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 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 101

Thread: Salmond disgrace

  1. #41

    Default

    I put in a freedom of information request after I read your post. The response was almost instant. They sent detailed figures for Bute Houseís spend on booze for every day from 15 November 2014 until today. The spend is gratifyingly low. Earlier data had been destroyed for security reasons.

  2. #42

    Default

    I don't suppose the data for 2014 to date gives any clues on the consumption of Irn Bru and bubblegum?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    979

    Default

    Defence began yesterday, and is now open to the public. AS takes the stand.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    I don't suppose the data for 2014 to date gives any clues on the consumption of Irn Bru and bubblegum?
    I’m afraid not.

    Those figures are classified.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aqua View Post
    I was cringing while reading Woman Hís account of Alex Salmondís alleged deeds on the night he is accused of attempting to rape her. I await his response.
    Alex Salmond claims Woman H wasnít at Bute House that night, so it couldnít have happened. Simples.

    One of his two dinner guests is adamant she didnít see Woman H that night, the other guest says he saw her there.

    Not so simples.

  6. #46

    Default

    I for one am having nightmares after some of the graphic descriptions that have been reported in the media in this trial. And I don't think I'll ever be able to eat squid again.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shabbychic View Post
    Defence began yesterday, and is now open to the public. AS takes the stand.
    A very detailed and ostensibly objective account from Craig Murray. Thanks for posting it.

    Then I read Murray’s bombastic lauding of Salmond, together with a similarly bombastic attack on the current SNP administration:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-alex-salmond/

    You have to read quite far down to find the start of the ranting.

    Now I don’t know what to think of Murray’s court reporting. It still seems fairly fair, but I wouldn’t make any major decisions based on it. Murray is an overt supporter of Gareth Wardell in his battle with Nicola Sturgeon’s lot.

    Having said all that, I’m very grateful for your link, and I’ve read his court account from the following day. Murray has moved my current opinions, which I think would be illegal for me to relate here.
    Last edited by aqua; 19-Mar-20 at 16:53.

  8. #48

    Default

    Well, Craig Murray says he was excluded from the public gallery at the trial yesterday for possible contempt of court, which is a pity because I was enjoying his narrative.

    The jury is out. What will they decide?

    That was a rhetorical question btw.

  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aqua View Post
    The jury is out. What will they decide?
    I think they will conclude that the pittance of expenses that they are paid, is peanuts compared to ridiculous fees charged by the lawyers - BTW, in the Orcadian accent, and maybe its the same in Caithness, "Lawyer" is pronounced "Liar". Which leads nicely onto.....

    How come the lawyer representing the side that lose, isn't charged with aiding and abetting, or contempt of court? In every court case, someone must be wrong, and if lawyers take sides, then one of them must be standing there spouting utter lies. If any of the rest of us lied in court, then we could be found in contempt, or trying to pervert the course of justice. Why are losing lawyers not charged similarly? In fact, they get paid funny money for lying in court.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orkneycadian View Post
    I think they will conclude that the pittance of expenses that they are paid, is peanuts compared to ridiculous fees charged by the lawyers - BTW, in the Orcadian accent, and maybe its the same in Caithness, "Lawyer" is pronounced "Liar". Which leads nicely onto.....

    How come the lawyer representing the side that lose, isn't charged with aiding and abetting, or contempt of court? In every court case, someone must be wrong, and if lawyers take sides, then one of them must be standing there spouting utter lies. If any of the rest of us lied in court, then we could be found in contempt, or trying to pervert the course of justice. Why are losing lawyers not charged similarly? In fact, they get paid funny money for lying in court.
    I suppose within a very short time, all the lawyers would be incarcerated. Then we would have to defend ourselves. Imagine that, standing up in the dock and telling the truth and hoping a jury believed you....It would never work!

  11. #51

    Default

    Interesting analysis Orkneycadian. At first glance, itís a product of your well drilled spurtle. On second thoughts, itís an accurate description of the legal process.

    I imagine the loserís (or losersí) lawyers would claim theyíre not really lying because they canít be sure of the veracity (or lack thereof) of the testimony of their client(s).

