ColeAndToby

Sickening.

NHS plans BUSTED

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/5/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/18/enacted/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2008/6/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/513/schedule/2/made/data.pdf https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/forms/criminal-procedure-forms/compatibility-issues-and-devolution-issues https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-58-issue-03/compatibility-devolution-issues-reborn/ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/27/made/data.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court-in-scottish-appeals-human-rights-the-scotland-act-2012-and-the-courts-reform-scotland-act-2014.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/procedures/practice-direction-10.html https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/about-the-scottish-court-service/scs-news/2018/01/09/compatibility-issues-consultation https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/ccr---minutes/criminal-courts-rules-council---paper-4a---february-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=8 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/81681/Consultation_Response_-_Faculty_of_Advocates.doc https://www.advocates.org.uk/media/1581/equalitydiversitycode2011.pdf https://www.advocates.org.uk/about-advocates/professional-standards/guide-to-conduct https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/compatibility-issues-review-is-published/ https://facultyportal.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/sections/4421481629713-Information-for-Staff-Members https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/new-rules https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/513/schedule/2/made/data.pdf

CARLETTA CARRINGTON WILSON: POEM OF STONE & BONE: MAKE HER OF MYSTERY. African-American/Black History Month is a designated time to remember people and events in the history of the African diaspora. Last year Raven Chronicles Press published POEM OF STONE & BONE, The Iconography of James W. Washington Jr. in Fourteen Stanzas and Thirty-One Days, by Carletta Carrington Wilson. This book honors the art-filled legacy and life of Mississippi-born and Seattle-based Artist, James W. Washington Jr (1909-2000). Below is a chapter from the book. I have to know the animal or individual before I can sculpt them. Not just know his features but feel them. I have to be him. Not until I get to the point where I am the animal can I release the spiritual force into the inanimate material and animate it. When this happens, I feel like I’m working with flesh rather than just stone. —James W. Washington Jr. POEM OF STONE & BONE: MAKE HER OF MYSTERY BY CARLETTA CARRINGTON WILSON.

