Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland
Click on the above.
Only the day before yesterday and Labour MSP Pam Duncan Glancy had doubled down on a defence of her friendship with a convicted paedophile so, was understandably the top story on the BBC Scotland website.
Surely, this one would run and run, she was defending her contact with a paedophile, as we have seen with the now ten year-old ‘infected hospital deaths’ story featuring Anas Sarwar as heroic lead or the Sturgeon/Murrell ‘fraud’ case in 2023.
Today, in record time, she’s gone, gone completely!
Let’s compare this with BBC Scotland’s coverage of the Sturgeon/Murrell ‘fraud case.
5th April 2023, Murrell headlines:
6th April , Murrell still at number two story:
On the 7th, Nicola Sturgeon is there to keep the issue in mind:
The next day, on the 8th, the story is back at number one:
On the 9th, Nicola was headline story. They took a wee break on the 10th and 11th but Murrell was number 2 on the 12th. The story ran and ran.
Footnote – to access these archive pages for https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland, I used the Wayback Machine at: https://web.archive.org/
You’ll need good wifi and processing power.
Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland
Click on the above.
Talking-up Scotland 
We’re in for a Murrell-stole-my-scone fest in the run-up to the Holyrood election. Perfect timing. Do you think the Crown Prosecution Service might be biased?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct Capella.
They’ve just broadcast Episode1 on the lunchtime news.
Despicable .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have they gone to early?
Will non-SNP voters care when it’s SNP money, not taxpayers?
Will SNP voters rally round?
LikeLike
All I know is that they will repeat..repeat .. repeat ad nauseum (did I spell that correctly?)
LikeLike
You are correct as always to point out and publicize the political anti-independence bias displayed by BBC Scotland and the unionist media.
I should like to make a point exemplified by the issues in the articles you have used here. It concerns the identification of politicians and other higher profile figures who are associated in some way with individuals who have been accused of a crime even though the well known people are innocent of any crime. It is ‘guilt by association’.
A fairly recent example was when a relation of former First Minister Humza Yusaf was charged with dealing drugs. (He was acquitted at the trial). Reports identified Humza in the headlines and, usually, in photographs accompanying the reports. Humza was entirely blameless.
With the recent Epstein revelations, we have the unsavoury spectacle of people who are not mentioned in the files but have some kind of association with people mentioned in the files, even though they, themselves, had never met or communicated with Epstein nor is there any evidence of them having engaged in any of the kinds of conduct people mentioned in the files have participated in or turned a blind eye to or sought to protect Epstein from the kind of sentencing his actions deserved.
For example, there is no evidence to suggest Ms Pam Duncan-Glancy aided or abetted her long time friend who pleaded guilty to paedophilia related crimes and served a sentence for them. Of course, paedophilia is an appalling crime and it evokes shock, disgust, anger even feelings of violence towards the perpetrators.
There are two aspects to this.
Firstly, the media frenzy with regard to the Epstein revelations has largely ignored the victims of the crimes of Epstein and his associates. Indeed, until recently, there was innuendo that the victims were in some way responsible for their own maltreatment as a reading of the reports on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’s treatment of the late Virginia Giuffre demonstrates. Only by their determination have these women victims kept their demands for justice alive.
The second relates to rehabilitation of offenders. If someone has admitted guilt, served her or his sentence, expressed remorse is he or she not entitled to get on with living a law abiding life? Usually, it is family who provide the bulk of support, but friends, neighbours, associates, former colleagues, etc provide some too. In the case of some crimes this is hard for family and friends to bring themselves to do, given their own disgust and sense of betrayal of trust. However, many manage to overcome their revulsion. Sadly, they, too, are often pilloried by the media with vox pops from family and friends of the victims of the crimes. The phrase ‘they are just as bad as the criminal’ is often said.
Should Pam Duncan-Glancy not have tried to support her long time friend in some way? Should the mother of an egregious criminal be condemned for trying to support her child who is serving or has served a sentence? Are things like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ empty platitudes? Is rehabilitation wrong?
PS I have met Ms Duncan-Glancy once when she attended a community event. Some neighbours and friends know her fairly well.
LikeLike