/qresearch/ -  Q Research

>>24498048

Introduction

Operation Talla was publicly described as the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s (NPCC) “flagship” response to the Covid-19 emergency. It was celebrated in awards ceremonies and press releases as an example of policing “excellence” in a time of crisis.

But beneath the slogans and ceremonies lies a far more disturbing truth. Disclosed directives now reveal that Talla instructed forces to treat entire categories of public complaint, notably those concerning vaccine harms, care-home deaths and other Covid policy consequences, as inadmissible.

This was not an operational mistake. It was a deliberate act of constitutional engineering.

Operation Talla became the Mastershield: a mechanism by which the police insulated the executive from legal accountability, suppressing evidence that would otherwise have reached coroners, prosecutors and ultimately the courts.

The Talla Directives - Closing the Evidence Pipeline

Evidence obtained through FOI confirms that under Talla: Police forces were directed not to log or investigate complaints relating to Covid-19 vaccine harms.

Reports of unlawful care-home discharges, midazolam misuse and DNR notices were effectively shut down at source.

Material that would have triggered coronial or prosecutorial duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) was blocked from entry into the criminal justice system.

By closing the evidence pipeline, Operation Talla ensured that entire categories of potential criminality were never exposed to legal scrutiny.

Coroners and Prosecutors - Starved of Material

Under UK law, coroners must investigate deaths that are violent, unnatural, or where state involvement is alleged. Prosecutors must review evidence that may indicate criminality.

Yet under Talla:

Coroners were denied the evidential material they required to open inquests into vaccine-related or policy-related deaths.

Prosecutors were starved of cases because reports were never formally recorded.

Families who tried to raise concerns were told “no crime has been committed” when in fact their complaints had simply been erased from the record. This was not passive omission. It was systemic obstruction of justice.

The Narrative v The Evidence

The “Mastershield” operated in tandem with a narrative machine:

The public were told the NHS was “overwhelmed.” In reality, testimony and hospital data show wards were half-empty.

Families were told discharges into care homes were “safe.” In reality, untested Covid-positive (perhaps more likely, severe flu) patients were sent back into vulnerable populations.

Citizens were told vaccines were “safe and effective.” In reality, evidence of harm was silenced, dismissed, or never recorded.

The effect was to create a parallel reality in which the executive was always right and evidence to the contrary was filtered out by the very institutions meant to protect the people.

Constitutional Consequences

Operation Talla represents a profound constitutional breach.

Ultra Vires Action: The NPCC, a non-investigative body, issued directives that displaced statutory duties owed by investigative forces under the CPIA.

Induced Breach: Police forces, by following these directives, committed breaches of law themselves.

Obstruction of Justice: The systemic rejection of categories of complaint constitutes what may be the largest conspiracy to pervert the course of justice ever perpetrated in Britain.

The Mastershield did not just protect the executive. It transformed policing into a tool of executive power, shielding state policy from scrutiny and depriving the people of their constitutional right to justice. Conclusion

Operation Talla was not simply a policing response to Covid-19. It was the Mastershield - the structural device by which evidence of state wrongdoing was suppressed, accountability was evaded and justice was obstructed.

The result is a crisis not of public health, but of constitutional governance.

The people of Britain must now decide:

Do we accept that the largest conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in our history can be buried beneath awards ceremonies and official slogans?

Or, do we demand accountability and dismantle all of the shields which stand between the people and the truth?

Ethical Approach UK

10th October 2025

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/mastershield.pdf

>>24638392

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/mastershield.pdf

Operation Talla: The Mastershield Against Criminal Accountability

Introduction

Operation Talla was publicly described as the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s (NPCC) “flagship” response to the Covid-19 emergency. It was celebrated in awards ceremonies and press releases as an example of policing “excellence” in a time of crisis.

But beneath the slogans and ceremonies lies a far more disturbing truth. Disclosed directives now reveal that Talla instructed forces to treat entire categories of public complaint, notably those concerning vaccine harms, care-home deaths and other Covid policy consequences, as inadmissible.

This was not an operational mistake. It was a deliberate act of constitutional engineering.

Operation Talla became the Mastershield: a mechanism by which the police insulated the executive from legal accountability, suppressing evidence that would otherwise have reached coroners, prosecutors and ultimately the courts.

The Talla Directives - Closing the Evidence Pipeline

Evidence obtained through FOI confirms that under Talla: Police forces were directed not to log or investigate complaints relating to Covid-19 vaccine harms.

Reports of unlawful care-home discharges, midazolam misuse and DNR notices were effectively shut down at source.

Material that would have triggered coronial or prosecutorial duties under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) was blocked from entry into the criminal justice system.

By closing the evidence pipeline, Operation Talla ensured that entire categories of potential criminality were never exposed to legal scrutiny.

Coroners and Prosecutors - Starved of Material

Under UK law, coroners must investigate deaths that are violent, unnatural, or where state involvement is alleged. Prosecutors must review evidence that may indicate criminality.

Yet under Talla:

Coroners were denied the evidential material they required to open inquests into vaccine-related or policy-related deaths.

Prosecutors were starved of cases because reports were never formally recorded.

Families who tried to raise concerns were told “no crime has been committed” when in fact their complaints had simply been erased from the record. This was not passive omission. It was systemic obstruction of justice.

The Narrative v The Evidence

The “Mastershield” operated in tandem with a narrative machine:

The public were told the NHS was “overwhelmed.” In reality, testimony and hospital data show wards were half-empty.

Families were told discharges into care homes were “safe.” In reality, untested Covid-positive (perhaps more likely, severe flu) patients were sent back into vulnerable populations.

Citizens were told vaccines were “safe and effective.” In reality, evidence of harm was silenced, dismissed, or never recorded.

The effect was to create a parallel reality in which the executive was always right and evidence to the contrary was filtered out by the very institutions meant to protect the people.

Constitutional Consequences

Operation Talla represents a profound constitutional breach.

Ultra Vires Action: The NPCC, a non-investigative body, issued directives that displaced statutory duties owed by investigative forces under the CPIA.

Induced Breach: Police forces, by following these directives, committed breaches of law themselves.

Obstruction of Justice: The systemic rejection of categories of complaint constitutes what may be the largest conspiracy to pervert the course of justice ever perpetrated in Britain.

The Mastershield did not just protect the executive. It transformed policing into a tool of executive power, shielding state policy from scrutiny and depriving the people of their constitutional right to justice. Conclusion

Operation Talla was not simply a policing response to Covid-19. It was the Mastershield - the structural device by which evidence of state wrongdoing was suppressed, accountability was evaded and justice was obstructed.

The result is a crisis not of public health, but of constitutional governance.

The people of Britain must now decide:

Do we accept that the largest conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in our history can be buried beneath awards ceremonies and official slogans?

Or, do we demand accountability and dismantle all of the shields which stand between the people and the truth?

Ethical Approach UK

10th October 2025

>>24498048

>>24638392

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/mastershield_part_2.pdf

Mastershield - Part 2

Regulation, Crime Recording and the Administrative Architecture of Evidential Suppression Introduction

In October 2025, Ethical Approach UK published “Operation Talla: The Mastershield Against Criminal Accountability”.

That paper examined the proposition that Operation Talla functioned not merely as a policing operation, but as a constitutional shield - a structure through which evidential pathways were obstructed before allegations could mature into criminal accountability.

This second paper extends that analysis.

