Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 102

Thread: Salmond disgrace

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    Men across Scotland must be rejoicing! It seems that 10 out of 10 women lie when it comes to accusations of rape and sexual assault. And apparently, its now OK to do anything you want, as longs as that's the type of person you are.

    For years to come, this case will be used as the legal precedent. It'll be "in the Crown vs Salmond case........." when any guy is looking to get off the hook.
    The bile and hatred just keep coming.

  2. #62

    Default

    The 'not guilty' verdict really should be the end of it as regards any criminality but am I the only 'call me old fashioned' person on here who finds that the conduct AS himself has admitted to is, to say the least distasteful (and that's a polite word for it)?

  3. #63

    Default

    Hard to say you never did a thing when you claim "Consent" in 4 of the cases. His Missus must be well chuffed with that!

    And "Not Proven" - The "We know you did it, we just cant prove it" outcome.

  4. #64

    Default

    He was tried and not guilty by a jury which I think had a majority of women.I only look in here on the odd occasion as it seems to dominated by orkneycadian spouting anti Scottish rhetoric. You must be bitterly disappointed by the verdict so why not for once man up and admit you got it wrong, shut up for a while and perhaps let people with more balanced views have a reasonable discussion

  5. #65

    Default

    I have been following this trial.
    I have read all that was printed, good and mostly bad.
    Perhaps his ‘manners’ were not the best, and could be considered to be a ‘common nuisance’, but one must differentiate between bad behaviour and Criminality.
    The onus is on the Crown to prove a Criminal case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
    And defining ‘reasonable doubt’ requires....A set of facts or circumstances which would cause a person of normal ‘care and judgement’ to have a strong belief!
    And his Lawyer did present such a case.
    BTW.. OrkneyK.....am surprised at you. Have read your posts, and they are nearly always objective.
    Pray tell why this is not so in this case.
    TY.
    Last edited by The Horseman; 24-Mar-20 at 03:07.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldsparky View Post
    He was tried and not guilty by a jury which I think had a majority of women.I only look in here on the odd occasion as it seems to dominated by orkneycadian spouting anti Scottish rhetoric. You must be bitterly disappointed by the verdict so why not for once man up and admit you got it wrong, shut up for a while and perhaps let people with more balanced views have a reasonable discussion
    Welcome to the board Oldsparky. I personally don't think Orkneycadian is anti Scottish. Anti SNP, without a doubt as am I.

    I see you have only made one post, yet have a good rep score already, that's amazing, I wonder who rep'd you?

  7. #67

    Default

    Craig Murray's take on the court proceedings, verdict and likely aftermath is well worth reading.

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...s-another-day/

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky Smeek View Post
    Craig Murray's take on the court proceedings, verdict and likely aftermath is well worth reading.

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...s-another-day/

    Interesting point of view, thanks for drawing attention to this.

  9. #69

    Default

    According to Craig Murray, the case against AS was a conspiracy. The evidence is contained in a WhatsApp group, and it will come out eventually.

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...s-another-day/

    Can I believe Murray’s claim? I doubt it could be that simple.
    Last edited by aqua; 26-Mar-20 at 15:21.

  10. #70

    Default

    AS has been cleared. He could leave it where it is....or....tell the people what really occurred.
    I doubt very much that he would go ahead with an expose’, if he thought it would ‘backfire’ on him!

    A question......who is paying his Lawyers fees? A pretty penny!

    And I read that a ‘celebrity’ took the Witness stand? Do they have special privileges, as the name didn’t come out in what I read? Ty
    Last edited by The Horseman; 26-Mar-20 at 15:49.

  11. #71

    Default

    You’re probably right about new information not backfiring on AS. But it may not be as clear cut as he suggests. We know from his time as SNP leader and FM that he can twist and manipulate just about anything to his own advantage.

    I have been perusing the identity of the ‘celebrity’ ever since he first appeared in court. Will we ever know who he is? Are we allowed to speculate in public?