Yet again the Scottish Courts and their reporters have been using a time machine. Sunak to Attack the disabled. This will be worse than Atos. ADVERTS UP BEFORE ANNOUNCMENT Nurse Disability Assessor Description Salary: (phone number removed) (UK-Wide) (phone number removed) (London-Rising) Hours: Monday-Friday 9am-5pm, Part-Time Available Office, Homeworking and Hybrid options Are you a Nurse (RGN, RMN or RNLD) that is looking for a better work-life balance? We offer true flexible working - allowing you to choose your workdays Monday-Sunday and hours between 8am-8pm. This role is a fantastic opportunity to hone your assessment skills and develop your clinical knowledge, whilst making a difference to people's lives. You will work with a diverse range of people handling challenging situations. Role overview: As a disability Assessor, you will draw on your experience as a clinical expert to assess and examine individuals with disabilities and illnesses who have applied for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). You'll listen sensitively to their experiences, ask questions and use your insights to report on how their disability or health condition is affecting their daily life. Your factual report will help the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) determine their eligibility for benefits. You will be supported in managing your caseloads efficiently, with the time to give consultations the care and attention they deserve. You will not be expected to work long days, do night shifts or take work home with you! We are currently undertaking telephone assessments with claimants. Once you apply, you will be contacted by one of our team of specialist recruiters who will guide and advise you through the virtual recruitment process. Benefits: 25 days of annual leave + BH - option to buy additional days or sell back. Private medical insurance, life assurance, pension scheme and healthcare cash. Medical indemnity cover and protected CPD. Supportive working environment with ongoing CPD support. HCPC/NMC fee reimbursement and revalidation support. All flexible benefits can be tailored to your requirement and lifestyle, such as travel insurance, dental insurance and childcare vouchers. Office & hybrid options available. Training & Development: To ensure you are fully prepared for your new role, you will embark on a comprehensive induction and training programme, earning over 100 hours of CPD within your first 3 months! Ongoing professional development will be given throughout your career to keep your knowledge current and you will have plenty of exposure to develop your skills and clinical knowledge. Requirements: Currently and fully NMC registered with a valid licence to practise in the UK. Eligibility to live and work in the UK (no sponsorship opportunities are available).Up-to-date evidenced CPD portfolio and appraisal. Government legislation requires at least 1-year post-qualification work experience. Previous experience as an assessor is not required as you will be fully trained to do the role.A UK driving licence is NOT required for these roles.Why SJB Medical: We are the longest-standing recruitment agency for DWP assessor contractors and pride ourselves on the support we give our healthcare candidates throughout the whole recruitment process. We believe that a diverse workforce adds to the success of our clients and as such, are committed to maintaining and supporting a culture of equality and diversity throughout our recruitment process. Job applicants will receive equal and fair treatment, regardless of sex, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion or marital status. Our job advertisements will clearly and accurately state the requirements of the role to enable applicants to assess their suitability. To give everyone a fair experience, we will review and consider reasonable adjustments and accommodations during the recruitment process. SJB SERVICES (UK) LIMITED Company number 05228671 Registered office address Capital Court, 30 Windsor Street, Uxbridge, England, UB8 1AB Company status Active Company type Private limited Company Incorporated on 13 September 2004 Nature of business (SIC) 78200 - Temporary employment agency activities.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/5/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2014/18/enacted/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2008/6/data.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/513/schedule/2/made/data.pdf https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/forms/criminal-procedure-forms/compatibility-issues-and-devolution-issues https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-58-issue-03/compatibility-devolution-issues-reborn/ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/27/made/data.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court-in-scottish-appeals-human-rights-the-scotland-act-2012-and-the-courts-reform-scotland-act-2014.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/procedures/practice-direction-10.html https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/about-the-scottish-court-service/scs-news/2018/01/09/compatibility-issues-consultation https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/ccr---minutes/criminal-courts-rules-council---paper-4a---february-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=8 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/81681/Consultation_Response_-_Faculty_of_Advocates.doc https://www.advocates.org.uk/media/1581/equalitydiversitycode2011.pdf https://www.advocates.org.uk/about-advocates/professional-standards/guide-to-conduct https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/legal-news/compatibility-issues-review-is-published/ https://facultyportal.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/sections/4421481629713-Information-for-Staff-Members https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/new-rules https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/513/schedule/2/made/data.pdf Here is some legal advice for you.

Dick Drill The Dentists Mirror talks with one word after another. Other words have been added by an other. All words used are words. If any of these words are illegal then please remove them from the history books. Removing words from ones head is another thing. A vow of silence is the best approach. Gasping only when constipated.

Aberdeen MP thinks that police are the answers to this? NO NO NO NO. Should Ms Duncan wish to speak with me I am sure a writ for court action can be drawn up.

Bastards

Child abuse victim comes forward and is put through a life of absolute hell. BUT WE EVIDENCED EVERYTHING. HOW COULD WE LOSE IN COURTS? APPOINTMENT WITH DORATHY BAIN PLEASE.

Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012. “I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”. 17 Chief constable’s responsibility for the policing of Scotland (1) The chief constable is responsible, and must account to the Authority, for the policing of Scotland. (2) In particular, the chief constable— (a) has direction and control of the Police Service (see section 21), (b) is responsible for the day to day administration of the Police Service, including the allocation and deployment of resources received from the Authority, (c) is to be involved in the preparation of the strategic police plan and the Authority’s annual report (see sections 34(4)and 39(4)), (d) is to prepare annual police plans (see section 35), (e) must seek to secure continuous improvement in the policing of Scotland (see section 37(2)), (f) must designate local commanders and ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for the policing of each local authority area (see section 44), and (g) may be required to provide the Authority with information relating to the Police Service, policing or the state of crime (see sections40(3),60(4) and 84(3)). (3) The chief constable must, when directing constables, police cadets and police staff in the carrying out of their functions, comply with any lawful instruction given by— (a) the appropriate prosecutor in relation to the investigation of offences, (b) the Lord Advocate under section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46), (c) the Lord Justice General, or (d) the sheriff principal for the place in which the functions are to be carried out. (4) The chief constable must seek to ensure that the policing of Scotland is done— (a) with due regard to the policing principles, and (b) in accordance with— (i) the strategic police priorities, (ii) the most recently approved strategic police plan, and (iii) the relevant annual police plan. (5) The chief constable must ensure that the policing of Scotland is done with due regard to any recommendations made or guidance issued by the Authority on the policing of Scotland. (6) Any recommendation made or guidance issued by the Authority for the purposes of subsection (5) must not be inconsistent with— (a) the strategic police priorities, (b) the most recently approved strategic police plan, or (c) any guidance or instructions issued to the chief constable by the Lord Advocate or a procurator fiscal in relation to the investigation or reporting of offences. GUILTY.