It does so through examination of three highly significant public records:

• the 2014 House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee report “Caught Red-Handed: Why We Can’t Count on Police Recorded Crime Statistics”;

• HMIC’s 2014 national inspection report “Crime- recording: Making the Victim Count”;

• and oral evidence given to Parliament concerning systemic manipulation of police-recorded crime.

Taken together, these materials reveal something of profound constitutional importance:

Long before Covid-19 and Operation Talla, the British Statealready possessed detailed institutional knowledge that police-recording systems could be manipulated, filtered, downgraded and administratively controlled in ways capable of preventing allegations from ever entering the criminal justice system properly.

Operation Talla did not emerge within a vacuum. It emerged within an already documented environment of:

• evidential filtering;

• statistical manipulation;

• target-driven suppression;

• institutional downgrading;

• and systemic resistance to victim-focused recording.

The significance of this cannot be overstated because if the State already knew these vulnerabilities existed and official reports demonstrate beyond doubt that it did, then the later emergence of nationally coordinated “to not record” practices under Operation Talla takes on an entirely different constitutional character.

The issue ceases to be mere operational error.

Instead, it becomes the apparent deployment of pre- existing institutional weaknesses as instruments of administrative containment.

Part I

The Historical Record Was Already Clear “Caught Red-Handed”

In April 2014, the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published one of the most remarkable condemnations of police-recorded crime practices ever issued by Parliament.

The report stated:

“There is an accumulation of substantial and credible evidence indicating that the PRC data do not represent a full and accurate account of crime in England and Wales.”

The Committee further concluded:

“We have strong evidence that PRC under-records crime.”

Most significantly of all, Parliament identified the underlying cultural mechanism:

“Numerical targets… drive perverse incentives to misrecord crime.”

This was not a minor administrative criticism.

It was a parliamentary finding that institutional pressures were capable of distorting the integrity of crime recording itself.

The implications were constitutional - because once crime-recording systems become susceptible to performance-driven manipulation, the State acquires the practical ability to influence:

• what enters the criminal justice system;

• what remains visible;

• what disappears;

• and ultimately, what becomes prosecutable.

Part II

“Cuffing” - Parliament Was Told Explicitly

The oral evidence presented to Parliament in November 2013 was even more extraordinary.

Retired Chief Inspector Dr Rodger Patrick described a long-standing police practice known colloquially as “cuffing”.

He explained:

“There are a number of techniques that come under what police officers would call the generic term of ‘cuffing’, which is making crime figures disappear up the sleeve.”

Parliament then heard descriptions of:

>>24498048

>>24638392

>>24638671

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/mastershield_part_2.pdf

Mastershield - Part 2

Regulation, Crime Recording and the Administrative Architecture of Evidential Suppression Introduction

In October 2025, Ethical Approach UK published “Operation Talla: The Mastershield Against Criminal Accountability”.

……………………………………………………………………….continued2…………………………………………………………………….

Pages 5-8 of 12

Parliament then heard descriptions of:

• crimes not being recorded at all;

• crimes being downgraded;

• burglaries reclassified;

• reports converted into non-crime incidents;

• and management interventions causing crimes to

“disappear”.

A serving Metropolitan Police officer, James Patrick, described allegations that crimes:

• vanished from systems;

• were strategically downgraded;

• or remained deliberately outside formal crime categories.

The language used before Parliament is striking.

James Patrick described:

• “management intervention”;

• “strategic investigation to justify the no-crime”;

• and attempts to avoid crimes entering official figures until positive outcomes could be achieved.

This is of enormous significance when viewed against later Operation Talla disclosures because by 2013 - 2014:

• Parliament knew;

• HMIC (now HMICFRS) knew;

• senior policing bodies knew;

• and the Home Office knew that administrative crime suppression was possible within British policing systems.

Part III

HMIC - “Making the Victim Count”

HMIC’s 2014 inspection report then delivered perhaps the most devastating institutional finding of all.

It concluded:

“Victims of crime are being let down.”

HMIC found “Over 800,000 crimes reported to the police have gone unrecorded each year.”

The report further concluded:

“This failure to record such a significant proportion of reported crime is wholly unacceptable.”

Importantly, HMIC did not describe crime-recording rules as optional.

It stated explicitly:

“They are not especially complicated; nor are theyoptional.”

This is critical because Operation Talla disclosures later revealed apparent national guidance structures directing forces away from recording whole categories of Covid- related complaint.

That immediately raises a constitutional question:

How can nationally coordinated “to not record” operational practices coexist with HMIC’s own prior position that crime-recording obligations are mandatory and non-optional?

The contradiction is obvious.

Part IV

The Administrative State and Evidential Containment

The significance of Operation Talla lies not merely in Covid policing itself.

Its deeper significance lies in what it reveals about themodern administrative State.

The historical materials now demonstrate three things simultaneously:

1. The State knew crime-recording systems were vulnerable to manipulation.

This was formally identified by:

• Parliament;

• HMIC;

• whistleblowers;

• and official statistical authorities.

2. The State understood that institutional pressures could suppress crime visibility. Parliament itself warned that target culture distorted recording behaviour.

3. Operation Talla later introduced nationally coordinated operational filtering.

The later disclosures concerning:

• vaccine complaints;

• care-home deaths;

• and Covid-related evidential rejection must therefore be viewed against a backdrop where the vulnerability of police recording systems was already well understood institutionally.

That changes the constitutional analysis fundamentally, because the issue ceases to be, “Could such suppression occur?”

Instead, the question becomes:

“Why were systems known to be vulnerable later aligned with nationally coordinated evidential filtering practices?”

Part V

The Mastershield Evolves

>>24498048

>>24638392

>>24638671

>>24638700

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/mastershield_part_2.pdf

Mastershield - Part 2

Regulation, Crime Recording and the Administrative Architecture of Evidential Suppression Introduction

In October 2025, Ethical Approach UK published “Operation Talla: The Mastershield Against Criminal Accountability”.

……………………………………………………………………….continued3…………………………………………………………………….

Pages 9-12 of 12

Part V

The Mastershield Evolves

The first Mastershield paper argued that Operation Talla functioned as a protective structure shielding the executive from legal exposure.

This second analysis suggests something even more serious.

The Mastershield may not have begun with Covid.

Covid may instead have revealed the mature operational use of a pre-existing administrative capability - the ability to regulate evidential visibility itself. Not through overt censorship. Not through formal abolition of legal process.

But, rather, through upstream administrative control:

• classification;

• recording;

• downgrading;

• “no-criming”;

• statistical filtering;

• and institutional non-entry.

This form of control is exceptionally powerful because it operates before courts become involved.

If allegations never properly enter systems:

• prosecutors cannot review them;

• coroners cannot examine them;

• courts cannot adjudicate them;

• and the public cannot measure them accurately.

In constitutional terms, this is not merely information management. It is evidential sovereignty.

Part VI

The HMICFRS Problem

A particularly striking feature of the present situation is the apparent resistance by HMICFRS to engage substantively with Operation Talla-related concerns.

This itself is remarkable, simply because the historical HMIC material now forms one of the strongest evidential foundations demonstrating:

• the importance of accurate crime recording;

• the dangers of evidential suppression;

• and the constitutional consequences of non-recording practices.

Nonetheless, despite this historical position, Operation Talla-related concerns regarding:

• non-recording;

• rejection policies;

• and evidential filtering appear to have generated institutional reluctance rather than rigorous inspection.

That tension is impossible to ignore, particularly given HMIC’s own previous conclusions that:

• crime-recording rules are mandatory;

• victims are harmed by non-recording;

• and systemic under-recording undermines public trust.