  12. #72

    Default

    I wud be careful, BUT, why wud they have their identity hidden. Only the Judge can make such an order thru a Publication ban!
    Or both Prosecution and Defence can agree to such a decision.
    Usually only for ‘vulnerable’ people in extreme situations.
    Usually the Media, particularly newspapers will apply thru the Freedom of Information Acts to obtain such info.
    But who owns the papers? Connections!
    Its a ‘strange one’! I am sure Time will tell! Maybe!

  13. #73

    Default

    Well, letís hope the celebrityís identity comes out eventually.

    It seems odd that anyone who thinks of himself as a celebrity would want their identity concealed. Is he reluctant to be labelled as a celebrity?

  14. #74

    Default

    That video on the train, filmed by a passenger, from AS's own QC is absolutely shocking and disgraceful in what it reveals. I truly am very shocked and I am glad that the women have spoken out today.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    That video on the train, filmed by a passenger, from AS's own QC is absolutely shocking and disgraceful in what it reveals. I truly am very shocked and I am glad that the women have spoken out today.
    So you think that being considered a sex pest and a bully, using the very subjective definitions of sexual assault and harrassment employed now, in an era when #metoo even has women shouting #metoo on FB because they had their bra straps pinged by the lads in the school playground, completely negates the verdict of a majority of women in Salmond's trial?

    I expect, in that case, you also applaud the idea, that having had their pretty well orchestrated accusations dismissed, those women, still hiding behind their right to anonymity, have blamed the legal system for not "supporting" them and have, yet again, got together to keep the pot boiling to ensure that the accusation keeps rumbling on to the continuing detriment of Salmond's reputation? From what I have read they had all the support necessary, and probably more than the average woman on the street would have had, and the only fault in the legal system that I can see, from their point of view, is that the trial didn't just consist of the women standing there proclaiming their "recollections", with the accused having no right to defend himself, and the result being a done deal on the back of their words only.

    But where ,exactly, is the equality with men which is so loudly demanded by women, in a situation in which women accusers can remain anonymous, while the male of the species can be named, tried in the court of public opinion and in many cases have his life/career/marriage/family destroyed even if found not guilty. In my opinion, equality should mean both sides get anonymity until the result of a trial before the public, via the media, has any right to know names.

  16. #76

    Default

    If you cannot see what is wrong with AS's defence counsel discussing this case in public on a train and naming two of the women involved, then I am sorry for you. I don't think that you read my post at all- I'm referring to words said on a train, out loud, over heard and filmed as well. There should not have been any discussion at all but what is said is shocking whether you like it or not and I think that most people will think so.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    If you cannot see what is wrong with AS's defence counsel discussing this case in public on a train and naming two of the women involved, then I am sorry for you. I don't think that you read my post at all- I'm referring to words said on a train, out loud, over heard and filmed as well. There should not have been any discussion at all but what is said is shocking whether you like it or not and I think that most people will think so.
    You didn't mention the naming of two of the women involved and I am not a mind reader...you mentioned only Salmond's counsel had been videod and expressed your satisfaction that the women had spoken out. I responded to your post having only read via FB what his counsel said about Salmond and about their letter complaining about the legal system. I don't watch videos on FB. If he did mention the names of any of the women involved then, as I think both sides should have anonymity for the duration of the trial and guilt or innocence has been decided, or none of them should, I would simply have been underwhelmed at the effect on the women involved, while deploring the monumentally stupid action by a member of the bar in breaking the law, however much of an ass that law is.
    Last edited by Oddquine; 29-Mar-20 at 21:49.

  18. #78

    Default

    A couple of articles on the case that are well worth reading.

    Wings Over Scotland

    Craig Murray

  19. #79

    Default

    Thank you, I did read this before when high lighted above. I think that the least said about this the better now really since we clearly have not heard the last of it.

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fulmar View Post
    Thank you, I did read this before when high lighted above. I think that the least said about this the better now really since we clearly have not heard the last of it.
    Both articles were only published earlier today.

    I agree with you but the problem is the press are still in full-on attack mode and seem to be acting as if his innocence is merely a technicality getting in the way of a good story (for them).

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •