|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 10 Mar 21:09
In my lifetime there have only been two Scottish politicians who were a danger to the British state. There have been political figures of the calibre of Jimmy Reid, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Margo MacDonald, Menzies Campbell and some might say Ruth Davidson but they were all prepared to work within the British state. Tommy Sheridan and Alex Salmond were not.
Sheridan ran a fringe party but the SSP were in line to form a crucial alliance with the SNP at the Holyrood elections of 2007. Both parties were committed to an independent Scotland. Before that could happen Sheridan was exposed in a sex scandal although there were no criminal proceedings involved.
Before the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014 Alex Salmond was a thorn in the side of the UK state but no obvious danger with support hovering around 30%. The 45% result shocked the UK state and when 62% of that same electorate then voted to stay in the EU it was obvious to the dogs in the street that a constitutional crisis lay somewhere on the road ahead. It was at this point that allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced.
To counter MSM the website craigmurray.org.uk is useful. Murray is hardly neutral himself since he knows personally Salmond and most of his accusers, but having visited the Assange trial last week he is alert to the staged elements of a show trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 10 Mar 23:04
It seems suspect to me. One of the allegations involves him taking his clothes off before shoving the person onto his bed and attempting to rape. Now, this is very serious, but...why would someone go into a colleagues bedroom, and why would they not make their excuses and leave if that colleague began removing items of clothing? Salmond doesn't exactly seem like the kind of guy who could get naked particularly quickly. Magic Mike he ain't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 11 Mar 00:42
Sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute in the absence of corroborating evidence, which by the nature of the crime is often meagre. That is why what is called the Moorov doctrine- whereby individual charges can be grouped together to establish a common pattern- is accepted in law. This prevents a sex offender wriggling out of a series of alleged attacks by claiming each time, ‘It’s just her word against mine.’
So far so good, but the dangers are evident. Prosecutions can rely on a ‘Never mind the quality- feel the width’ approach in the assumption that no jury is likely to believe that all the witnesses could have been mistaken or lying. No smoke without fire, so to speak. That does not make for good justice. In this particular case it is likely- we have to await the evidence- that the complainants all worked in the same sphere of Scottish politics which opens up the possibility of collusion before reporting the offences, which was not so far as I know done at the time.
In the absence of corroboration the evidence so far has relied upon emotion rather than objectivity. Phrases such as ‘trauma’ ‘flashbacks’ and ‘buried memory’- which simply cannot be tested in a court of law- are leading the prosecution case. What can twelve angry men make of that?’ Not much really, since even a convincing victim does not prove a charge. Comparing Salmond’s, one of life’s bookworms, to Muhammad Ali or George Foreman is stretching credulity and maybe a glimpse into the age of the complainant.
I will follow the trial but expect to be unconvinced either way regarding the alleged offences. I’ve never warmed to Salmond’s folksy image as a Hearts fan and racing tipster and he could be in the Trump/Johnson mould of a powerful man who overrates his irresistibility to the opposite sex. But despite all their alleged shenanigans, they are not the ones in court. That privilege has been confined to Salmond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 11 Mar 03:43
Salmond has always had (for me) a slightly sleazy feel to him. Clearly liked by the party at the time and very much a pain to Westminster.
The trial is already on shoogly hook with it appearing that at least 2 or 3 of the accused were in text message contact. The alleged attempted rape victim coming over as suspect.
Quote from BBC report.
"Ms McCall had earlier read out Mr Salmond's official diary for the months in question, which did not mention the Bute House dinner.'
The response of these "things are
often last minute and not in diaries" sounds very weak. I would have thought people like Salmond would have everything in their official diary. It would surely be a nightmare logistically otherwise.
When these charges were made they, to me, had a ring of authenticity. I'm probably now more on the fence and will wait and see what the other accusers have to say.
Post Edited (Wed 11 Mar 03:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 11 Mar 08:23
Quote:-
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 10 Mar 23:04
It seems suspect to me. One of the allegations involves him taking his clothes off before shoving the person onto his bed and attempting to rape. Now, this is very serious, but...why would someone go into a colleagues bedroom, and why would they not make their excuses and leave if that colleague began removing items of clothing? Salmond doesn't exactly seem like the kind of guy who could get naked particularly quickly. Magic Mike he ain't!
Aye jake89
Not only removing his own clothes while pinning her to a wall but removing hers as well ??