Conclusion

Operation Talla did not emerge into an unsuspecting constitutional environment.

The historical record demonstrates that British institutions already knew:

• crime-recording systems were vulnerable;

• manipulation could occur;

• institutional pressures distorted outcomes;

• and victims could disappear administratively from the record.

Parliament knew this.

HMIC knew this.

Senior policing leadership knew this.

That is what makes Operation Talla constitutionally significant - the disclosures associated with Talla appear not as isolated anomalies, but as manifestations of a deeper administrative capability already long understood within the architecture of British governance itself.

The modern constitutional danger is therefore no longer simply unlawful policy. It is actually the emergence of systems capable of regulating what may formally exist as evidence at all and once the State acquires the practical ability to determine which allegations become institutionally visible, the distinction between administration and accountability collapses.

Ian Clayton

23 May 2026

>>24498048

https://ethicalapproach.co.uk/email_and_memo_to_NPCC_24052026.pdf

Notice of Public Record Memorandum - Crime Recording Integrity and Operation Talla

To: National Police Chiefs’ Council

Cc:

(1) House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs

Committee;

(2) His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Date: 24 May 2026 at 10:44

Dear Sir/Madam

Notice of Public Record Memorandum - Crime Recording Integrity and Operation Talla

Please accept this email as formal notice that the attached memorandum has now been placed upon the public record.

The memorandum concerns matters relating to:

• crime-recording integrity;

• historical parliamentary findings;

• HMIC/HMICFRS observations;

• Operation Talla-related evidential visibility;

• and the constitutional significance of the February 2022 NPCC internal communication referring to the “success” of “guidance to not record”.

The memorandum has been prepared in the interests of constitutional transparency, evidential clarity and public accountability.

Given the historic involvement and interventions of both the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) and HMIC/HMICFRS in matters relating to police crime-recording practices and evidential integrity, copies of this notice and memorandum are also being provided to those bodies.

The memorandum does not seek to advance sensationalism or unsupported allegation. Rather, it identifies a plainly arising constitutional issue concerning the interaction between:

• historical evidence of crime-recording failures;

• subsequent institutional reform narratives;

• and later operational communications emerging within the context of nationally coordinated Covid-19 policing structures.

In particular, the memorandum addresses the constitutional implications arising where:

• prior parliamentary and inspectorate warnings concerning evidential suppression already existed;

• and subsequent internal policing communications later referred to the “success” of guidance “to not record”.

The memorandum further records concern regarding the characterisation of constitutional correspondence raising such issues as “vexatious”.

For the avoidance of doubt, this communication is sent in the interests of:

• procedural fairness;

• institutional transparency;

• and accurate public record preservation.

The attached memorandum is now publicly available and forms part of the continuing public-interest examination of these matters.

Yours faithfully

Ian Clayton

Lead Investigator

Ethical Approach UK

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD

To: National Police Chiefs’ Council

Copy to: House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC)

Copy to: His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS)

RE: Crime recording integrity, historical parliamentary findings and the constitutional significance of the February 2022 NPCC internal policing communication referring to the “success” of “guidance to not record”

This memorandum is placed on the public record in the interests of constitutional transparency, evidential clarity and public accountability.

It concerns the increasingly serious constitutional implications arising from the interaction between:

(1) historical evidence concerning police crime-recording practices within the United Kingdom;

(2) the subsequent findings and observations of Parliament and HMIC/HMICFRS;

(3) evidence emerging in relation to Operation Talla and associated Covid-19 policing structures; and

(4) the present institutional response to questions raised in respect of those matters.

>>24498048

>>24642427

……………………………………………………………………continued2……………………………………………………………………

The purpose of this memorandum is not to advance sensationalism, nor to allege criminal liability absent due process, but rather to identify a profound and plainly identifiable issue of constitutional concern.

Historical Context

In 2013, parliamentary proceedings relating to police crime statistics heard evidence from whistleblowers, including a former member of Metropolitan Police personnel, James Patrick (and others), concerning the alleged manipulation and suppression of crime recording practices.

The matters described before Parliament included allegations that offences were being administratively downgraded, reclassified, or otherwise prevented from entering formal crime-recording pathways.

The term “cuffing” entered public discussion within this context, referring to practices by which crimes were allegedly made to “disappear up the sleeve”.

The significance of those proceedings is not merely historical.

Rather, they established publicly and institutionally that concerns relating to evidential visibility and crime-recording integrity were both real and serious enough to warrant parliamentary scrutiny.

Subsequently, HMIC undertook extensive examination of crime-recording practices throughout policing. Its findings were grave.

HMIC concluded that substantial volumes of crime were not being properly recorded and stated publicly that victims of crime were being failed by the existing position.

The constitutional importance of those findings cannot be overstated.

They demonstrate conclusively that concerns relating to institutional under- recording or evidential suppression are neither fanciful nor unprecedented within British policing history.

The February 2022 NPCC Communication

Against that established historical backdrop, the emergence of an internal National Police Chiefs’ Council communication dated February 2022 assumes exceptional constitutional significance.

The communication records that:

“…guidance to not record has been a success”.

The seriousness of this wording does not arise merely from semantics. Its significance arises because the statement now exists within a documented historical continuum already marked by:

• whistleblower evidence;

• parliamentary scrutiny;

• HMIC/HMICFRS findings;

and prior institutional assurances that lessons had been learned regarding crime-recording integrity.

Accordingly, the issue presented is not simply whether particular wording was unfortunate.

Rather, the issue is whether a policing culture already historically criticised for evidential suppression subsequently developed operational approaches capable of producing materially similar outcomes under a different national context.

That constitutional poinyt now plainly exists.

Operation Talla and Evidential Visibility

Publicly available primary evidence now demonstrates the existence of nationally coordinated policing structures operating under Operation Talla during the Covid-19 period.

Pages 5-6 of 8

>>24498048

>>24642427

>>24642448

……………………………………………………………………continued3…………………………………………………………………….

Material already disclosed includes:

• nationally circulated directives;

• operational guidance;

• and evidence suggestive of coordinated approaches to the handling, filtering, or redirection of certain categories of public allegation.

Whether such measures were lawful, proportionate, constitutionally appropriate, or evidentially compliant is a matter requiring transparent scrutiny rather than institutional avoidance.

The constitutional concern is straightforward:

If policing institutions are entrusted with the duty of faithfully recording allegations and preserving evidential visibility, then any guidance, policy, or operational culture tending toward the suppression, filtering, or institutional non-existence of allegations engages matters of the utmost constitutional gravity.

The “Vexatious” Issue

Particularly concerning is the subsequent response adopted by the NPCC in relation to constitutional correspondence raising these issues.

Questions directed toward matters of:

• crime-recording integrity;

• Operation Talla;

• evidential visibility;

• and constitutional accountability, have been characterised in writing by NPCC as “vexatious”.

That position gives rise to a serious additional constitutional difficulty.

Where historical evidence already demonstrates prior institutional failings in relation to crime recording and where further evidence later emerges touching related themes, it is plainly insufficient for scrutiny itself to become procedurally dismissed or institutionally marginalised.

To categorise constitutional questioning as “vexatious” in such circumstances risks creating the appearance that institutional self-protection is being prioritised over transparent public accountability.

That perception is profoundly damaging to public confidence.

Conclusion

The issue now arising extends well beyond any individual allegation or isolated operational decision.

The matter concerns whether the systems entrusted to preserve evidential integrity have, at any stage, participated in practices tending toward the institutional management of what allegations are permitted formal existence.

That question strikes directly at the constitutional legitimacy of policing itself.

