finally becoming a reality."

On the face of it, it looks like good news.

But here's the problem.

There are a lot of myths about cannabis, its benefits, and its uses.

Many people - and not just young people - believe cannabis to be a 'soft' drug, much less harmful than alcohol. Many people, including many high profile and eminent people, campaign for cannabis to be made legal claiming these very reasons.

They are wrong.

Cannabis is a dangerous drug. It is rightly illegal and should remain so. Cannabis is a 'stepping stone' drug to harder drugs.

Need proof?

I do voluntary work with addicts every day and I have almost two decades of experience in this field. I have never, repeat NEVER met a drug addict who did not begin his drug taking life in a nonchalant manner by taking a little bit of the ole 'wacky baccy'.

Never.

In the interests of balance, I should also mention that I have also met a few people who have taken cannabis on a regular basis and have never progressed to any harder drugs. Good for them. They're the lucky ones.

But make no bones about it, just because YOU have never experienced the horrendous results that many others experience from cannabis use, that does NOT make a case for it to be decriminalised. Just thank your lucky stars that you have been able to use it with relative impunity and stop being so selfish, uncaring and ignoring to the damage this dangerous drug does to others.

Doctors train for years to understand drugs and their effects on human beings. That's why a drug which works for one patient can give horrendous side effects to another patient. Doctors are professionals who are trained to spot this type of thing and every day in their surgeries they alter the drugs they prescribe from person to person for this very reason.

Not every person reacts the same to any given drug, so this fact MUST be taken in to account when we talk about cannabis.

And that brings us to the medical benefits of cannabis and the question of whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe it.

I believe that our medical doctors - who are highly trained to administer drugs in a very controlled and professional way - should be allowed to prescribe cannabis when and where they see fit.

So in my opinion, we must make cannabis legal for medical use but keep it illegal for any other type of use.

This shouldn't be a problem as such. Most drugs that doctors give to patients are only available on prescription anyway and are not available legally over the counter. So most drugs are, in fact, legal to prescribe but illegal to buy or use in any other way.

However this is where the cannabis dilemma comes in.

You see, if the government decriminalise cannabis it sends a message to the public that the drug is safe.

And that would be a wrong message to send out to the public because cannabis is most definitely NOT safe.

With ever increasing drug problems in our communities - especially among our young folk - sending a message that this stepping stone drug is safe is not a good idea, especially when it has been proved time and time again that it often leads to harder drug use.

I really don't know what the answer to this dilemma is. I truly don't.

But what I do know is that our government needs to get it's thinking cap on and deal with this problem in a much more informed and responsible way because if they get it wrong, the results will be disastrous for public health.

Many members of the public with a variety of medical ailments will benefit greatly from cannabis if it is legalised and their doctors are allowed to prescribe it.

But a lot more of our young people will become addicted to harder drugs and it'll happen to them a lot quicker if cannabis is legalised and they think it's safe to take it.

Let's have a proper debate about this where both sides can at least accept each others perfectly valid arguments about this drug.

https://www.rt.com/uk/362453-cannabis-marijuana-medicine-cbd/