Police Scotland ACT OF ADJOURNAL (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES) 1996 SI 1996/513 SCHEDULE 2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 1996 PART VI Evidence CHAPTER 27A RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS 27A.1 Appeal against decision of sheriff Appeal against decision of sheriff 27A.1 (1) An appeal under section 301A(5) of the Act of 1995( ) shall be lodged with the clerk of the appropriate Appeal Court not later than 2 days after the date of the decision of the sheriff and shall be served on the other parties to the application. (2) Where the last day of the period referred to in paragraph (1) falls on a Saturday, Sunday or court holiday, such period shall extend to and include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or court holiday. (3) An appeal under paragraph (1) shall be in Form 27A.1 (4) In this rule, “clerk of the appropriate Appeal Court” means— (a) in a case where the High Court is the appropriate Appeal Court, the Clerk of Justiciary; (b) in a case where the Sheriff Appeal Court is the appropriate Appeal Court, the Clerk of the Sheriff Appeal Court. Question 1 The questioning of suspects by the police can be broken down in to three stages. This approach was established in Chalmers v HMA. Stage one takes place before any suspicion falls on the individual and during this stage any question can be asked. Stage two takes place after suspicion crystallises on the suspect and the rules of fair questioning kick in to protect him. Stage three is post charge and no questions may be asked. An investigation may remain at stage one as long as the individual is not the only person under suspicion, as shown in BellOrder v HMA where the whole crew of a ship were under suspicion. Once suspicion has hardened on an individual the investigation moves to stage two. When the questioning progresses to stage two, and before any questions are asked the accused should be cautioned. The caution that is given is a common law caution which informs the suspect that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says may be used as evidence in court. A confession is an incriminating statement made by someone who later becomes the accused in a criminal trial and as a result is a very strong piece of evidence as it is a statement against the makers own interests. Confessions are admissible in court providing they have been extracted fairly. An example of a confession extracted in unfair circumstances can be seen in Codona v HMA where a 14 year old was intensely questioned for three hours during this time the accused was asked the same question 19 times. In criminal cases a confession can normally never be the sole evidence in a case due to the Scots law rule of corroboration of essential facts however it is potentially one of the most powerful items of evidence that can be adduced against an accused. A special knowledge confession is a confession which shows that the accused had inside knowledge of the crime. Independent corroboration is not required for a special knowledge confession as they are considered to be self corroborating. Any information given by the suspect must only be known to him because he is the perpetrator of the crime, such as knowing some detail of the offence that only the person who committed it would know. If there is any other reasonable explanation the confession will not be regarded as a special knowledge confession as shown in Wilson v HMA where information on the details of the offence had been in the public domain. Campbell v HMA is an example of when an accused can make incriminating statements during questioning which can later be used against him. In Tonge v HMA the accused, Tonge, and his co accused, Gray, were being detained by the police on suspicion of rape. Tonge was not given a caution but his co accused was, but not between the accusation and the completion of his statement. The police questioned both suspects in their cells and both made incriminating statements. As no common law caution was made to Tonge at any point an objection to the admissibility of each of these statements was upheld on appeal. If the accused is not given a common law caution when police questioning reaches stage 2, any answers to questions may be inadmissible, but not automatically so, the overall test is one of fairness. As stated by Lord Justice General Clyde in Brown v HMA it is not possible to law down the precise circumstances in which answers given to the police prior to charge are made admissible or inadmissible, it is dependant on the facts of the case and whether what has taken place has been fair or not. In Custerton v Westwater the accused was asked to attend a police station for questioning and did so voluntarily. After being told of the allegation, to which he made no reply he was asked if he owned a knife to which he then made an incriminating reply. He had not at this stage been cautioned. The High Court held that this reply was admissible, despite that lack of caution as the response was not made in reply to an allegation, but an unobjectionable question, and that the accused had attended the police station voluntarily. Firstly as Ian has admitted carrying out the assault he should be advised to plead guilty, however it appears unlikely that he would do so. In the example given it does not state whether Ian was cautioned before questioning so the assumption shall be that he was not. The statement that he made stating that the victim “was not as badly injured as that” could be considered to be an incriminating statement and the prosecution could potentially even argue that it is a special knowledge confession as it shows inside knowledge of the crime. Further information required would what time period had passed between the incident and the police requesting Ian to attend the police station and what reason they had for suspecting him of the crime. If their had been any period of time between the offence and the questioning taking place then following Wilson v HMA it could be argued that Ian could have obtained the information from another source, possibly the press or word of mouth or from someone who was their. The defence would be able to argue, with a good chance of success that the incriminating statement should be inadmissible as it was made while being questioned without caution following Tonge v HMA. Although as seen in Custerton v Westwater, an incriminating statement made prior to caution can still be admissible, that case is not on all fours with this example and the two cases can be distinguished on the following grounds, although in both cases the accused attended the police station voluntarily, in Custerton v Westwater the incriminating statement came in response to an unobjectionable question, it was not in response to an allegation, as in this case. In this example suspicion was clearly on Ian as he had an allegation of assault put to him, therefore the questioning had reached stage two and Ian should have been given a common law caution. It could be argued that the methods employed to obtain the incriminating statement fail the fairness test. In order to obtain a criminal conviction the crown must lead sufficient evidence. The two aspects to consider on the subject of sufficiency are proof of the crucial facts, the facta probanda of the crime libelled, and proof of such facts by corroborated evidence. The facta probanda, or facts to be proved must be proven by corroborated evidence as shown in Smith v Lees, if this can not be done, a conviction can not be obtained. The crown must prove that the crime libelled was committed, and that it was committed by the accused. Corroboration is evidence that strengthens or supports a statement or the testimony of a witness, as stated in Fox v HMA where evidence in support of the complainer’s clandestine injury came from the complainer’s distress. As shown in Fox, the corroborating, or supporting evidence must confirm or support the other piece of evidence relied upon. The court will usually identify the strongest piece of evidence and ask if the weaker piece confirms of supports it. Corroboration is commonly found in a combination of direct testimony and circumstantial evidence and in Scotland it is the rule that corroboration of evidence from a second and separate source is required and provides an independent check on the reliability of the fact in question. Few other jurisdictions have a rule of corroboration. Only the facts in issue require corroboration, also known as essential or crucial facts, these are the matters in dispute which establish the accused’s guilt. The requirement for two “witnesses” implicating the accused was provided by Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison in Morton v HMA, however two “witnesses” should be interpreted as more than one independent source of evidence, which does not need to be in the form of direct eye witness testimony. Normally where there is more than one charge on a complaint or indictment the crown must corroborate the identification of the accused in relation to each separate charge, however there is an exception to this rule and it was provided by Howden v HMA. In Howden the accused was charged with two robberies, one of a bank and one of a building society, the robberies happened two weeks apart and they were similar in circumstances. Their was a positive identification of the accused in relation to the building society robbery, but not in relation to the bank robbery. As there were multiple similarities between the two offences it was held that the person who committed the building society robbery must have committed the bank robbery. The appeal court judge in Howden agreed with the trial judge that if satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the offences were committed by the same person and that Howden was the perpetrator of at least one of them, then it was not necessary to have a second identification. In Moorov v HMA the accused was charged with a series of assaults and indecent assaults against female employees, all but one took place at short intervals over a period of three years. In Moorov it was held that similar to Howden, one piece of evidence from one charge can corroborate another charge on the same indictment providing there are similarities between the offences, not the accused as in Howden. Where DNA evidence is found in a place or an object that is connected with a crime, there will be regarded as being sufficiency in the absence of innocent explanation by the accused. This would appear to be an exception to the corroboration rule. In Maguire v HMA the accused was convicted as a result of his DNA being found in a mask which was left at the scene of the crime. It would be beneficial to know what grounds the police had to suspect Ian as something must have drawn suspicion towards him or there may be some undisclosed evidence, such as one of the victims being able to give a description, CCTV evidence or even DNA evidence. As Ian has left DNA on every victim by spitting on them, this is possible and means that there is at least one piece of evidence per victim. However if there was sufficient evidence Ian would most likely have been charged by this stage. As the way Ian carries out his attacks have very unique characteristics if one of the victims could identify him or there was CCTV evidence of him committing one of the crimes then following the Howden rule corroborated evidence could be transferred between the offences, thus if the court deemed that the same person committed all of the attacks, and it could be proved that Ian was responsible for one of them, he could be convicted of them all. Similarly, if it could be proved that the offences were so unique, such as the attacker spitting on the victim, that the same person must have committed them all, and Ian was convicted of one, he could be convicted of them all following Moorov. As previously shown, the incriminating statement made during questioning would be inadmissible and is not a cause of concern for the defence. Conviction for the alleged assault depends on what further evidence the police may have, apart from the potential DNA evidence. If the other attacks are linked and suspicion falls on Ian then he stands a high chance of being convicted for them following Howden and Moorov. Question 2 Three types of burden of proof exist; the persuasive burden, the evidential burden and the tactical burden. The persuasive burden is the most important and is attached to a particular party by law, never moves and is required to satisfy the court on a particular issue. The evidential burden is on the party producing evidence in order to allow the court to consider it and the tactical burden is the only burden that can shift during the course of a case and can shift to the accused after the crown presents a prima facie case. An example of the tactical burden shifting can be seen in Fox v Patterson where the accused was found in recent possession of stolen goods. The general rule in criminal cases is that the persuasive and evidential burdens fall on the crown, with the exceptions being special defences and statutory exceptions. This is due to the presumption of innocence of the accused as stated in Mackenzie v HMA. As the burden of proof falls on the crown, in order to obtain a criminal conviction the crown must lead sufficient evidence to show that the crime libelled was committed, and that it was committed by the accused, known as the Facta probanda. This must be supported by two pieces of corroborated evidence from independent sources as shown in Morton v HMA, one piece of evidence will not be enough. As seen in Fox v HMA the pieces of evidence must confirm or support each other, if they conflict with each other then the corroboration rule is not satisfied. The crown does not have to corroborate each part of the libel as long as the main parts, or parts in issue can be corroborated, and example of this can be seen in Campbell v Vannet where one part of an assault was corroborated by two witnesses and the other part of the assault corroborated only by one. There are however exceptions to the corroboration rule. A special knowledge confession is a confession where inside knowledge of the crime is shown and the only reasonable excuse for confessor having that knowledge is that he committed the crime. A special knowledge confession is considered to be self corroborating and does not require further corroboration. An example of a special knowledge confession can be seen in Woodland v Hamilton. In Howden v HMA the accused was charged with committing two robberies, one of a building society and one of a bank. The employees of the building society were able to positively identify the accused by the bank employees were not able to do so. As their were several similarities between the person who robbed the bank and the person who robbed the building society the court held that if the jury could satisfy itself beyond all reasonable doubt that the offences were committed by the same person, and it could be proved that Howden committed one of them, then he could be convicted of both offences. Similarly in Moorov v HMA the accused was charged with 21 assaults which included indecent assaults which took place mainly over a three year period on female employees. It was held that one piece of evidence from one charge can corroborate another piece of evidence on another charge, and vice versa, on the same indictment providing there are sufficient similarities between the offences, and they are connected by time, character and circumstance, enough to make the court believe that the offences must have been committed by the same person. The evidence of a greater charge can corroborate a lesser charge, but not vice versa. The difference between Moorov and Howden is that the Moorov rule relates to similarities between the offences, where the Howden rule relates to similarities between the offender. There are also statutory exemptions to the rule requiring corroboration, such as forensic evidence, but only where the accused will not challenge it. And where the statutory burden on the accused is evidential only, uncorroborated evidence will suffice as shown in Farrell v Moir The statement given stating that the requirement for corroborated evidence in Scotland of the essentials of a criminal charge is meaningless in practice due to the content of requirement and exceptions to it is an inaccurate one. Forensic evidence may not require corroboration where it is not challenged by the accused and as shown there are other statutory exceptions relating to evidential burdens on the accused. The Moorov and Howden rules allow corroborated evidence to be transferred between charges on the same indictment when the court is satisfied that there are sufficient similarities between the person who committed the crimes, or the crimes themselves to conclude that the same person committed the crimes. This allows the transfer of corroborated evidence, not the invention of it, and these rules could only be applicable where the suspect was charged with more than one offence. If he was charged with only one offence neither could be used and two pieces of corroborated evidence would be required. Therefore the requirement for corroborated evidence is in practice far from meaningless due to the few exceptions which exist in certain circumstances.