Wonder if he kept his socks on :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Mar 08:37
She said his socks were all he had on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Wed 11 Mar 09:46
Do we have an inkling as to what Salmond's defence is going to be? Is he saying that these encounters never happened or that they were consensual?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Mar 10:05
His defence is to be based on 'consent' for some charges and 'alibi' for others apparently. At the risk of sounding sexist, I can't help feeling it's quite a shrewd move to have a female QC in his defence team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 11 Mar 11:20
Along with 9 of the jury women also....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Mar 11:47
That's the luck of the draw presumably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 11 Mar 12:44
Olly Octopus would struggle with some of the alleged shenanigans!🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 11 Mar 16:25
The ‘consent’ defence by Salmond will be tested in court, but it won’t go down well with the general public. Bute House is paid for by the taxpayer and the perception will be that Salmond was using it as some sort of knocking shop.
That damage won’t be limited to Salmond but will spread to Sturgeon, the SNP and the whole Holyrood set up. That’s why it seems odd that the SNP leadership did not move to keep matters in-house given that witness H reported the allegations to them in the first place. Their decision to involve the police can be read several ways but, whatever the motives were, I doubt this trial will assist the cause of Scottish Independence which is the stated aim of the SNP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Mar 17:01
Are you suggesting they should have 'hushed it up'? That would just have resulted in lurid details being leaked to the media and accusations that the SNP tried to put a lid on it which would have damaged their reputation even more surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Mar 19:14
Why,if it was as bad,did she not report it to the police rather than the SNP as any other person would.I think the police have a wee bit more power legally than some SNP person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 11 Mar 20:07
Good article on Craig Murrays blog site today... Worth a read
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Mar 20:25
It was indeed worth a read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 11 Mar 20:30
Any links for us auld yins ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 11 Mar 21:14
Cheers donj
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Wed 11 Mar 21:24
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 11 Mar 21:51
Craig Murray’s position is that the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon are only pretending to fight for independence. In reality they are quite happy to run the show in Scotland, with all the public purse privileges that entails. In short they don’t want to rock the boat since they are doing rather well themselves. They can afford houses in posh areas and send their children to the local comprehensive school without fear of being hypocrites. Rather like the Labour Party being terrified of socialism, nothing terrifies an SNP politician quite like the idea of independence since it would end their careers, same as socialism would for a Labour MP. They would, in the main, be redundant in that event.
Was Salmond any more committed to independence than Sturgeon? Many thought he only forced a referendum because he knew he would lose; he was alarmed as anyone at the 45% vote in favour. He’s never been the same man since. Murray’s point is that the SNP leadership are satraps: they do not want independence and Salmond, for all his weakness on the issue, is seen as a threat to the quiescent acceptance of UK rule. Therefor he has to be removed from the equation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Mar 21:55
rm he was a British ambassador so I reckon a teeny bit of political qualification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 11 Mar 22:00
I got the impression he felt the SNP had been infiltrated by career and not necessarily independance minded individuals
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Mar 22:05
OK where were you an ambassador to then with your brilliance.Then tell us all the officially qualified in politics politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Mar 22:27
You never answered the question and ran off in another SNP bad reply as ever.The question was which politicians have qualified as politicians.You already admitted Murray had a degree and a civil servant,admittedly a pretty important one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 11 Mar 22:34
Tenruh's point about career politicians has been established in court, although not widely reported in MSM. One of Salmond's accusers stated she was 'soft' on nationalism and not very 'party political' yet she was happy enough to be put forward as a candidate for a constituency. It sounds like a gravy train.
Regarding RM's definition of a civil servant, so is the Queen. But I have never heard her referred to as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 11 Mar 22:55
Also happy enough to go to somebody's bedroom,without even considering the rest of the accusation.I usually thought,maybe I'm a bit of a strange guy,if they came to the bedroom with me it was not for a wee blether as we could have done that downstairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Wed 11 Mar 23:26
RM, I'm ready to be corrected here but isn't Nicola Sturgeon the constituency msp for Glasgow South Side?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Wed 11 Mar 23:48
I would be shocked if RM has any qualifications whatsoever, far less anything that would give him any authority to lecture the rest of us on politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 12 Mar 00:36
RM, I'm not nit picking here but I'm sure she won the constituency seat for Glasgow South Side in 2011 and has held it since. Before that she was a list msp for Glasgow.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Thu 12 Mar 13:35
So the witness was in the bedroom at Bute House when she was allegedly assaulted!
Doing the ironing?
Making the bed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 12 Mar 23:14
Any guy with Wandering Hand Syndrome is usually identified pretty quickly by the women in the work place. New starts will be warned to keep their distance from him.