For that reason, these matters cannot responsibly be treated as peripheral, inconvenient, or procedurally disposable.

They require calm, transparent and evidence-led examination consistent with the constitutional obligations owed by public institutions to the population they serve.

Ian Clayton - Lead Investigator, Ethical Approach UK

24 May 2026

Pages 7-8 of 8

>>24498044

>>24475896

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nicola-sturgeon-breaks-silence-after-37202334

Nicola Sturgeon breaks silence after Peter Murrell pleads guilty to £400k embezzlement spree

The former SNP leader said she had suffered 'acute pain' by being 'deceived and let down by a husband I loved and trusted'

Ben Borland

25 May 2026

Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon insisted she had "no knowledge or suspicion whatsoever" that Peter Murrell, her estranged husband, was "using SNP funds for personal purposes".

She said she was "utterly appalled" he had done so, adding that she "could not begin to understand why". The former SNP leader said her reaction to her former partner's guilty plea was "difficult to put into words".

Posting on Instagram, Ms Sturgeon said she was "angry, hurt, sad and very distressed about the impact of his actions on family, friends and the SNP".

The former party leader, who stepped down as an MSP at May's Holyrood election said: "To be deceived and let down by a husband I loved and trusted has caused me acute pain. Why he acted as he did is, and always will be, beyond my comprehension."

Ms Sturgeon also said after her estranged Peter Murrell pleaded guilty in court: "To be clear, I had no knowledge or suspicion whatsoever that he was using SNP funds for personal purposes. I am utterly appalled that he did so and con not begin to understand why."

She continued: "That I was fully cleared after a through investigation underlines that these are not my crimes. I was misled, just as others were." She accepted there would be a "political discussion in the light of what has happened" but added that for her this "has also been a profound personal trauma".

Ms Sturgeon said: "I need to remain focused on recovering from that and building a new phase of life. I will be making no further comment."

It is understood that she moved out of the couple's home in Uddingston, after Murrell was arrested and later charged over the large-scale embezzlement of donations to the SNP.

She announced their separation with a post on Instagram in January 2025, writing: "With a heavy heart I am confirming that Peter and I have decided to end our marriage. To all intents and purposes we have been separated for some time now and feel it is time to bring others up to speed with where we are. It goes without saying that we still care deeply for each other, and always will. We will be making no further comment."

Murrell had been chief executive from 2001 and they became a couple in 2003. They married in 2010, while Ms Sturgeon was Alex Salmond's deputy. In an interview with the FT last year, she said their relationship had been "all-consuming for a long, long time".

>>24643742

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/details-peter-murrells-original-indictment-36715704

All the details from Peter Murrell's original indictment that we couldn't publish… until now

Among the charges is allegations that Mr Murrell used party sums to buy a motorhome he later 'stored' at his mother's house, and used SNP credit cards to fund the purchase of other vehicles

Ben Borland & Douglas Dickie

25 May 2026

Peter Murrell was due to face eight charges relating to embezzlement of SNP funds when he was originally due to appear at the High Court in Glasgow in February.

However, after the Scottish Sun tabloid broke reporting guidelines to reveal extensive details from the indictment – with the BBC later doing the same – his court appearance was delayed until May 25, after the Holyrood elections.

Now that he has pled guilty to embezzling more than £400,000, we CAN reveal details from that indictment. Peter Tierney Murrell, 61, the former partner of Nat leader Nicola Sturgeon, was originally accused of embezzling £459,046.49 between August 12, 2010 and January 13, 2023.

The addresses listed on the indictment included the couple's home in Uddingston; SNP headquarters in Edinburgh; Western Volkswagen at Edinburgh's Luxury Car Village; Pentland Jaguar, Edinburgh; John Lewis, Glasgow; Boots, Glasgow; B&Q stores in Glasgow and Edinburgh; Homebase, Dunfermline; Caulders Garden Centre, Cumbernauld; and Shetland Jewellery, Shetland.

Purchased a VW Golf from Western Volkswagen, at a cost of £32,989, between January-March 2016, using £16,489 of SNP funds.

Purchased a Jaguar I-Pace from Pentland Jaguar, at a cost of £81,277, between September-November 2019, using £57,500 of SNP funds. Murrell later sold the car to a branch of We Buy Any Car in Glasgow in August 2021, with over £47,000 being paid into his personal bank account.

Purchased a Niesmann and Bischoff Smove motorhome, at a cost of £124,550, between October-December 2020, using SNP funds.

Embezzled £18,408.91 from the SNP between January 2019-December 2022, through business expenses he was not entitled to, including £12,042 to part fund the purchase of the Jaguar I-Pace. Murrell was further accused of making false invoices for a payment to Apple retail of £12,042, and to German company Manufactum for £2,478 for "purported business Parking ticket related" purchases.

Embezzled £81,610.19 from the the SNP, between August 2010-January 2023, by purchasing items on Amazon "for your own personal use or the personal use of others", using party credit and charge cards.

Embezzled £157,757.39 from the the SNP, between December 2014-June 2022, by purchasing items from a long list of retailers "for your own personal use or the personal use of others", using party credit and charge cards.

Used a party credit card to pay a £30 parking ticket at Kirkcaldy's Victoria Hospital in October 2019.

Sold an iPad registered to the party for £701 in June 2021

Sold an iPad registered to the party for £701 in June 2021

The retailers listed on the indictment were: Frank Smythson, Herring Shoes, A Fine Pair of Shoes, Church & Co (Footwear), Richemont (UK) and its subsidiary Montblanc (UK), G. Ettinger, Estee Lauder Cosmetics, MAC Online, Jo Malone, Dyson Ltd, John Lewis PLC, Arredatutto, Utility Design, Hamilton & Inches, Wheelers Luxury Gifts, Speciality Drinks and its subsidiary The Whisky Exchange, Neville Johnson, The Conran Shop, Richmond Cookshop, AO Retail, The Royal Mint, Kato Group and its subsidiary Knives & Tools, Boots Opticians, Jura Luxury Watches, B&Q, Eden Springs, Jura Products, Fortnum and Mason, Davek Accessories, QS Supplies, Expert Electrical Supplies trading as Davek Accessories, QS Supplies, Expert Electrical Supplies trading as Downlights.co.uk, Le Creuset UK, Lubkowski Saunders and Associates tradinig as LSA International, Let's Shop Airbus, Park Cameras, RE Dawson, Wayfair, Robert Welch Designs, Coggles.com, Welland Cane & Garden Furniture, Maufactum, Norah George Yarns, Tumi, a subsidiary of Samonsite,

>>24643878

………………………………………………………………………………continued…………………………………………………………………………………………

Binopolis, Simplehuman (UK), Ligo Electronics, Isle of Harris Distillers, Paint Direct, Lark and Larks, Peugeot Saveurs, Touch of DIY, Wood by Post, Victorinox, SPC Marketing, Sam Turner & Sons, Alex McDougall (Mowers), Caulders, Shetland Jewellery, Molton Brown, Naken Interiors, Ironmongery Direct, Helly Hansen, PerfectDraft UK, Homebase, Argos, Lalique, Prime Tools, Sensio, Selfridges, Leatherman, Getpotted.com, Amara Living, Coir Mats, Toolshack UK, A. Fulton Company, Waterford, Made in Design, The Folio Society, All Car Parts, EV Cable shop, Harrods, Imperial Yard trading as Yard O Led and others.

Charges 5 and 6 were amended in court on Monday before Murrell's guilty plea, to reduce the sums embezzled from Amazon and the retailers listed above by around £50,000.

