Which of these two men actually is a sex offender?

Conservative councillor Alan Donnelly (bottom, wee, once) was found guilty of sexual assault in 2019, fined and placed on the sex offenders register.

Alex Salmond (top, big, three times) is not guilty of any offences, of any kind.

Donnelly refused to resign, collected his salary and expenses for two years and has vowed to stand again for election.

There’s an easy headline but not one BBC Scotland would construct for a Tory. Now if they had an SNP politician who had not actually laid hands on anyone, had been accused of no crime, but had messaged a 16 year-old boy?

Salmond resigned and has made no such vow to return.

Donnelly was only suspended by his Party for one year until March 4th 2021.

Standards in journalism?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is untitled-150.png

16 thoughts on “Which of these two men actually is a sex offender?

  1. The fact is,they are out to get us (independence supporters that is).
    No normal democracy (including England) would allow it’s media to become so one sided against the government and institutions of their country.
    We are still under occupation by English forces.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. We have a Prime Minister who “lies for fun” according to a senior French diplomat and former UK Ambassador; who lied to the Queen; who tried to illegally prorogue parliament; who wanted to breach international law; who has overseen the “quitting” of six senior civil servants; who got rid of England’s Attorney-General for making “uncomfortable noises” about abiding with international law; who replaced him with Suella Bravermann, which prompted the Treasury solicitor and head of his governments legal department to resign in disgust. Oh, and his girlfriend is now appointing staff and making policy. Ministerial Code? That’ll be code for “do what you want”!

    Read about it from “Scotland’s” colonial media “opinion formers”? That would be a first!
    And a laugh!

    Give us a tax-payer bung for “fair unbiased, investigative journalism”!
    Brass necked brass neckery! Or Ruthies little helpers.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. The ” irrepairable damage” to democracy in Scotland that the unionist media is keen on promoting, is not being done by the matter they are so intent on publicising, it’s their scurrilous insinuations without proof that that are the problem.
    The real annekers midden isn’t in Edinburgh, or Bridgeton, it’s imbedded in a corrupt Tory Government at Westminster, aided and abetted by their pals in a lying M.S.M.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Scotland’s democracy has been harmed by the moral incompetence of ‘our’ Lord Advocate’s legal practice. Though that pales into insignificance compared to Brexit, which rights Scotland’s constitutional identity out of existence, so as to empower right-wing and xenophobic English nationalism.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It is impossible to have “journalism” in the MSM. The owner of a newspaper may not directly order the political direction. However the message is delivered in a manner that leaves little doubt. The many freelance agents survive by selling articles and like any good business they deliver product that appeals to the buyer.

    Look how.many good blogs uncover stories the media buries. Headlines unrelated to the story. The placement of photographs near an unrelated story. Etc etc.

    We are in Europe but compare the coverage of the politics of Europe with that of the USA.
    Apart from disasters and wars what coverage do we get of South America, Australasia, the Far East etc.
    We do get minute detail regarding the Royal Family. Not as controlled as in the past but still with excessive positive spin.

    We have always had propaganda instead of News.

    Look at the career rewards for those in BBC Scotland who distort the story of Scotland.

    I watch CNN, Aljazeera, Euronews. I read several blogs daily. I then try to figure out the truth. The strange thing is when you find real journalism it actually stands out dramatically.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I saw your comment on WGD and thought to hail a thinking adult – sadly I have given up on comment there for if one happens to ask if they have any doubts whatsoever one is accused of being gullible, student politician or some other such rubbish.
      And that on a thinking man’s blog too.
      I watch RT ,AlJazeera , Euronews too as that is the only way to get a view of the world and other folks thinking.


  6. Further to my previous point, and more inline with the current topic. It is hard to support pluralistic democracy in a media environment that is hostile towards fairness and balance. It is even harder when this lack of balance is consistently aimed at supporting the dominant ideology favoured by the state (see British nationalism). As that simply supports authoritarian totalitarianism.