What surprises me in the Salmond case is that the witnesses so far all seem to have been working in the same sphere, were known to each other it would appear, yet seemed shocked when Salmond made his alleged moves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBA
Date: Sat 14 Mar 19:47
Quote:
renegade master, Thu 12 Mar 23:43
Yet protocols were put in place that no single female would be put in a position where they would be working with Salmond alone. Following the alleged allegations.
Pity the BBC didn't do that with Jimmy Saville and young boys!!!!!
Very neat trick of throwing Jimmy Savile into the conversation. Very low, but I suppose to be expected.
The protocols would be put in place for anyone in that position to prevent a "he said, she said" scenario. It means absolutely nothing on whether he's guilty or not IMO.
Did he do it? No one here knows. Hopefully the jury has enough evidence to prove it, one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 14 Mar 20:09
Suspect it'll be "not proven" and it'll be a case of "mud sticks".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 14 Mar 20:25
Yeah I think the fact many complainents conspired on a group chat will make it unproveable.
Had they all have been individual ones, it would be damning for Alex Salmond.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Mar 20:54
No matter the outcome Salmond's reputation is in tatters now.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 14 Mar 21:26
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 14 Mar 20:54
No matter the outcome Salmond's reputation is in tatters now.
That's the plan.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 14 Mar 22:52
Aaps, Salmond has brought this on himself.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 15 Mar 12:30
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sat 14 Mar 22:52
Aaps, Salmond has brought this on himself.
So how's that? You're assuming guilt with that comment surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 15 Mar 13:24
Not at all. I'm making no comment regarding his innocence or guilt in relation to the serious charges he faces. I made reference to his reputation. He isn't denying that many of these sexual encounters didn't happen just that they were consensual. We'll see what happens but I don't think he will come out of this looking good regardless of what verdict the jury finds.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: QPR_Par
Date: Sun 15 Mar 16:23
RM, you seem adamant that protocols were put in place, yet the first time I heard of this was during this trial. I'm pretty certain there was no mention of this during the previous action taken by the Scottish Parliament.
If these protocols were put in place, surely it would only have been a matter of time before the opposition parties made political capital from them and had them splashed across MSM?
The Craig Murray site states these protocols are the assertions of one witness and reading between the lines there were no protocols, this from the relevant article:
"All of the media are reporting that women were banned from being alone with Alex Salmond in Bute House after 7pm. It is reported as fact. That was however an assertion by one prosecution witness. It is not necessarily true, despite all the media headlining it as fact. Wait until you hear the defence witnesses. It may be true. It may not be true. Wait."
Full article here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-boy-i-love-is-not-in-the-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-4/
Can you provide a link, other than media related to the Salmond Trial, to back up your statements of fact?
Bluster, deflection, whataboutery and obfuscation in the style of your beloved Boris won't cut it. Either you can back it up or you can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 15 Mar 20:07
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Sun 15 Mar 13:24
Not at all. I'm making no comment regarding his innocence or guilt in relation to the serious charges he faces. I made reference to his reputation. He isn't denying that many of these sexual encounters didn't happen just that they were consensual. We'll see what happens but I don't think he will come out of this looking good regardless of what verdict the jury finds.
So how did he bring it upon himself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 15 Mar 21:28
Because he has acted inappropriately. Doesn't necessarily mean that he has done anything illegal but I don't think he has acted in a proper manner if his defence is that the sexual encounters were consensual. These women were party workers and as leader of the party any romantic intentions from Salmond towards these women was inappropriate.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Sun 15 Mar 21:34
I can't quite get that as I thought adults could have sexual encounters whatever grade they were.
Looks like Boris is in trouble then as TOWK said it was wrong to have any relations with people not of his rating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 15 Mar 21:52
No Donj you'll find that a number of organisations and corporations have rules which frown upon member of the leadership /management pursing sexual relations with underlings.
Maybe this will make you feel better Donj. Alex Salmond can be absolutely correct in his beliefs regarding the future of Scotland being best served as an independent nation but still have acted inappropriately.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Sun 15 Mar 22:26
TOWK point is he has not been found guilty of anything by a Jury.Obviously you have found him guilty and I'm sure you can tell us all of the things you saw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 15 Mar 22:41
Again I'll say I am making no judgement on if he is guilty or innocent of the serious sexual assaults he is accused of. I am saying that he has acted inappropriately in engaging in sexual relations, even if consensual, with women from an organisation that he led.
The fact that Salmond was a key figure in a movement I believe in does not influence my opinion regarding his conduct.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 16 Mar 16:50
I see the case for the defence is due to start tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see what witnesses are called, apart from Alex Salmond himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 16 Mar 18:00
1 charge already dropped down to 13 now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 17 Mar 14:24
The prosecution evidence has been colourful. Salmond was likened to a zombie, an octopus, and linked to Jack Vettriano, one of life’s self-confessed skirt chasers. We’ll see if the defence can match that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Wed 18 Mar 15:47
The evidence does indeed look flimsy but it often can in cases of sexual assault. Have to trust that the jury who are able to examine the demeanour and tone of all those testifying can come to the correct result.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 18 Mar 17:06
You would think it would be relatively easy to establish whether Ms H was or was not at the dinner after which she claimed Salmond assaulted her. Presumably somebody was sitting next to her, in which case why didn't the prosecution produce that person as witness? It's a bit like Prince Andrew saying he visited a pizza restaurant in Woking but no witness corroborated it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 19 Mar 10:47
It wasn't clear to me how big the dinner was. I assumed it was a dinner with many guests but it may have been a smaller, private affair. There's no substitute for hearing the evidence in person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 19 Mar 12:44
That's the defence case complete. Summing-up starts this afternoon after Lady Dorrian has a discussion with both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 19 Mar 21:11
Just the jury to go now after a premature end to the case.
We can speculate if that is a good or bad thing for Alex Salmond but reading the fine details, it isn't going to be a cut and dry affair with accusations of complainers colluding via a WhatsApp group to end Salmond as a political figure.
Key will be the alleged rape incident which got the biggest headlines of all of them.
Salmond and a friend of the woman in question say she wasn't even there that night at the dinner whereas a celebrity who was there says she was in an interview with the police but he never testified in court.
Lots of the so called lesser charges are flimsy and I'd be very surprised if they stick.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 19 Mar 22:35
Apparently everyone in the parliament was trained around appropriate behaviour regarding greetings. The unofficial name is "the Alex Salmond policy". Basically, no hugging/touching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 19 Mar 23:09
On what has been made available to us, Not Proven would look a sensible decision.
There's no corroboration although this is not always a requirement if the jury accepts there was series of offences very similar to each other, which seems to be the case here. However the complainants are not random members of the public reporting these similar cases: they are all so far as I am aware either SNP administrative workers or civil servants acting on behalf of the Scottish parliament who were known to each other. That weakens the prosecution case considerably.
The defence has established injured merit as a possible motive for some of the allegations but is still stuck with the image of Salmond as a Bute House smoochie type once he gets a few drinks in him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 20 Mar 08:09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Mar 12:09
Defence have concluded their closing remarks so the judge has now to instruct the jury before they retire to consider their verdict. I suppose there could be a verdict today if they are in agreement.
She is instructing the jury before the lunch break which must increase the chances of a verdict today.
Post Edited (Fri 20 Mar 12:33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Mar 13:55
Jury's out considering their verdict...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Mar 16:56
The jury has been sent home for the weekend and will resume its deliberations on Monday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Fri 20 Mar 19:04
this has to be not guilty to the main charge of attempted rape - everything else is added in to try to justify that charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 20 Mar 21:07
Used to respect Sturgeon but now I think she is an evil bitch after reading some of the 'supposed' evidence which she seems to have involvement with.Think my SNP membership will be cancelled after this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 20 Mar 21:31
Wow
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Mar 21:44
What was the evidence that Sturgeon 'seems' to have been involved with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 20 Mar 22:10
Just read a lot of the stuff that never gets in papers and consider that even the start of this was started by very close associates of her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Mar 22:13
Why would it not get in the papers? About 95% of them are anti-independence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 20 Mar 22:22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 20 Mar 22:36
If what Donj says is true then I actually find it very damning against Salmond that Sturgeon was so eager to see him face justice.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 20 Mar 22:44
Also strange that somebody got banned from court for reporting exactly every day what was said for 'possible' contempt of court.As far as I know you either are or aren't in contempt and you get charged.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-long-dark-night-of-the-soul/comment-page-4/#comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 20 Mar 23:03
Yaxley-Lennon wasn't charged there and then. He was given ample warning. If Murray persists with his actions then he'll eventually suffer the same fate as Yaxley-Lennon.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 20 Mar 23:39
Nah you see Salmond is innocent until proven guilty but Sturgeon is an evil bitch.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 21 Mar 00:31
Yaxley-Lennon, aka Robinson, at least knew WHY he was in contempt of court. If he was warned off, as you seem to know, he understood where he had overstepped the mark, although in all honesty it was actually Robinson's intention to overstep the mark anyway.