Murrell was chief executive of the SNP for 22 years between 2001 and 2023. He and Ms Sturgeon married in 2010, but the pair split and in January 2025, Ms Sturgeon said they were divorcing.

Murrell was arrested in April 2023 as part of a police investigation named Operation Branchform, with the home he shared with Ms Sturgeon raided by police. He was charged a year later and made no plea when he first appeared in court last year.

Ms Sturgeon was also arrested and quizzed by officers, in June 2023, but it was confirmed in April 2024 that no further action was being taken against her. The police probe was said to centre on around £660,000 of donations.

>>24643742

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/peter-murrell-appointed-john-swinney-37202355

Peter Murrell was appointed by John Swinney, helped the SNP win elections and almost sparked its downfall

The shamed former SNP Chief Executive pled guilty at court to embezzling £400,000 from the party - putting an end to the long-running scandal which blew up the career of his estranged wife Nicola Sturgeon.

David Walker

25 May 2026

The success of the SNP as a party is often attributed to the popularity of Alex Salmond - but there was also a huge deal of work undertaken behind the scenes and led by Peter Murrell. And while his rise to Chief Executive coincided with the rise of the nationalist party as a political force, his downfall almost destroyed the SNP.

Initially serving as an election agent to candidates in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, he enjoyed a steady rise up the ranks thanks to a close relationship with the late Alex Salmond, serving as his constituency researcher, as well as running his Banff and Buchan office as his assistant.

But it was under the first leadership of John Swinney that he was promoted to a top role within the SNP, becoming the Chief Executive in 2001, replacing Mike Russell. At the time, the leader said: I will now be setting him some demanding targets to build SNP HQ into the campaigning and fund-raising centre we require to win the 2003 elections.

He initially had a torrid time under the leadership of the current First Minister, who had three disastrous election results and resigned following internal pressure.

Murrell's organisational skills have been credited with revamping the party and modernising it, with many experts hailing this as one of the key aspects behind Mr Salmond's victory in 2007 which brought the SNP into power for the first time. He was also pivotal behind the scenes in the majority win in 2011, which led to an independence referendum.

But according to Police Scotland, a year before this (2010) he took advantage of his position as Chief Executive and began to embezzle cash from the party, money which was donated by members. It came to the police and public's attention in 2021 when £600k of ring-fenced funds for a second referendum went "missing" from the accounts, and cops began to investigate.

Murrell made a number of key internal changes to transform the SNP, including attending the infamous Craigellachie Hotel summit in 2005 where senior party figures resolved to ensure the party won the 2007 Scottish election. It saw them devise a strategy to finally defeat Scottish Labour.

He is also credited with delivering the "Activate" system, which allowed party activists on the ground to relay voter information back to party HQ. It was a smartphone application which helped to target voters, and he convened focus groups to know what Scots wanted.

It worked well after the 2010 General Election when the Lib Dems went into power with the Conservatives, allowing the SNP to swoop in and target its disaffected voters, with 800,000 switching to them in the final week ahead of the 2011 election, according to YouGov.

Their manifesto was launched one week after their rivals’ and partly rewritten in order to adapt to the climate of the campaign. It also focused on individuals like Mr Salmond, leading a presidential-style campaign with his name appearing on ballot papers and focusing on personal achievements, with the manifesto containing memories of MPs who had won by-elections, famous party campaigns (oil, the poll tax) as well as glossy photographs of marriages (Murrell and Sturgeon), newly-born babies (such as Swinney’s) and deaths since 2007.

Sturgeon as First Minister

But it all started to go wrong within the SNP when Murrell's wife took over as First Minister in 2014. Concerns were raised internally about the power being shared between husband and wife, but these were rejected by Ms Sturgeon. During this timeframe, Murrell continued to embezzle cash.

>>24643992

……………………………………………………………………………….continued………………………………………………………………………………………

She told the Herald at the time: “I’ve been deputy leader for years while Peter’s been chief executive for 10 years. That’s not been an issue that’s given rise to any concern internally. In the constitution of the SNP, the oversight of the administrative side of the party lies with the business convener, not with the leader. So I’m comfortable there are no issues that arise.”

But while the SNP did continue to enjoy electoral success - winning in 2016 and 2021 - it failed to achieve a majority once again. It also suffered a brutal General Election 2017 campaign, losing 21 MPs.

It all came tumbling down when Ms Sturgeon quit as First Minister in 2023, citing exhaustion. It led to a bitter election contest where Murrell was accused of lying to the press and members about membership figures, claiming they hadn't fallen 30,000 from the high of more than 100,000.

He was forced to publish them following a public outcry, and then quit his role after a backlash within the party. Just a week after Humza Yousaf became First Minister, police raided Murrell and Sturgeon's marital home and arrested him. It led to a cash crisis within the SNP as members and donors abandoned the party.

With Operation Branchform hanging over the SNP's head, support for the party plummeted and it was on track to lose the 2026 Holyrood Election - and suffered huge losses at the 2024 General Election. Murrell was charged with embezzlement on April 18 2024, with the case taking two years to come to a conclusion.

He was meant to enter a plea on February 20, 2026, but the case was delayed after the indictment was leaked and reported in the press. It meant that the case was delayed until May 25, two weeks after the Holyrood election. He pled guilty to stealing £400,310.65 from the party to fund his lavish lifestyle and was remanded in custody.

Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston, the officer in charge of Operation Branchform, said: “He abused his privileged position with access to Scottish National Party funds to divert cash into his own accounts and bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford.

“From 2010 to 2022 he spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on luxury goods while carefully trying to hide his criminality with false receipts and accounting. He must now face the consequences of his actions.”

What did Swinney know

Mr Swinney was an old friend of Murrell from the days when SNP support was limited. He was also Ms Sturgeon's closest colleague in government for years, but the wisdom of him originally appointing him as Chief Executive will now be questioned.

He has tried to distance himself from Murrell - and has presented the SNP as victims of crime committed by the man he put in charge of the party originally. He has claimed to tighten the financial controls of the SNP and may seek to recover the money stolen from them.

>>24648950

>>24643992

Bain appointed by Sturgeon, Murrell appointed by Swinney. It's all very cosy isn't it?

>>24617027

Chief nurse appointed by Sturgeon.

>>24616784

>>24615702

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/dorothy-bain-urged-set-out-37211775

Dorothy Bain urged to set out why Nicola Sturgeon wasn't charged after hiding behind loophole

The former First Minister is relying on the defence of Police Scotland clearing her of any wrongdoing but the secretive Crown Office won't reveal its reasons behind why she didn't stand trial.

David Walker

27 May 2026

Dorothy Bain has been urged to ignore her boss John Swinney and publish the reasoning behind the Crown Office not charging Nicola Sturgeon in relation to Operation Branchform. The former First Minister has repeatedly proclaimed that she had no idea her estranged husband was embezzling £400k of party funds.

She is relying on the fact that she was never charged in relation to this - with her lawyer Aamer Anwar pointing to this in a hastily drafted statement on Tuesday night. He said: "Had there been any evidence whatsoever of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, there can be no doubt that this gold-plated investigation would have led to Ms Sturgeon being charged and prosecuted."

But the public have been kept in the dark about the reasoning behind her being arrested but then not charged following the conclusion of the investigation. Police Scotland did compile a dossier of evidence and asked the Crown Office for advice before deciding to take no further action.

At the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday, John Swinney refused requests for this to be published, pointing out the police probe had now concluded. The Crown Office previously refused to explain its reasoning, following a freedom of information request, on the grounds that a criminal case is ongoing.

