Examples of dramatic license in my drama documentary on Frances Curran MSP

Let me start to itemise some of the key examples of dramatic license in my attempt to expose two assets of British Intelligence: Frances Curran and Chris Bambery.

I hope to add parts of my ‘drama documentary’ in stages. Writing the whole thing in a proof-read form, all highly polished and gorgeous-like is beyond me. Since I am attempting to create a piece of drama that shines a light on political realities of police spies who have infiltrated the far left, I have no problem with producing one redraft after another.

I intend to employ stream of consciousness as a means of defeating writers’ block. That means much of each installment will appear as embarrassingly unfocussed, repetitive and in need of a good editor. I am not feeling overly precious towards this piece, and have no problems editing as I go along. I will update passages when changes are for the purpose of style, not correcting factual typos. When I find details such as dates, names, etc have been referred to incorrectly, I will fix that as soon as I can. I will try to keep a note of all such changes.

I intend to write the equivalent of a ninety minute speech, a modern soliloquy in the form of an address to a jury. I could easily write much more than that. I have more than enough material for several substantial books. If this is ever put on as a drama, I won’t be playing myself.

I have yet to decide on a structure that I find satisfactory and I need to explain why that is.

Too many important events have happened since the day this speech would have been delivered in open court had Frances Curran MSP not worked hand-in-glove with Regional Procurator Fiscal John Miller to pull the plug, to stop my bringing my story to the attention of the general public via a court stenographer. I am going to write a speech to be delivered the to a jury who never heard my testimony. But I most certainly am creating a drama based on a speech I would not have dreamed of writing back then. I need to explain what this means.

In my speech I am going to focus on Alan McCombes role in a way that I never would had I been allowed to defend myself in court. When Tommy Sheridan was deposed it never occurred to me that Alan McCombes could have played any part in this. While we had had many differences in the past, I had chosen to bury the hatchet. I was moving on. I had enormous respect for Alan McCombes abilities, and he was the only potential replacement for Tommy Sheridan who had any chance of winning that I was willing to support. Subsequent events proved how wrong I was to trust McCombes. He is up to his neck in the conspiracy that toppled the SSP’s national convenor, and while I make no reference to things I could not have known back then, I am going to focus on McCombes in a way that casts doubt on his relationship to agents of the state. Recognition of McCombes role in framing Tommy Sheridan has liberated me from a lot I would not have dreamt of focusing on had I been allowed to expose the malicious prosecution of Regional Procurator Fiscal John Miller, and Frances Curran MSP’s role in protecting him.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s