Murray in no way falls into this category. None of us know what he has done. He himself has offered to remove anything from his site which is deemed in contempt of court. Murray is scarcely neutral: he is pro- Salmond and anti- Sturgeon in crude terms. I think his offence has been to make it clear that all the complainants, protected by anonymity, are known to each other. Other media have not made this point as clearly as he, something of an insider, has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Sat 21 Mar 03:09
Only other thing I could think of was when he mentioned a complainant and said if he said anymore detail she would be identified as being very close to NS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 21 Mar 05:30
There are quite a fair few people 'in the know' about what went on behind the scenes in this case. Clearly they are not allowed to say anything specific but many do crypticly.
Craig Murray, obviously is one and I'd urge readers to look up his blog about a fictitious "yes minister' sketch done a few months ago and read between the lines.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/yes-minister-fan-fiction/
Stuart Campbell would be another. Alex Salmond of course interviewed him over a year ago and I suspect off air would have been very interesting.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 22 Mar 09:40
'If in some ways the former First Minister had been a better man, I wouldn't be here, you wouldn't be here, none of us would be here.
I'm not here to suggest he always behaved well or couldn't have been a better man on occasions. That would be a waste of my time.
But I'm in a court of law and I'm dealing, not with whether he could have been a better man, because he certainly could have been better.
I'm dealing with whether or not it was established he was guilty of serious, sometimes very serious, criminal charges.'
The comment of Salmond's QC in summing up.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sun 22 Mar 21:29
lots of mischief with headlines from bias papers but it all comes down to one charge - attempted rape. According to the defence the complainant wasn't there when it was supposed to have happened. Let's see how it goes from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 23 Mar 07:25
I find it bizarre the jury were allowed home when they could be swayed by anything online.
I know they are ordered not to but how does the court enforce that?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 23 Mar 08:23
The jury have been going home every night though during the trial haven't they?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 23 Mar 11:07
Two jurors have been discharged so only 13 remain to reach a decision but they still need at least 8 to agree apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Mon 23 Mar 11:33
I'll be stunned if this is anything other than 'not proven' - certainly on the attempted rape charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 23 Mar 14:58
NOT GUILTY........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Superally
Date: Mon 23 Mar 15:25
Pitch forks and heavy rope for sale, In good working order, all unused.
2009/10, 2010/11, 2013/14, 2015/16 dafc.net Prediction League Champion
It's a well known medical fact that some men were born two drams below par.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 23 Mar 16:43
Quote:
Tenruh, Mon 23 Mar 14:58
NOT GUILTY........
So is his reputation intact or in tatters? And what about the accusers. Liars or misunderstood? Not as bad for them though as they are anonymous.
Post Edited (Mon 23 Mar 16:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 23 Mar 16:47
Who foots the bill ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 23 Mar 16:50
Quote:
Buspasspar, Mon 23 Mar 16:47
Who foots the bill ?
Presumably us as case brought by procurator fiscal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:01
As I said a stitch-up and a pretty poor one.The accusers though will waltz off with no comeback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:20
It does look like a political squabble within the SNP being paid for by the taxpayer.
What constitutes sexual assault has changed in recent years but the majority of the charges brought against Salmond looked the sort of thing that could be dealt with by a police caution. Maybe the serious charge of attempted rape should have been tried alone but the evidence there was not very strong, so it seems the other charges were just lumped in to make the case more convincing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:21
Just saw James Matthews reporting from Edinburgh for Sky News and he was asked what the reaction to AS being acquitted was and he said “ Surprise”.....Really ?
I think personally he was gutted that he was acquitted as many more will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:33
this was the only way it could go based on the evidence presented. So blatant it looked like a bad stitch up. I think the start of this was down to holyrood civil servants who got their new procedure so wrong it cost us £500k. What was motivating them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:49
Quote:
pacifist, Mon 23 Mar 17:33
this was the only way it could go based on the evidence presented. So blatant it looked like a bad stitch up. I think the start of this was down to holyrood civil servants who got their new procedure so wrong it cost us £500k. What was motivating them?
If the evidence was as poor as it appears why did the procurator fiscal even bring the trial
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:50
I'm fairly politically neutral (certainly not someone who could be described at an SNP supporter as has been clear on here) but it definitely seemed very fishy to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:55
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 23 Mar 17:49
Quote:
pacifist, Mon 23 Mar 17:33
this was the only way it could go based on the evidence presented. So blatant it looked like a bad stitch up. I think the start of this was down to holyrood civil servants who got their new procedure so wrong it cost us £500k. What was motivating them?
