Jackal journalism!

Amidst all this knee-jerking, virtue-signalling and high-minded posturing, the individual at the centre of the matter appears to be escaping any kind of scrutiny. That individual is, not Eva Bolander, but Paul Hutcheon – lately self-styled ace investigative reporter for The Herald and now, apparently, base gossip-columnist for the Daily Record. The important issue here is not Eva Bolander’s perfectly legitimate use of an allowance deemed necessary by the Scottish Parliament, but the malicious and misleading manner in which it was reported.

Eva Bolander did nothing wrong. She is entirely blameless and completely innocent. And yet she now finds herself the target of a vicious witch-hunt. Why? And just as pertinently, why is the instigator of this undeserved harassment allowed to sit in a corner preening himself with pride in his accomplishments as a malignant mischief-maker; glorying in his power to wreak havoc on the lives of guiltless people; smirking and sniggering in the knowledge that, however recklessly and maliciously he wields this power, he does so with impunity.

This is jackal-journalism at its most debased. It is bullying at its most cowardly. It is vile. It is a blight on our media and our politics and our society.

I will not allow myself to be manipulated by the sleekit worm-tongues whose sport is poisoning the public consciousness against whatever unfortunate they consider easy prey. I know who is the real villain of the piece. And, unlike those who count him a colleague and find that reason enough to shield him from criticism, I am prepared to denounce Paul Hutcheon’s thoroughly reprehensible conduct.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

8 thoughts on “Jackal journalism!

  1. The question is.

    Why is this even news?

    The answer of course is. They have absolutely nothing left to slate the SNP on at the moment. So they are reduced to midden raking gutter journalism. As you say ,if no rules were broken, and the money was allocated. She can spend it on whatever the hell she likes.

    If I am given £500 at work as part of my job. I class that as part of my salary. If I blow it all on Smarties ,then it’s my business, and my problem.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. YES really are still crap at politics

    This is the perfect illustration that Unionist can make them dance at any “dead cat” story when ever it needs a distraction. Such an obvious “hair shirt” outrage piece – timed to suck oxygen away from both any post indy march glow and distract from Brexit. To have YES itself feed this shite is just depressing.


    The bigger issue is what it hints about YES’s readiness.

    I fear this is just a glimpse of what the SNP playing dead-duck / “lets save England” has done to YES. It has taken the forward direction out of the movement (so it gets sidetracked). Most worryingly it has stopped YES really preparing and toughening up for what awaits.

    To me, this may be NS’s and the SNP’s greatest failure. The SNP never had to control the wider movement (one of YES’s strengths)…but if the SNP wants to be the party of indy, it has to at least form the initial bow wave as a way of signalling the direction YES is heading.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. What did Paul Hutcheon do wrong here Peter? He’s a journalist and he dug up dirt on a public figure. That’s what they do.

    I don’t think it’s particularly interesting or important dirt, but it was sufficient to get said public figure to apologise and pledge to repay some of the sums involved.

    I’m no fan of this particular journalist – but again, what exactly did he do that’s so wrong here?


    1. He is not a journalist he is a gossip columnist. He didn’t dig up anything, the information is in the public domain. There is no “dirt”. If you imagine there is, Paul Hutcheon is laughing at you.


  4. I disagree. Don’t know about you but when I claim expenses I apply a degree of judgment (‘is this reasonable to claim for?’) in addition to whether it follows the letter of the expenses policy.

    I’m sure the Lord Provost was well within the rules but, in my view, lacked a bit of common sense/judgement.
    Whether that’s ‘dirt’ or not is debatable, fair enough. But in this instance I don’t think Hutcheon did anything ‘wrong’ other than pursue a slightly cheap and thin story.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.