Dr Allan Kennedy explores ideas and practice around the use of judicial torture in early modern Scotland. Follow Allan on Twitter at: @Allan_D_Kennedy When we discuss crime and punishment in the past, we often instinctively think about torture. Grisly images of broken, brutalised bodies worm their way into our imaginations, especially when we’re thinking about Scotland, whose judicial system is popularly assumed to have been particularly bloodthirsty. In reality, however, the use of torture in Scottish History has been much more limited, and much more controversial, than we might expect. The use of torture While there are some suggestions that torture was used during the Middle Ages – the assassins of King James I (d.1437) may have undergone it, for example – the ‘golden age’ of judicial torture in Scotland was the early modern era, and in particular the 17th century. But even during this period, its use was heavily regulated. In order to torture a suspected or convicted criminal – or at least, in order to do so legally – you needed to have a specific warrant from Parliament or the Privy Council. And these were rarely granted: between 1591 and 1708, only 39 warrants were issued, covering fewer than 50 individuals. Why was torture so comparatively rare in Scotland? In part, no doubt, it was to do with exactly the same ethical qualms that animate people today – although, given how ready the Scottish judicial system was to inflict vicious physical punishment on criminals, this should not be pushed too far . More pertinently, the authorities were often sceptical about how effective torture was as a judicial tool. As George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, a prominent late-17th-century lawyer and twice Lord Advocate, put it: ‘Some obstinat persons do oftentimes deny the Truth, whilst others who are frail, and timorous, confess for fear, what is not true’. The ineffectiveness of torture was particularly stark, Rosehaugh and others felt, when it was being used to extract confessions, the evidential value of which was widely regarded as suspect. George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, by Godfrey Kneller If judicial torture was felt to be so problematic, why was it used at all? We can get a good sense of this from considering one case from 1680, when two men, John Spreull and Robert Hamilton, were put to torture. They were accused of plotting to murder the king, Charles II, and in particular the government was looking for answers to three questions. One: who had recruited them into the plot? Two: did the plot herald a coming rebellion? And three: Who were their co-conspirators? What the torturers were not asked to do was to extract confessions from Spreull and Hamilton, and indeed the government was at pains to point out that they were being subjected to torture only after they had freely confessed to involvement in the plot. What this case neatly reflects is that torture was generally seen not as a means of solving crimes, but as a tool of last resort for uncovering urgently-required information, to be used only when weighty matters of state or security were at stake. In that sense, torture in Scotland was less a judicial tool than a political one. Judicial torture was particularly associated with the Restoration (1660-89), a period during which concerns about order and security, not least in the face of Presbyterian opposition, were especially acute. Indeed, torture was listed as one of the ‘grievances’ justifying the deposition of James VII in 1689, and it seems to have been used rarely, if at all, thereafter. The practice was formally outlawed as part of the Treason Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1708. Methods of torture Torture thus had a limited, highly-regulated place within the Scottish judicial system. But what did it actually look like in practice? Anybody who has visited a place like the Edinburgh Dungeon will be painfully familiar with all the weird and wonderful methods of torture that governments of the early modern period came up with: water torture, strappado, stretching on the rack, nail-removal, rat torture – the list is a long one. In Scotland, though, torture, on the rare occasions it was sanctioned, was rather less theatrical, with two devices predominating. The first, and marginally less terrible of these, was the thumbscrews, or as they were sometimes known in Scotland, the ‘thumbikins’. This form of torture generally involved trapping the victim’s thumbs in a vice and then slowly tightening it, squeezing and, eventually, crushing both digits. The precise design of thumbscrew apparatus could vary widely, but the basic principle remained the same, providing a simple but very effective means of inflicting pain. Examples of Scottish thumbscrews (David Monniaux / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) The thumbscrews were ghastly. But they were as nothing compared to the second of Scotland’s characteristic torture devices, the Boot. There were countless variations on this torture throughout Europe, but the version favoured in Scotland, sometimes known as the ‘Spanish Boot’, involved two phases. Firstly, the victim’s lower leg was placed in a tight, stiff sheath, usually made of metal or wood, which completely encased the leg, much like a boot – hence the name. In the second stage, wedges of wood were hammered into the space between sheath and leg, lacerating the flesh and, ultimately, breaking or crushing the bones. The Boot tended to be used against especially dangerous criminals, with a good example being the bandit leader Patrick Roy MacGregor. MacGregor has run riot in the Banffshire area during the 1660s, stealing, pillaging, killing and generally causing mayhem prior to his capture in 1667. Once he was in its hands, the government promptly put him through two episodes of torture-by-Boot, partly to extract a confession, but more particularly because they wanted to find out who his accomplices were. Needless to say, MacGregor broke under the pressure of the Boot, admitting his guilt and naming the Earl of Aboyne as his chief sponsor. For MacGregor, as no doubt for many of the other unfortunate Scots forced to wear the Boot, this was a form of torture well-placed to loosen even the most stubborn of tongues. There was one more method of torture commonly used in Scotland, but it needs to be treated separately from the first two. The thumbscrews and the Boot were formal, government-sanctioned mechanisms. On occasion, however, torture was imposed unofficially, and therefore illegally, by people working with the more local courts or even with Church authorities. To get away with that, you had to make sure you used a method that could go undetected and which was deniable, and that mostly, although admittedly not exclusively, meant sleep deprivation. Not letting a prisoner sleep for days on end was an especially favoured means of extracting confessions from suspected witches; we know, for example, that a group of reputed witches in Pittenween in 1643 were ordered by the local kirk session to be kept perpetually awake with a view to making them admit their witchcraft. The association between sleep deprivation and witchcraft largely came about because of the procedural oddities of witch-prosecution in Scotland – put simply, you usually could not prosecute a witch without special leave from central government, and you generally could not get such licence unless you already had a confession. Sleep deprivation was a method of securing the necessary admissions of guilt, but which was easily deniable after the fact and which could be argued, albeit tendentiously, not to constitute ‘torture’ at all. Sleep-deprivation probably helped inflate the size of the Scottish witch-hunt, especially during the huge panic of 1661-2, but it also contributed to the decline of witch-prosecutions: the knowledge that confessions were often extracted under torture was one of grounds upon which the government became increasingly reluctant to sanction witch-trials from the mid-1660s onwards. Conclusion Where, then, does all of this leave us in terms of understanding torture in Scotland’s past? In many ways this was a minor aspect of the Scottish judicial system, imposed rarely, and exclusively on especially dangerous individuals. Mainly its role was to secure intelligence and information, rather than to extract a confession. Perhaps because of the relative scarcity of its use (or at least, of its formally-sanctioned and recorded use) torture in Scotland never quite reached the heights of sensationally creative cruelty that it attained in parts of continental Europe – although that is certainly not to deny the horrors of both the thumbscrews and the Boot, or, indeed, of the subtler but equally unpleasant art of sleep-deprivation. None of this implies that Scots in the past were unusually gentle or squeamish. But it does mean that we have to be careful before jumping to the conclusion that justice in the past was simply a question of brutalising those accused of crimes. The system was rather more sophisticated than that, and so, while we can shake our heads as the use of torture in Scottish History, we should always remember that it was never a central, nor even a particularly important part of the story.