If the evidence was as poor as it appears why did the procurator fiscal even bring the trial
Exactly, how anyone could be charged with attempted rape when you were sitting on a bed with your underwear on and stopped when you were told to god only knows. One of the accusers was not even there on the particular night according to defence witnesses. I followed the trial as best I could and I don’t remember any prosecution witnesses that added any value to the charges whatsoever ever....may have missed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Mon 23 Mar 18:10
My take is that Sturgeon was not happy with Salmond saying he was going to come back into politics.Every chance he could have been selected as leader again.Her band of associates decide to stitch him up and screwed up costing us a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 23 Mar 18:47
WOS has an excellent article on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 23 Mar 19:37
I think there is still a wee bit more to come as Salmond hinted outside the court Evidence that was not permitted on his behalf but will see the light of day soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 23 Mar 20:00
Total sham from the beginning. As I said earlier in the thread, the five women conspiring on WhatsApp to "end Alex Salmond" as a political force made a mockery of the prosecution case.
The lack of cooberation from the accusers was striking especially as some of the charges were in full view of others.
Heads must roll in the Scottish Government after this as Alex won't stay silent for long.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 23 Mar 21:53
Looking forward to the fall out it will be entertaining.
I hope AS returns to politics in some shape or form. Dunno if he will go for the big gig....FM, or maybe lead a new party?
Interesting times ahead for sure.
Got to beat this dreadful virus first though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 23 Mar 23:42
Aaps, whose heads do you think should roll?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 23 Mar 23:57
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Mon 23 Mar 23:42
Aaps, whose heads do you think should roll?
If it was any normal time in history, I'd say it starts at the very top followed by her close friends in the Civil Service responsible for costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands in a botched hatchet job planned long ago.
As it is we do live in not normal times and the dust will settle for a while but Alex Salmond will have his day.
He's not an angel and clearly acted immorally by his own standards but immorality and criminality are two separate issues.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 24 Mar 00:27
Do you have any evidence that Sturgeon orchestrated this whole thing?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 24 Mar 00:44
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Tue 24 Mar 00:27
Do you have any evidence that Sturgeon orchestrated this whole thing?
Not at all.....
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 24 Mar 16:25
Snp civil war on the cards. Check mate to the union.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Tue 24 Mar 17:36
Yeah because half the population are bound to give up on their desired national, political status and desired identity just because someone was not guilty of being a bit handsy! 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 24 Mar 19:25
Aye but according to some on here the leadership of the party and the government were involved in shenanigans which warrant a public enquiry and resignations.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 24 Mar 20:24
Of course, by Government, we're referring to civil servants, many of whom worked for the last Scottish Labour Gov. 😉
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 24 Mar 20:27
Other parties seem to survive sex scandals with no effect on their electability but no doubt the media will hold the SNP to a higher standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 24 Mar 21:20
No it's not the sex scandal that's going to do the snp it's the suggestion that the snp leadership conspired to have their ex leader framed and stuck in the pokey for a good chunk of his autumn years so that he couldn't mount a comeback that will be damaging. That is what some of you guys are suggesting isn't it?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 25 Mar 07:59
It's all wishful thinking from the yoons, it must have been a bitterly disappointing result for them on Monday. They have tried to drive a wedge between the Independence movement and it continues to backfire on them.
Unfortunately I do agree when a political organisation grows to the size the SNP has you end up with a group whose career comes before everything else and it needs to be managed.
I personally don't agree with gender balance, for example and same sex lists.
Remember the Indy movement is bigger than any one party and like the English based parties there's room for a second Scottish party to stand on the list vote.
Post Edited (Wed 25 Mar 08:00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 25 Mar 13:12
The Greens might do well out of this.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 25 Mar 14:34
As long as the London based parties don't benefit from it. Their media are doing their best to drive a wedge between the SNP membership...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Wed 25 Mar 15:41
For me the SNP is only a vehicle to independence. I know many indy supporters who vote them, not necessarily for the snp itself but because any other vote (even the greens who also support indy) is seen as a rejection of indy even if they support it (I always use my mate who had a big yes in his garden, still a passionate yes supporter but always puts his cross in for Labour, precisely because he is a Labour man and sees indy as bigger than the snp)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 30 Mar 18:26
Almost certainly a Sunday Times reporter who will be in bother I would suspect because he has acted illegally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Mon 30 Mar 20:56
Crazy all these headlines for a man who was found not guilty.Could the media be a tad upset at having all these articles ready for his guilty verdict and they find a mostly female jury clear him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 31 Mar 08:14
J'Accuse, a good article posted yesterday on Craig Murrays site. Great reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 31 Mar 19:30
WOW and WOW AAPS that is some read I am totally gobsmacked by the content of that
Thank you for sharing
Also to Tenruh for highlighting it in the previous post
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
Post Edited (Tue 31 Mar 19:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Wed 1 Apr 15:25
Just a minor point, but the film on the train could have easily been recorded on a mobile phone so any arguments about hidden devices is probably overkill.