It can no longer rely on this loophole following Murrell's guilty plea, so the Lord Advocate is facing calls to publish this information, before she steps down from the role. Ms Sturgeon benefited from her husband's lavish spending spree on cars, luxury household goods and jewellery but has claimed that she never suspected him of any wrongdoing.

Mr Swinney has attempted to move on from the scandal by blocking inquiries and pressing questions about the SNP's governance, but his rivals have refused to let him. Now, Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay has demanded full transparency from the Crown Office.

He said: “Faith in the integrity of Scotland’s justice system has been shattered by this epic SNP scandal which reaches into the heart of government. Senior SNP figures publicly tried to exert undue influence on Police Scotland so was there any other meddling behind the scenes?

“And the Lord Advocate, appointed by Nicola Sturgeon, was passing sensitive information to John Swinney while the public was kept in the dark. The Lord Advocate has a duty to publish the reasons why only one person was prosecuted and whether Police Scotland agreed with that decision.

>>24652644

…………………………………………………………………………..continued……………………………………………………………………………

“An explanation should also be provided about the timing of this case which spanned five years yet ended with a guilty plea just after the election, to the SNP’s clear advantage. The reason given for blocking Scottish Conservative efforts to disclose this information a year ago no longer apply. To repair public confidence in Scottish justice, it’s time for full transparency.”

The Scottish Tories asked for "the direction that was provided by the Crown Office that was referred to in Police Scotland’s statement on 20 March 2025 which read: ‘Following direction from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, criminal inquiries into two people arrested as part of the investigation [Operation Branchform] into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party have now concluded. The 73-year-old man arrested on 18 April 2023 and the 54-year-old woman arrested on 11 June 2023, have not been charged and are no longer under investigation.’"

But this was not provided as "it is held for the purposes of an investigation which the authority has a duty to conduct to ascertain whether a person should be prosecuted for an offence."

A Crown Office spokesman said: "A request from Police Scotland for advice and guidance in an investigation into a 73-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman was responded to by COPFS. The request was handled as part of a large-scale wider inquiry and without delay on the part of the prosecution service who recognised its significance.

“Professional prosecutors from COPFS and independent counsel dealt with this without involving the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General. All Scotland's prosecutors operate independently of political influence. Where allegations are made against people or institutions in which the public have placed trust, it is the responsibility of the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation to determine if there is evidence that criminal conduct has occurred.

“We understand public curiosity about this investigation. However, the Crown does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court. This protects the rights of the individuals concerned who are entitled to a presumption of innocence.”

>>24652657

……………………………………………………………………………..continued…………………………………………………………………………….

“An explanation should also be provided about the timing of this case which spanned five years yet ended with a guilty plea just after the election, to the SNP’s clear advantage. The reason given for blocking Scottish Conservative efforts to disclose this information a year ago no longer apply. To repair public confidence in Scottish justice, it’s time for full transparency.”

The Scottish Tories asked for "the direction that was provided by the Crown Office that was referred to in Police Scotland’s statement on 20 March 2025 which read: ‘Following direction from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, criminal inquiries into two people arrested as part of the investigation [Operation Branchform] into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party have now concluded. The 73-year-old man arrested on 18 April 2023 and the 54-year-old woman arrested on 11 June 2023, have not been charged and are no longer under investigation.’"

But this was not provided as "it is held for the purposes of an investigation which the authority has a duty to conduct to ascertain whether a person should be prosecuted for an offence."

A Crown Office spokesman said: "A request from Police Scotland for advice and guidance in an investigation into a 73-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman was responded to by COPFS. The request was handled as part of a large-scale wider inquiry and without delay on the part of the prosecution service who recognised its significance.

“Professional prosecutors from COPFS and independent counsel dealt with this without involving the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General. All Scotland's prosecutors operate independently of political influence. Where allegations are made against people or institutions in which the public have placed trust, it is the responsibility of the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation to determine if there is evidence that criminal conduct has occurred.

“We understand public curiosity about this investigation. However, the Crown does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court. This protects the rights of the individuals concerned who are entitled to a presumption of innocence.”

>>24498031

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx216j3m101o

Sex abuse doctor's victim urges others to come forward

Suzanne Allan & Eve Beattie

1 June 2026

A woman who was sexually assaulted by her doctor in her own home when she was six months pregnant has urged other potential victims to come forward.

Dr Krishna Singh was jailed in 2022 for 12 years having been convicted of sexual offences against 47 patients over four decades.

His patients included a rape victim, teenage children and pregnant women.

The woman the BBC spoke to - who we are calling Emma but whose real name cannot be used to protect her identity - said she thinks there may be many more victims.

After his conviction, police said the complaints against Singh, whose practice was in Coatbridge health centre, were "the tip of the iceberg".

The GP, who was also a police casualty surgeon and was awarded an MBE in 2013, was described by the judge at his trial as a sexual predator "hiding in plain sight".

He described Singh's serial offending between February 1983 and May 2018 as "calculated and manipulative".

Emma's case dates back almost 40 years to when she phoned her GP concerned she was having a miscarriage.

Singh, who is now 76, made a call to Emma's house and started to do an examination.

"The way he was touching me, it didn't feel right," she said.

Afterwards Singh just told her to rest and it would be fine.

"That was it," she said. "Nothing else. I was just in so much shock.

"I know it's going to be 39 years but I can still see it. I just know it was wrong. I knew immediately."

Other victims

Despite being incredibly upset, Emma did not report the doctor to police and instead confided in her husband.

"I don't think he really understood," she said.

"I think he thought I was maybe upset and not sure what happened."

She went on to have a healthy baby but left Singh's medical practice shortly afterwards.

Decades later, in 2018, Emma said she was shocked to see his name in the news in relation to similar allegations.

After two months of thinking it over, she went to the police and discovered there were many other victims.

Emma gave evidence as a witness and in May 2022 Singh was found guilty of 54 sexual offences against women and girls over a 35-year period.

His crimes included kissing, groping, inappropriate examinations and making sleazy comments to 47 patients in various medical settings, of which Emma was one.

However, she said there was no sense of justice after the verdict.

"There's no closure for me," she said.

"I've not even had an apology from anybody."

She said she hoped other victims would have the confidence to report what had happened to them.

"I would like other women this has happened to, to come forward, not to be afraid anymore," she said.

"I know he's in jail but these women have to give their side of the story, what happened to them as well and maybe we'll get a bit of justice."

Law firm Thompsons Solicitors is pursuing a civil legal action against NHS Lanarkshire on behalf of 31 former patients who were harmed by Singh while carrying out work for the health board.

It is seeking damages for physical and psychological injury as well as loss of wages.

Laura Connor, a partner from the family impact team at the solicitors, said: "Dr Singh's offending was significant.

"He is probably one of the most prolific sex offenders that we deal with in terms of civil claims.

"We've raised a group action in relation to what happened to the survivors and the patients of him and there's 31 members of that group."

Dr Lucy Munro, medical director for health and social care at North Lanarkshire, said: "We cannot comment on ongoing legal action.

"Singh's actions were a despicable breach of trust and a total abuse of the patient-doctor relationship.

"The GP community and health colleagues in Lanarkshire were shocked and condemned his actions."

She said the health board was grateful to the patients who had come forward and added that NHS Lanarkshire took allegations of this nature extremely seriously.

