Maclachlan throws grenade to SNP HQ
Thursday, 17 December 2009
It's not often that I'm lost for words but I genuinely don't know what to say following the release of emails between Cybernat blogger Mark Maclachlan and Mike Russell with following revelations:
- Accusing Mike Russell knew of the blog and helped getting photographs for it
- Russell allegedly also suggested the shocking smear about a married MSP picking up young men as well as the smears of Scottish Labour General Secretary Colin Smyth
- Mark tried to use his interview with the Sunday Times as leverage to get a public job in a quango
It's all getting very nasty and Paul Hutcheon suggests that "row that was confined to one man’s computer has now spread to the top of the Scottish Government" and certainly there was never an accusation that a senior elected politician knew of what McBride was up to.
Needless to say Mike Russell denies any knowledge of the blog saying that "you also make serious allegations about your blog which I absolutely refute."
It shows a few things. One is that the (apparent) fake resignation penned by Kevin Pringle has really made things considerably worse and you really wouldn't want to be in his shoes at the moment. The second is just how bad an idea the interview with the Sunday Times was, it made Mark look awful, it made his old boss look awful and it made his party look awful.
And now it has ensured that the story is still rumbling on and threatening the scalp of the Scottish Government's new education secretary, a blogger scorned, eh?
Posts
10 comments:
What I read is not that Mike Russell suggested any smear, but rather that he shared a story in the office with his colleague, who then turned it into a smear.
Very big leap of logic you are making, and I do hope for your sake that you know a good lawyer.
hence the word alleged Jane and it is not me making the allegations.
So, if an email dated 9/12/09 suggests that McLachlan was going to pass "evidence" to Parliament and the PO, don't you think we would have heard of it by now?
He is on a shoogly peg for the following reasons:
1. He has published someone's private email address on the web, without permission
2. He is clearly trying to blackmail Mike Russell into getting him a job.
Therefore, I see little reason to have sympathy with the man, but I can understand entirely why you are loving this.
Jane
Nobody has any sympathy with Mark. He deserves none IMO.
The question is: are the emails published in the Herald an accurate reflection of conversations and actions by senior SNP politicians?
If they are, they're dynamite.
Change the names in the crisis from Mike Russell and Alex Salmond to Andy Kerr and Ian Gray, and consider what the nationalist reaction would be: what would Alex Salmond be saying then?
What would the average SNP blogger be saying...?
"it made Mark look awful'
How droll, Jeff at SNP Tactical voting called it 'joyous', who's right?
Could your blog be described as an 'attack blog' Yousuf?
Who's defining what that term means?
Sems to me this is as nothing compared with the case of Damian McBride of the Labour Party-and I don't remember the SNP going on and on about that, unlike Labour and yourself here.
Anon it makes him look awful as it makes it look like he used the potential of the interview to blackmail Russell into using his influence to secure him a taxpayer-funded job.
JPJ2 - defending the SNP surely not!
In what way is it different. With McBride no politician knew of it and with this time there is accusations that the education secretary did know something about it and the First Ministers aide appeared to write a statement that Mark never agreed to.
"in what way is it different"
Damien McBride was far closer to Brown than Mark was to Salmond.
As I said, in spite of this, the SNP did not go on an on about what is in both cases very much a side issue to the major issues of the day.
What on earth led Gray to use this issue as a major one at PMQs given everything else that needs attention?
Dear Jane
I would like to update your knowledge.
You state;
“1. He has published someone's private email address on the web, without permission”.
Mark MacLachlan doesn’t need permission to publish Mike Russell’s email address; it isn’t a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Act doesn’t apply to private individuals releasing Data but to organisations.
“2. He is clearly trying to blackmail Mike Russell into getting him a job”.
Secondly, you have defamed Mark MacLachlan, his emails ask for help.
I am disappointed that you feel comfortable displaying such ignorance as facts.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Post a Comment