The rest of it stinks a bit, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 1 Apr 22:14
Well if it was a hidden device surely it wouldn't have been Joe Bloggs filming it? so it then looks a bit sinister.
I wondered why it took till the case was over before it appeared in the news . Did the MSM expect a prison sentence and now showing their disappointment at the result. Let's face it the cost of the case must have ran to at least £3m
Post Edited (Thu 02 Apr 07:11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 24 Apr 08:02
Craig Murray has been charged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 24 Apr 16:22
Quote:
jake89, Fri 24 Apr 08:02
Craig Murray has been charged.
If they charge Craig Murray, they will have to charge many others who inadvetantly revealed identities of women involved.
Indeed, one even tweeted a real name during the trial before hastily deleting.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 24 Apr 17:02
If they charge Craig Murray they will have to charge all the lying Hoors including the ones who were not there for federal perjury and waisting police time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 24 Apr 17:02
Seems you can only get charged with contempt if you were in the defendants camp. A few of those who were reporting the trial and were salivating at the prospect of a guilty verdict were equally if not more careless ....yet only one charged with contempt. The one who has an agenda against the British state surprisingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 24 Apr 19:19
Never a truer word spoken desparado .... it niffs a bit methinks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 24 Apr 20:09
When public reporting refers to Witness A and Witness B then the chances of an injustice rise considerably. This practice has increased over the years in what are called ‘terrorism’ trials and trials relating to sexual offences. Given that the person accused clearly knows who the witnesses actually are, as do his supporters, it is not easy to defend the blanket immunity offered to witnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 13 May 21:08
Mark Hirst now arrested, the second Indy supporter .
WOS Stuart Campbell has an excellent letter on his website. It was sent to COPFS asking for clarity regarding contempt of court.
His twitter feed was taken down recently.
There is a concerted campaign in this country just now against prominent Independence supporters.
The whole thing stinks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rB3qpvH4AW8&feature=youtu.be
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 18 Aug 17:02
Reading about Kirsty Warks show last night. Did not watch it but it was as expected it seems. Considering it was originally filmed during the trial they were all set to gleefully gloat over the guilty verdict, but of course their hopes were dashed by the not guilty verdict.
It seems Wark, Smith, Garavelli et al cannot come to grips with the fact that AS was found not guilty.
Stuart Campbell’s blog today makes compelling reading as does Craig Murray’s.
CM has unequivocally nailed his colours to the mast as to who he thinks orchestrated all of this. The lady who reads out the Covid updates everyday.
Thanks to Garavelli for posting jigsaw information to reveal one of the accusers. Nosiness got the better of me. It’s not difficult. That information is still in the public domain.....bizarre.
Yet she is not charged with contempt of court......bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 18 Aug 17:27
This is the sentence I like
This is the first morsel of a very great deal of evidence that is going to come out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 18 Aug 17:28
Why would NS want AS dragged through court unless she was of the view the offences genuinely happened? I can't imagine her fitting him up. What benefit would it have for her?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 18 Aug 17:46
I don’t get it either. It will come out in the wash I suppose......maybe
Maybe she was lead to believe the charges were less serious.When the charges came to light it was....well too late
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
Post Edited (Tue 18 Aug 17:48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Tue 18 Aug 19:59
What I can't believe that they broadcast a show which is obviously set against a man who was found NOT guilty.What exactly is the worth of a court if the BBC decide they can re-try him after a court of law found him innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 18 Aug 21:53
The jury did not believe the accusers.
At least one of them lied in court as she said she was in Bute house on a particular night. This was rubbished by one of the defence witnesses. .The jury believed the defence witness, there fore did not believe the prosecution witness.
She lied.
They were all in the same WhatsApp group and colluding .
And these women are still being portrayed as the “ victims “ ?
I hope they have their day in court again.....in the dock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Thu 20 Aug 17:23
The BBC have now pulled it from iPlayer and Wark's deleted all the tweets she sent out promoting it.
Is a sequel, The Trial of Kirsty Wark, too much to hope for? Different production, obviously, we'd want it to be impartial.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 20 Aug 18:06
Kirsty Wark is a well vetted member of the UK Establishment- you don’t get to host ‘Newsnight’ otherwise. When she studied History at Edinburgh University Fitzroy McLean, a aristocratic Tory MP who had assisted Tito’s partisans during WW2 and had strong security service connections, was a member of the faculty. Wark was remembered as often missing tutorials since she seemed to be away involved in other activities. I’m not sure if she actually finished her degree because she landed a job at BBC Scotland after three years at university.