>>24496231

>>24355965 Final Abuse Bun

>>24355971 Final NHS Bun

>>24378079

>>24380466

>>24381469

>>24381701

>>24493373

>>24493388

>>24496212

https://www.childabuseinquiry.scot/sites/default/files/2026-02/%28Peter%29%20KPW%20Witness%20Statement.pdf

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

Witness Statement of KPW (Peter)

Support person present: Yes - Craig Christie , Solicitor, Drummond Miller, Glasgow.

Pages 29-30 of 47

>>24648950

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-colin-beattie-refused-37235609

Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie refused to supply witness statements to cops probing SNP finances

The former First Minister promised to co-operate fully with cops when it came to Operation Branchform but seemingly failed to do this twice while they probed her estranged husband Peter Murrell.

David Walker

02 Jun 2026

Nicola Sturgeon has found herself in even more hot water after reports suggested that she refused to give a witness statement to cops probing the SNP's finances. And former Nat treasurer Colin Beattie also failed offer one as well following a request from detectives in relation to Operation Branchform.

It has led to accusations that the former First Minister was not telling the truth when she insisted that she would "fully cooperate" with the investigation. She already confirmed that she gave a "no comment" interview with police when she was arrested in June 2023 – as she was too shocked to answer questions and later supplied a written statement.

Ms Sturgeon has fled Scotland to live in London and avoided questions from Scottish-based journalists about her role in the Peter Murrell scandal. The Scottish Sun reports that she refused to give a full account to cops to help with the case against her husband – and neither did Mr Beattie.

She was told in 2025 that she wouldn't be charged in connection with Operation Branchform and declined the offer to provide evidence. As cops built their case, they contacted her and her fellow MSP to ask or witness statements which are used to construct a picture of offending and can be crucial evidence during a trial in helping secure a conviction.

It is likely detectives were trying to secure evidence about the SNP finances and governance and his home life ahead of a potential if Murrell pled not guilty. It would have led to a lot of dirty laundry being aired publicly but in the end the shamed Murrell fell on his sword and admitted the crime.

A legal source said: "Normally when people are ruled out as suspects they are more than helpful to assist. When both of them were asked their legal teams came back to say they would not provide witness statements. Both Sturgeon and Beattie were rather unhelpful. Why wouldn’t they provide witness statements? You would have to ask them.”

>>24672397

……………………………………………………………………….continued………………………………………………………………………….

They added: “The SNP and indeed Sturgeon and Beattie keep talking about transparency. Well, both of them were not very transparent when they were asked to assist the police as witnesses into a huge fraud of their party.”

Critics have blasted both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Beattie (who has since been re-elected as the MSP for Midlothian at the age of 74) for appearing to hinder the police probe. Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay claimed that Ms Sturgeon had spent “hours hiding” with no comment answers when confronted by cops about her husband’s offending.

He went on: “Now we discover that she, along with a senior SNP MSP, rejected the opportunity to provide witness statements to the police. This latest revelation completely demolishes any lingering notion that she played ball with the investigation into her husband’s crime spree.”

Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said that the revelation showed Ms Sturgeon was “determined to be as unhelpful as possible during Operation Branchform.” She added: “It is indicative of Sturgeon’s obsession with PR that she chose to take part in a sit-down interview with the BBC and yet spent the rest of her week running from journalists’ questions.

“The Scottish public deserve transparency – not further lies and deceit from the SNP. We need a parliamentary inquiry into this scandal to get to the truth.”

Ms Sturgeon's lawyer Aamer Anwar failed to deny the fact that Ms Sturgeon turned down a request to provide a witness statement from cops. He said: "You should have a full transcript of Ms Sturgeon’s interview with Laura Kuenssberg, and [as] has already been publicly stated a detailed written statement was provided to Police Scotland. There will be no further comment.”

>>24670160

>>24496231

>>24355965 Final Abuse Bun

>>24355971 Final NHS Bun

>>24378079

>>24380466

>>24381469

>>24381701

>>24493373

>>24493388

>>24496212

https://www.childabuseinquiry.scot/sites/default/files/2026-02/%28Peter%29%20KPW%20Witness%20Statement.pdf

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

Witness Statement of KPW (Peter)

Support person present: Yes - Craig Christie , Solicitor, Drummond Miller, Glasgow.

Pages 30-31 of 47

>>24672460

>>24670160

>>24496231

>>24355965 Final Abuse Bun

>>24355971 Final NHS Bun

>>24378079

>>24380466

>>24381469

>>24381701

>>24493373

>>24493388

>>24496212

https://www.childabuseinquiry.scot/sites/default/files/2026-02/%28Peter%29%20KPW%20Witness%20Statement.pdf

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

Witness Statement of KPW (Peter)

Support person present: Yes - Craig Christie , Solicitor, Drummond Miller, Glasgow.

Last post had pages 32-33 of 47

NOT

Pages 30-31 of 47

This post

Page 31 of 47

>>24498044

>>24498043

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9we9djzdkqo

Scottish government found in contempt over Salmond files

3 June 2026

The Scottish government has been found in contempt by the Court of Session for deliberately delaying the publication of the so-called Salmond files.

The court ruled that the government failed to start work on redacting the documents until after Christmas, despite being told to do so on 1 December last year.

The documents, which had been at the centre of a long-running legal battle over a Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure, were eventually published in February.

The court admonished the government and ordered it to pay legal expenses to the information commissioner.

A Scottish government spokesperson said it "acknowledged and respected" the ruling.

The files relate to the inquiry into whether former first minister Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code over her handling of complaints against her late predecessor, Alex Salmond.

Sturgeon was cleared of breaching the code following an independent inquiry by lawyer James Hamilton in 2021.

The information commissioner, David Hamilton, issued the Scottish government with a warning letter on 16 January, requiring the publication of the documents by 22 January.

The government had been found to have "incorrectly withheld" the information on cost grounds.

When that deadline was missed, Hamilton referred the matter to the Court of Session.

In a written judgement, Lady Poole said the Scottish government "deliberately failed" to carry out the redaction by the information commissioner's set date.

The judge said the government's claim they would comply with the order "as soon as possible" showed a "lack of respect" to the commissioner's role.

She also noted the government had failed to "tender an apology" to the commissioner or admit contempt.

And the judge concluded that no steps had been taken to "rectify matters and avoid future repetition".

Lady Poole's judgement acknowledged the government had offered a "partial explanation" for the delay - including the additional complexities because of court orders that were in place - and the significant amount of documentation that was involved.

It also said the information commissioner might have given a slightly longer period for the government to comply because of the Christmas holidays.

But it said those factors did not explain the long delays before work on redacting the documents began and noted the "significant resources" available to the government.

The ruling said the court not exercising its powers in the case would send out the wrong signal to other public bodies, undermine the authority of the commissioner, and subvert the rule of law.

The amount of expenses due to be paid by the government was not disclosed.

Hamilton said the decision to refer the case to the Court of Session "had not been taken lightly".

He added: "Failing to comply with my decisions undermines the fundamental principles of FOI and damages the information rights of individuals.

"I trust that the Scottish Ministers will now reflect carefully on this ruling and review their broader legal approach to certain aspects of FOI compliance - and particularly those relating to the [James] Hamilton Inquiry."

The Scottish government said it had complied with the commissioner's decision on 24 February.

A spokesperson added: "As Scottish ministers set out to parliament, they have to balance their obligations under Freedom of Information legislation and the need to avoid identification of alleged victims in cases of sexual assault.

"We acknowledge and respect the ruling in this case and will consider it in detail."

>>24498044

>>24498043

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9we9djzdkqo

Scottish government found in contempt over Salmond files

3 June 2026

The Scottish government has been found in contempt by the Court of Session for deliberately delaying the publication of the so-called Salmond files.

