Poor Wendy Alexander – her only crime was to act “in good faith”! Reading this article on the BBC one could be forgiven for thinking that Wendy had simply followed bad advice and was the victim of SNP intrigue! It’s fascinating to consider how the BBC treat Alexander’s financial incompetency and compare that how they treat a nine year old examination into Caroline Spelman’s financial affairs. It must break BBC hearts to have “Bring it On” Wendy forced to walk the plank due to her own crass stupidity and arrogance and I reckon that you can expect the BBC to now seek Spelman’s head as revenge.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. gus says:

    Pleading stupidity in handling “donated” money is no way to keep your job in politics.
    Alexander didn’t learn from her sleazy successors.
    Spending money wrecklessly is much easier. Say it was “for the children”. or it was to “save mother earth” that you voted for and waisted Billions, but J.H.CHRIST, to take money and then plead ignorance as to how to report it????
    Have a nice life Ms. Alexander, I’m sure lobbying is in your future.
    As for tit for tat. Spelman will be targeted, because the childish BBC cannot allow a liberal to take the blame for her own misdeads. A Conservative must pay too!


  2. Martin says:

    Oh the BBC will go for Spelman now.

    Just think, this is a massive story about Alexander, yet on Newsnight with Prick the other night she and Ed Balls and co got about 30 seconds whilst Spelman had another 25 minute hate boradcast made about her.

    I also think it’s a bit rich of Nu Labour to complain that praty politics was to blame for Alexander getting the push. Nu Labour have been digging dirst on everyone using their gay left wing mates at the BBC. Meanwhile Labour sleaze goes un noticed.

    Peter Hain anyone?


  3. Pleiades says:

    Alexander hung on for 8 months before she fell on her sword

    quit in good faith my arse


  4. Peter says:

    Peter Hain is getting for too many mentions,spare a thought for the eponymous MEP Michael Cashman.


  5. Confiteor says:

    “News” 24’s coverage of this story on Saturday really did plumb new depths. Not once in hours and hours of coverage did they once ask why Alexander was not able to follow rules set up by her own party. Not once was her claim that this was all the result of Machiavellian behaviour from the SNP challenged. Not once did anyone ask if anyone had ever experienced such an ungracious and twisted resignation speech in all their days. Instead, we were treated to a succession of Nu-Labour stooges wheeled out to berate the SNP and pay tribute to Wendy. Truly extraordinary.


  6. Confiteor says:

    How the BBC COULD have covered the story if it wasn’t institutionally biased:

    “Her defiant statement, in keeping with her past defence, went to some lengths to pass on the blame for her problems.

    Despite breaking the law on declaring donations to the commission, Alexander claimed at the time that she had been “exonerated”, a bizarre and self-serving interpretation of the facts.

    This time she blamed the SNP. The Nationalists, she claimed, were responsible for “vexatious complaints” to the standards commissioner, and had “sought the prize of political victory with little thought to the standing of the parliament”.

    Her defence against the verdicts of the commissioner and the Standards Committee – that she was told by the parliament’s clerks that registration was not unnecessary – was as weak as it was irrelevant.

    Alexander had asked for advice from the clerks in November last year on the status of her donations, 60 days after some of the campaign cheques had been banked, despite the law clearly stating that MSPs have 30 days to declare gifts.

    Put simply, Alexander asked for advice on registration well after she had already broken the rules, a fact that rendered any feedback from the Standards Committee as worthless…”


  7. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    Red Andy’s running true to form this am.

    All the Sunday’s leading with more Nulab implosion and corruption – so who’s he headlining?

    Ken Bloody Livingstone and Archbishop Tutu.

    I’m surprised he does’t borrow the embalmed remains of Lenin from Red Square for a guest interview now and then.


  8. George R says:

    “BBC trio in stolen Euro 2008 tickets row”


  9. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    John Reith spins in his grave:
    Red Andy’s running true to form this am……

    Ken Bloody Livingstone and Archbishop Tutu.

    …. Followed of course by Malloch Bloody Brown.

    Has he had a text from his editor:-



  10. Martin says:

    Can’t find ANYTHING about tihs Labour sleaze on the BBC news website. In fact it’s quite pro Broon.


  11. backwoodsman says:

    Yep, only our beloved beeboids could make more out of a 10 year old story, on an obscure new MP , over an, at the time very hazy area, than on a labour party leader setting out to knowingly get illegal payments from an inelligable donor !
    The bbc, spinning for labour – its what we do.


  12. Martin says:

    The BBC don’t just spin for Labour they do anal for Labour. Barebacking I believe it’s called, although I’m sure the Beeboid will be able to confirm that.


  13. Andy says:

    This in a nutshell sums up the whole problem with the Labour Party and their BBC lapdogs – and they STILL don’t get it!

    Alexander put the interests of the Labour Party first – before those of her constituents, and of Scotland.

    Yet they continue to scratch their heads and wonder why they are despised the length and breadth of this fine country.


  14. PaulS says:

    I think Cameron should pre-empt the BBC and sack Spelman anyway.

    It tuns out that this matter was first brought to the Conservative whips’ attention by Spelman’s own Westminster secretary, Sally Hammond.

    SH has worked for a number of shadow cabinet members – and is also married to a frontbench spokesman. I know her slightly and she’s an all round good egg. If she was disturbed enough by spelman’s arrangements at the time to tip off the party authorities, then there must have been something dodgy going on.

    Maybe the best thing would be to leave spelman twisting in the wind for a short while – then offer the party chairmanship to David Davis once his by-election is over?


  15. Allan@Oslo says:

    I really cannot understand why the BBC is so biased against David Cameron’s Conservatives because, in terms of policies, there is no clear, discernable difference between NuCon and NuLab. The Tories will essentially pursue the same policies as the BBC’s NuLab on all things which matter – EU, political correctness, ‘green’ stuff etc – so what’s it all about?