Despite a reputation for asking ‘tough’ questions, Kirsty Wark’s line of questioning regularly reflects the interests of those in power. Being curt and dismissive when interviewing politicians is scarcely a crime but in Wark’s case this behaviour always appears aimed at those who have questioned the official version of events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Thu 20 Aug 18:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 20 Aug 18:52
The breadth of your knowledge never ceases to amaze me, sammer, but you've excelled yourself with details of Kirsty Wark's attendance record at university tutorials over 30 years ago. You must have spies everywhere keeping tabs on 'The Establishment'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dd23
Date: Thu 20 Aug 19:08
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 20 Aug 18:52
The breadth of your knowledge never ceases to amaze me, sammer, but you've excelled yourself with details of Kirsty Wark's attendance record at university tutorials over 30 years ago. You must have spies everywhere keeping tabs on 'The Establishment'!
😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Thu 20 Aug 19:11
wee eck he must have neeburs in the :-
Sluzhba vneshney razvedki Rossiyskoy Federatsii, IPA: [ˈsluʐbə ˈvnʲɛʂnʲɪj rɐˈzvʲɛtkʲɪ])
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Thu 20 Aug 19:15
Quote:
BigJPar, Thu 20 Aug 18:37
Quote:
parsfan, Thu 20 Aug 17:23
The BBC have now pulled it from iPlayer and Wark's deleted all the tweets she sent out promoting it.
Is a sequel, The Trial of Kirsty Wark, too much to hope for? Different production, obviously, we'd want it to be impartial.
It's not been deleted at all.
Yeahy, you're right. I should check first rather than just repeat. My apologies.
Some suggestions saying it was down but now back - I don't know for certain, I only saw a screenshot and there could be other reasons for that.
Perhaps with some of the jigsaw evidence edited out?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
Post Edited (Thu 20 Aug 19:16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 20 Aug 19:20
A friend I played football with (a Jambo) studied History at Edinburgh University and Kirsty Wark was in his tutorial group. He had the impression she was spending a fair bit of time on activities outwith the university and seemed to be well connected. Nobody in his group got to know her very well.
St.Andrews University is usually considered the place where MI5 does some recruiting but Stella Rimmington was a former student at Edinburgh University back in the 1960s and she rose to be head of MI5.
Kirsty Wark might have done a 3 year Ordinary degree or maybe she didn't graduate when the job in BBC Scotland came her way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 20 Aug 20:13
I did a 3-year degree at EU in the 60s and managed to remain uncorrupted. I obviously wasn't moving in the right circles; and there was me thinking all the folk who didn't turn up at tutorials were at the bookies or in the Union bar!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 20 Aug 22:36
Both of us were moving in wrong circles.
Back in the day Kirsty Wark would have her BBC Newsnight programme cut into by Gordon Brewer at 11.00pm for Newsnight BBC Scotland. Gordon Brewer is the same age as Kirsty Wark and was studying History at Edinburgh University at the same time. But I don’t think Fitzroy McLean was tapping Brewer on the shoulder and I doubt that Brewer or Wark ever met.
For Brewer was a member of the International Socialists as I recall, or maybe their arch enemies the International Marxist Group; I am not sure. Whatever, Brewer adopted an angry young man attitude and it seemed for a moment that he might actually scowl the bourgeoisie into submission. He used the term ‘bourgeois’ as an insult, a language feature exclusive to middle class children.
When I later saw Brewer on Newsnight Scotland I was impressed. He was jolly, polite but mischievous in his questioning and seemed a level above Wark. Being a University left winger is often a gateway to a plum job- so long as you have recanted- and Brewer had presumably taken the long road into media unlike Wark who had been anointed early on..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 21 Aug 10:07
My recollection is that Gordon Brewer often presented the UK edition of Newsnight before he came back to Scotland and that he was a much more aggressive interviewer then. He seems to have mellowed since his return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 21 Aug 13:52
No details on what was changed though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 13:52
Interesting parsfan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Fri 21 Aug 14:54
I can't confirm if it's true but I've heard the original is on YouTube.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 23 Aug 17:49
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 21 Aug 13:52
No details on what was changed though!
There was something in it that could have revealed the identity of one of the women to people who know her.
This was removed I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 23 Aug 18:27
The National is reporting that Alex Salmond is set to take legal action in relation to the BBC documentary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
