Last straw as Herald places Alex Salmond alongside Adolf Eichmann and the Yorkshire Ripper

Note: Thanks to the Rev Stu Campbell for spotting this.

This must be the last straw for residual Herald buyers. Just as the people of Liverpool rejected the Sun after it accused Liverpool FC supporters of stealing from the dead at Hillsborough, surely the people of Scotland can no longer buy the Herald?

Most important, Salmond is currently innocent.

Further, he is accused of crimes which though serious are not comparable with those of multiple serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe, child killers such as the Wests or mass genocidal killers such as Adolf Eichmann.

Only Weinstein, bottom-left, is guilty of similar crimes though, in his case, actual rapes and many of them.

In the small print, Neal Mackay mentions that these crimes ‘are in no way connected to next week’s events’. If he really cared at all about that, might he have chosen cases of genuine comparability such as Labour peer Nazir Ahmed accused of two attempted rapes or Tory MP Charlie Elphicke accused of rape?

21 thoughts on “Last straw as Herald places Alex Salmond alongside Adolf Eichmann and the Yorkshire Ripper”

  1. They have tried him and condemned him through their pages , like the BBC they are a tool of the establishment, do not buy their vile bile !.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. I wonder how the courts will view this article by the Herald?

    In The National, Mr Andrew Tickell writes about this forthcoming case:
    Section 1 of the Contempt of Court Act establishes the “strict liability rule”. This criminalises publishing anything which “tends to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so”.

    Has the ‘small print’ provided the Herald with a defence. I am sure that its lawyers would have advised on this article.

    Liked by 4 people

      1. It is possible that the article might be drawn to the attention of Lady Dorrian who is presiding. She might not give a ruling immediately, but she might re-emphasise the importance of ensuring a fair trial. The worst outcome would be if, as a result of media comment the trial were abandoned

        Like

    1. What chance the Lawyers reviewing this were in London unaware of the difference in the legal systems and in particular sub judice?

      Like

  3. I’m not qualified to judge, but find it hard to see how the “small print” gets them off the visual hook.

    Elsewhere (admittedly of much less importance) the Herald really is ramping up the nonsense.
    Here, in an article they headline as “Analysis: mixed messages from Scottish Government on doctors’ pension rules*, they say that the Scottish Government has failed to explain to the UK Government that the tapered annual allowance for pension contributions should be scrapped because – wait for it – Nicola Sturgeon would benefit from scrapping the taper:-

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18289809.analysis-mixed-messages-scottish-government-doctors-pension-rules/

    *Analysis” my erse!

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Well out of order. If the courts don’t throw the book at the Herald, the courts then look prejudiced – particularly after threatening Craig Murray on his entirely vague fictional piece that he only wrote because he’d had a bit too close call with his health I think.

    I was fairly shocked already at the earlier report Stu had on this Sun article listing all the allegations

    https://twitter.com/RevStu/status/1236580479983288320

    I suspect there won’t be the pro/anti-indy divide hoped for by the britnat establishment on this story. (I decided to miss out a chunk of text for my own reasoning there, but it’s there in my head). I really do hope the Scottish courts make this a fair trial, it’ll be seriously embarrassing if not.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. … If you can prove it, or at least prove some doubt. I’m sure there will be plenty room for appeal even with a fair trial.

      I suppose there are so many ways the trial could be seen to be unfair, including our own prejudices, so I’m not even sure what I might be unhappy with! Letting the Herald get away with that seriously biased reporting, allowing only msm press into all parts of the trial (I’m hoping Craig Murray is allowed to attend as press) – those would make me suspicious the court was being biased; it’s a sensitive subject, but also a high profile case, so I don’t doubt there will be difficulties in how it’s presented too.

      Scotland’s criminal justice system has a very low rate of wrongful imprisonment, which is good, but then you have cases like the Lockerbie bomber – where they could only work with the evidence given – but in that case evidence was collected by outside agencies from abroad, so maybe not comparable. We’ll have to wait and see I guess.

      (I should have said the Sunday Times not the Sun above)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Not a lawyer but pretty sure that is a Contempt of Court and could be argued it poisons the trial to the extent it may not be able to continue?

    Jail time for McKay and a very large fine for the Herald.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Just spoke who is a retired lawyer, criminal one but in England.

        Says a trial could be appealed on the grounds of that article.

        Usual legal caveats etc.

        Like

  6. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that this case could collapse because of the press coverage. That would be a disgrace and heads would have to roll.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.