A crucial detail was apparently hidden from the public.
According to Sky, the official knew it would potentially end their career if it came to light.
This is important because it may undermine Nicola Sturgeon’s story. 2/13
A thread on the latest Sturgeon-Salmond revelations. 👇
1/13
A crucial detail was apparently hidden from the public.
According to Sky, the official knew it would potentially end their career if it came to light.
This is important because it may undermine Nicola Sturgeon’s story. 2/13
She has tried to hide behind legalities, false narratives, straw men.
Every tactic in the book has been rolled out to stop the truth reaching the public. 3/13
She argues they are being attacked, when nothing could be further from the truth.
We all want to get to the bottom of what happened here - for those women. 4/13
They’ve been failed by basic, unforgivable errors from Nicola Sturgeon’s government.
And failed ever since by the SNP’s obstruction over what went on. 5/13
If she was, she wouldn’t have met with Alex Salmond all through the summer of 2018.
Her staff wouldn’t have - allegedly - revealed a complainants name to Salmond.
They would have done things the right way. 6/13
That’s pure spin. I’m not interested in either.
I care if the First Minister lied though. That matters. 7/13
Let’s be clear, Salmond is not a good man. His acquittal doesn’t change that. He did things that are out of order.
Nobody blames Sturgeon for his actions.
We blame her for lying about what she knew & when. 8/13
But the evidence is apparently backed up by credible people. Well respected people in legal and media circles, professionals.
It’s not Salmond’s word against Sturgeon.
It’s a number of people’s word against hers alone. 9/13
No more spin, no more hiding, no more shutting down scrutiny with cleverly worded statements.
Let’s get some straight yes or no answers. 10/13
This is a straight yes/no question, there are no legal repercussions to answering it. 11/13
Was the original statement – that they “knew” of complaints – correct or incorrect, in the your view?
This is a straight question. It can be answered without getting into any details. 12/13
Again there are no legal repercussions to answering them.
@NicolaSturgeon - let’s finally hear the truth. 13/13
More from Health
this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.
it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.
getting them is like pulling teeth.
It took a Freedom of Information request but @Covid19DataUK acquired 2017-2019 averages for England hospitalizations.
— Yinon Weiss (@yinonw) December 31, 2020
2020 had 18% fewer hospitalizations than prior years.
All around the world, using hospital data without context of prior years is just a fear generating lie. pic.twitter.com/DJDpqhIQuw
we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:
this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.
that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that
this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.
"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.
90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.
staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.
and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.
the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.
61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.
can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
You May Also Like
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