The court ruled that the government failed to start work on redacting the documents until after Christmas, despite being told to do so on 1 December last year.

The documents, which had been at the centre of a long-running legal battle over a Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure, were eventually published in February.

The court admonished the government and ordered it to pay legal expenses to the information commissioner.

A Scottish government spokesperson said it "acknowledged and respected" the ruling.

The files relate to the inquiry into whether former first minister Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code over her handling of complaints against her late predecessor, Alex Salmond.

Sturgeon was cleared of breaching the code following an independent inquiry by lawyer James Hamilton in 2021.

The information commissioner, David Hamilton, issued the Scottish government with a warning letter on 16 January, requiring the publication of the documents by 22 January.

The government had been found to have "incorrectly withheld" the information on cost grounds.

When that deadline was missed, Hamilton referred the matter to the Court of Session.

In a written judgement, Lady Poole said the Scottish government "deliberately failed" to carry out the redaction by the information commissioner's set date.

The judge said the government's claim they would comply with the order "as soon as possible" showed a "lack of respect" to the commissioner's role.

She also noted the government had failed to "tender an apology" to the commissioner or admit contempt.

And the judge concluded that no steps had been taken to "rectify matters and avoid future repetition".

Lady Poole's judgement acknowledged the government had offered a "partial explanation" for the delay - including the additional complexities because of court orders that were in place - and the significant amount of documentation that was involved.

It also said the information commissioner might have given a slightly longer period for the government to comply because of the Christmas holidays.

But it said those factors did not explain the long delays before work on redacting the documents began and noted the "significant resources" available to the government.

The ruling said the court not exercising its powers in the case would send out the wrong signal to other public bodies, undermine the authority of the commissioner, and subvert the rule of law.

The amount of expenses due to be paid by the government was not disclosed.

Hamilton said the decision to refer the case to the Court of Session "had not been taken lightly".

He added: "Failing to comply with my decisions undermines the fundamental principles of FOI and damages the information rights of individuals.

"I trust that the Scottish Ministers will now reflect carefully on this ruling and review their broader legal approach to certain aspects of FOI compliance - and particularly those relating to the [James] Hamilton Inquiry."

The Scottish government said it had complied with the commissioner's decision on 24 February.

A spokesperson added: "As Scottish ministers set out to parliament, they have to balance their obligations under Freedom of Information legislation and the need to avoid identification of alleged victims in cases of sexual assault.

"We acknowledge and respect the ruling in this case and will consider it in detail."

>>24498044

>>24498043

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9we9djzdkqo

Scottish government found in contempt over Salmond files

3 June 2026

The Scottish government has been found in contempt by the Court of Session for deliberately delaying the publication of the so-called Salmond files.

The court ruled that the government failed to start work on redacting the documents until after Christmas, despite being told to do so on 1 December last year.

The documents, which had been at the centre of a long-running legal battle over a Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure, were eventually published in February.

The court admonished the government and ordered it to pay legal expenses to the information commissioner.

A Scottish government spokesperson said it "acknowledged and respected" the ruling.

The files relate to the inquiry into whether former first minister Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code over her handling of complaints against her late predecessor, Alex Salmond.

Sturgeon was cleared of breaching the code following an independent inquiry by lawyer James Hamilton in 2021.

The information commissioner, David Hamilton, issued the Scottish government with a warning letter on 16 January, requiring the publication of the documents by 22 January.

The government had been found to have "incorrectly withheld" the information on cost grounds.

When that deadline was missed, Hamilton referred the matter to the Court of Session.

In a written judgement, Lady Poole said the Scottish government "deliberately failed" to carry out the redaction by the information commissioner's set date.

The judge said the government's claim they would comply with the order "as soon as possible" showed a "lack of respect" to the commissioner's role.

She also noted the government had failed to "tender an apology" to the commissioner or admit contempt.

And the judge concluded that no steps had been taken to "rectify matters and avoid future repetition".

Lady Poole's judgement acknowledged the government had offered a "partial explanation" for the delay - including the additional complexities because of court orders that were in place - and the significant amount of documentation that was involved.

It also said the information commissioner might have given a slightly longer period for the government to comply because of the Christmas holidays.

>>24674161

…………………………………………………………………………..continued………………………………………………………………………….

Why was the government taken to court?

The row centres on James Hamilton's probe into the ministerial code breach.

After Sturgeon was cleared, an FOI request was made to the Scottish government for disclosure of all written evidence involved in the investigation.

The government had rejected that request on the grounds Hamilton was an independent advisor on the ministerial code and therefore was not covered by FOI legislation.

However the information commissioner intervened and order the government to reconsider.

The government challenged that decision in the Court of Session, sparking a lengthy series of complex appeals.

Salmond, who died in 2024, successfully sued the government in 2019 over its mishandling of harassment complaints against him.

He was cleared of sexually assaulting nine women in 2020.

In February First minister John Swinney said the request by the commissioner had been complicated by the need to make redactions to avoid identifying women who had made allegations against Salmond.

At the time of his death, Salmond had launched another lawsuit against the government alleging misfeasance - a civil term which covers the wrongful exercise of lawful authority.

Paul McManus, drummer with Glasgow rock band Gun, took over funding the case in February this year after Salmond's estate was placed into sequestration - equivalent to bankruptcy - over costs linked to the court action.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62qy6gzvxlo

Ex-Tory worker's £1m VAT and money laundering scam

14 February 2025

A former Conservative party branch treasurer was caught running a £1m VAT fraud and money laundering scheme, a court has heard.

Malcolm Macaskill, 65, filed bogus forms to HMRC which grossly overstated the sales from his sandwich businesses to reclaim more than £800,000.

He also laundered £200,000 through his local Conservative parties in Glasgow and Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire, where he was treasurer as well as deputy chairman.

Further cash was then funnelled through the bank accounts of his current and ex-wives.

Macaskill, of Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire, faced a number of charges including being involved in a fraudulent VAT scheme and receiving criminal property.

He was deemed unfit to stand trial due to him suffering from a brain tumour.

An examination of facts hearing - without a jury - instead took place at Glasgow Sheriff Court to examine the circumstances of the case.

Sheriff Paul Reid concluded the facts against Macaskill had been "established".

Macaskill was not present for most of the hearing. He remains living at his home.

The case was adjourned until later this year.

The scam happened between February 2003 and March 2014.

Macaskill ran the Bigga Bites and Kwik Snax sandwich production companies from a factory in Cambuslang.

The court heard how he submitted 34 false VAT return forms which authorised repayments of £864,971.72 through Bigga Bites.

He also made a bogus claim of an NHS contract with his business to get £88,543 in 2008 from a VAT return claim.

Macaskill then made cash deposits from the fraud into the bank accounts of the Rutherglen and Cambuslang Conservative Association and the Glasgow Conservative Campaign Forum.

A total of 11 cheques were made out to Kwik Snax from the Rutherglen and Cambuslang Conservative Association general account with a value of £8,617.

A further 52 cheques totalling £193,790 were made out to Kwik Snax from the Glasgow Conservative Campaign Forum.

Two cheques worth £6,300 were also made out to Macaskill directly from the organisation.

Macaskill - an ex-district court judge - reportedly received an out-of-court settlement from the Scottish Conservatives in 2012 having been dumped as a Holyrood election candidate.

His removal paved the way for future leader Ruth Davidson to get into parliament.

Macaskill later described the Scots Tories as "inept and morally corrupt".