Tittle Tattle at a Bus Stop Production. LEAVE OUR FIRST MINISTER ALONE. It was all in the Scottish Executive Scotland Office of the UK GOVERNMENT that passed all the bills that come into law. How the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 came into law was by agreement of all MSP's. The UK Government ratifies the bill and the Queen would have signed it off. Leave the First Minister and his family alone. The media that is at the forefront of this hysteria and all other social news networks that promulgate the same need taken to account TODAY. Everyone that agrees with me should make that complaint to Police Scotland. Everyone who agrees with me should share this video. Today I will be attending various offices anent the wild claims printed in the Press and Journal where so far the claims made that Ms Baff "clashed with various court officials" is not known to the Security Service that is in charge of Aberdeen Sheriff Court. So I assume that should any court official from the cleaner to the Sheriff had have had in the past any issues with Ms Baff then the Security team would have known about it. Today I speak to the reporter. Mr Danny McKay! The Police officers in charge of the court. The Clerks, Ushers, e.c.t. The Security team who is governed by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and various others as they are offering a service as a public body although none are members of the Scottish Executive. So a whole field of statutory requirements that regulate the court shows that the security staff would hold and know any information of Ms Baff "clashing with court officials".

International serious organised crime operating in Scotland has stolen your identity. I will send you the hackers address when I know that it is ben that I am talking to. Not only their address but everything that they have been up to recently.

Racism in Scotland Aberdeen City Council comes down hard on people that have been sexually abused. The killing of dogs is one thing but starving me to death is another. Who exactly is policing Scotland? Go on have a guess at it. The winner will be sent a hard drive with the evidences on it. What would you do with such a drive? I know "Data for sale" squilions of pounds worth. Ill happily sell it to Police Scotland for 54 Million not a penny less. If you are offended by any of this then get your head checked out. Aberdeen Sheriff Court a using the mental health services like a conveyor belt so there is hope for you yet. All unoffended please share comment. PS Where do you report sexual assaults if its not the police nor the local authority? What would you do? REMEMBER the courts conveyor belt all the way to Cornhill Royal Hospital. What would you do? Beastiality, Animals mutilated, Dogs Killed. Disabled women getting beaten senseless REPETITIVELEY. Where do you go with all that evidence if its not the Police, The Local Authority nor the Scottish Government. Who is or are the Police and the Solicitor that when windows are smashed, doors hanging of the hinges, woman's head and face covered in blood. The wife beater out cold with blood and very swollen hands. Where do you go to report this when the Police and Council do nothing about it? Yes we tried the Scottish Ministers but the continued hate crime is apparent their as well. Plenty of proof. So who runs Scotland if it is not the Police nor the Local Authorities nor the Scottish Ministers?