    News Media Criminology


  7. The media coverage of Brexit was a classical example of manufacturing consent through systematic epistemic violence against the truth, resulting in the production of a “toxic discourse and fear of the criminal ‘Other’”. This stoked cultural anxiety and a moral panic that supported a manufactured psychological need for cultural closure. Much like the media’s lack of subjective balance evident in their coverage of Alex Salmond and Alan Donnelly.

    News media representation on EU immigration before Brexit: the ‘Euro-Ripper’ case


  8. O/T sort of. There have been a number of ‘prominent’ people opining that the Salmond affair is revealing fundamental weaknesses in the structuring of Scotland’s institutions. There can appear also to an implication here that such concerns – and perceived weaknesses – are present in Scotland but do not exist within the Westminster system. Unsurprisingly this, in my inexpert opinion, seems to a false.

    For anyone interested in views on not dissimilar issues facing institutions within England – over the dual role of government law officers, their independent status and the publication (or not) by a government of its legal advice – I suggest reading this for useful perspective. Apologies for the length of this post but if like me you have little or no prior knowledge of the subject, you may find the information on England’s/Westminster’s practices interesting.

    Source: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/advice-from-the-attorney-general-does-not-attract-privilege/5068625.article.

    In England’s different system, as the article explains: “The Attorney General fulfils a number of constitutional roles: superintending the prosecution agencies together with a number of functions in relation to criminal proceedings, being the arbiter of the public interest in that role, and representing the public interest in civil proceedings.

    “Most importantly, … , the Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the government, and as such he has access to Cabinet and Cabinet papers. He is also a senior minister of the government.”

    (The current Attorney General is The Rt Hon Suella Braverman QC MP.)

    “The current Attorney General is a member of the House of Commons, with separate duties and responsibilities to those he represents and all Attorneys General take the whip of the party forming the government.

    “The Attorney General is therefore a public servant, with a duty to the public, but as a member of government he is responsible for government policy. There is an obvious tension between these roles.”

    The author explains this ‘tension’ further: “.. when the Attorney General provides advice to the government, can the government truly be said to be his client, and he an independent legal adviser so that the advice he gives may be said to be legally privileged, or is the fact that the advice of the Attorney General to government is not disclosed save in exceptional circumstances not a result of legal privilege, but rather of parliamentary convention?

    “In other words, can it thus be said that such advice does not have the unassailable quality of communications covered by legal privilege? In answering this question it is necessary to remind oneself of the context in which legal privilege may arise, and the policy reason for which it exists in that context.”

    The article points the reader to the authority of Erskine May: here the position is stated as follows:

    ’By long-standing convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside Government. This convention is referred to in paragraph 2.13 of the Ministerial Code. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. Therefore, the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament, cited in debate or provided in evidence before a select committee, and their production has frequently been refused; but if a Minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House, the Speaker has ruled that the orders of the House are in no way involved in the proceedings.’

    It is clear from this article that there is a valid and serious – legal and non-partisan – debate being had with regard to the tension in the roles of the government law officer within the Westminster system.

    Finally, to fill in more of this picture giving perspective, among the Attorney General post’s roles and responsibilities are the following (extracted from the UK Government website on ‘Ministerial role Attorney General’):

    – ‘Specific statutory duty to superintend the discharge of duties by the Director of Public Prosecutions (who heads the Crown Prosecution Service) and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.’

    – ‘Government’s principal legal adviser dealing with (amongst others) questions of international law, human rights, devolution and COVID-19 issues.’

    And not least given current matters in Scotland::

    – ‘Public interest functions, for example, reference of unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, bringing proceedings for contempt of court …’


  9. O/T sort of but following on.

    The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 poses serious problems for the principles of “mutual recognition” and “non-discrimination”, given Scotland did not vote for Brexit and the English market is by far the largest in ‘our’ unitary state. It also poses a serious challenge to the rule-of-law, as it seriously compromises the principles of judicial review and judicial oversight.

    As always, Scotland is treated much like a battered wife, who existence is only recognised by her abuser, as evidence of his ‘natural’ supremacy. Such is the cultural patriarchy of British nationalism.


    Btw, I’ve been trying to like comments with no result. Even when I’m not running a script blocker. T’internet is still largely a ‘dark art’ to me, so I wonder if anyone could suggest what I’m getting wrong?

    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.