  12. #52

    Default

    Maybe then, if lawyers looked into their potential clients a bit more when considering whether to take them on, a huge amount of time and money would be saved. For example, a driver arrested for being over the limit calls them. If the evidential breath meter at the police station has produced the required 2 print outs saying "Over the limit", then any lawyer simply says "Sorry mate, your obviously guilty of an offence - There's nothing I can do for you" as opposed to the more usual contriving of ever more implausible excuses as to why their client should not get banned. All whilst raking in astronomical fees.

  13. #53

    Default

    There may be minor mitigations in the drinking and driving case. First offence, not much over the limit, didnít expect to have to drive a sick person to A&E, etc. Ok, all but possibly the latter are poor excuses, but they should be presented in court by an experienced person who can string more than three words together without including an obscenity.

  14. #54

    Default

    The first 2 examples you give are statements of fact - The first one will be on the accused's record, the second will be data presented to the court. The latter one is the only one the court and justice system may not already know about, but surely someone could make that statement?

    I guess my example is not the best one. I guess even the most seasoned lawyer will know its futile to try and claim the accused wasn't actually out of his skull, despite what the roadside breath test, and the double evidential reading at the station said. I guess then that is why they focus on the ridiculous excuses - "M'lud, my client had been traumatised by coronavrius reports on the news, and read on the Internet that mouthwash was an effective vaccinne. So he drove to Tesco (when he eventually found out when they opened) and panic bought the entire stock, which he necked in the car park before driving home. Unfortunately, when passing Wetherspoons he felt an urge to use their toilet facilities, as the other ones were trashed. He carelessly caught his nadgers in the zip of his trousers, which explains why he was staggering a lot when the officers saw him coming out of there, go to his car and drive off, mounting the kerb on Bridge Street and demolishing a row of wheelbarrows which had been left partially blocking the pavement. Unfortunately, my client seems to have lost the receipt for all the mouthwash, and has no recollection of leaving e' Spoons. But is obviously completely innocent of the charge."

    I guess a better example would have been where 2 lawyers stand up in turn and say the exact opposite of each other, even if one is, and knows he or she is wrong. "M'lud, the CCTV footage clearly shows the accused trashing the toilets in Wick" vs "M'lud, the CCTV evidence clearly shows that the toilets were trashed by a flock of rampaging sheep, attempting to escape being butchered by novice townies". One of the latter two lawyers knows he is speaking utter rubbish, but still says it, knowing full well that the other one will win. But he, the loser still gets to name his fee.

  15. #55

    Default

    Brilliant and when's the next instalment? Is he having to deal with other trauma or is it just the pandemic that has affected him so badly? Something to read and follow now half the soaps are off!

  16. #56

    Default

    I put it to you that my client could not possibly have mounted the pavement and demolished the wheelbarrows with his car because there is always a long line of stationary vehicles parked on the double yellow lines at the aforementioned location. The aforementioned vehicles will have formed an impenetrable barrier through which my clientís car could not have passed.

  17. #57

    Default

    I guess we will have a bit more to read tomorrow, assuming the jury in Edinburgh come to their decision. Must be quite hard for them this weekend, to catch up with all thats going on in the world, without accidentally straying onto a webpage that might influence them.

    Just about every website I look at these days seems to have an image of something red and blobular, with appendages sticking out in all directions. I hear that it has caused all sorts of consternation in places like eateries, nightclubs and apparently you wouldn't want to be in a confined space such as a car with it, or it will soon try and get inside you. Nicola Sturgeon (Fulmar, please take note....) has done her best to curb its rampage, which seems to be mainly concentrated in Central Scotland, to no avail. It seems to behave as if nothing can stop it. Fortunately, it seems that alcohol is its weakness, but it has to be strong - At least 60% - At that strength, it soon enters into what has been described as a slumber, allowing potential victims to be able to escape and self isolate. But make sure that the alcohol is as strong as you can get, as it has a very high alcohol tolerance. 37.5% strength vodka simply isn't enough.

    So hopefully, there is enough about the coronavirus on the internet this weekend to keep the jurors entertained, and well away from any other discussions.

    Just as an aside, who comes up with these images? I guess they are not actual electron microscope images, but are they artists impressions? Scientists impressions? Do the scientists brief the artists?


  18. #58

    Default

    I want to go in with a good sharp pair of sewing scissors and cut all their wee tentacles off!!

  19. #59

    Default

    Yes, I can think of quite a few folk that would like to do that too.

  20. #60

    Default

    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.

Page 3 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
  •