👉Socialism: You have 2-cows. Gov. forces you to give 1-cow to your neighbor, who helped them. 👉Communism: You have 2-cows. Gov. forces you to give both cows to them, in exchange for your life and a promise to allow you to buy milk discounted, when available. 👉Fascism: You have 2-cows. You're NOT able to sell your cow, milk nor beef directly to the public and realize a ROI. You sell to the gov's lobbyist-biz network and earn a small ROI, as a side-hustle income. You also work a full-time primary job. 👉Nazism: You have 2-cows. Gov agents secretly poison your body and run mind-confusing operations against your psyche, while spying so they can log your changes. After you find out and complain, the gov.s' media network publically doxx's and mocks you. Local's are then paid to video tape you as they yell racial-slurs, shoot you and take both cows. 👉Anarchism: You have 2-cows. Keep both cows. In front of your children, you shoot the gov. agents that come and try to take your cows. You take your children with you when you steal cows from your neighbors. Live by the sword, Die young by the sword. 👉Capitalism: You have 2-cows. Sell one cow. 💪Buy a bull. ✅ Capitalism: while New Man James Fraser working to M.A.G.A.: 🇺🇸 You have 2-cows. 🇺🇸 Get approval for a low interest loan, buy a Bull and Six-6 more Cows. 🇺🇸 Locally sell milk to a steadily growing region. 🇺🇸 Sell beef at auction at an excellent ROI. 🇺🇸 Pay back the loan in-full early. 🇺🇸 Run your new profitable business debt-free. 🇺🇸 Happily pay taxes for a small polite gov. 🇺🇸 Raise a healthy and happy family, while assisting in the care of aging parents. 🇺🇸 Take a vacation twice a yr. and live larger than daily-life. 🇺🇸 Help your church & community with your time, talents and treasure. 🇺🇸 Leave an inheritance to your children after death, which a grateful community also attends.

17 years of failing to record report and investigaye crime.