# General > Politics >  Salmond disgrace

## davth

what gave Alex Salmond the right to go on national television and state that Hilary Benns father would be spinning in his grave at his sons speech.
What a horribly disgusting thing to say which is of no relevance to the debate, not to mention upsetting to the entire Benn family.

----------


## rob murray

> what gave Alex Salmond the right to go on national television and state that Hilary Benns father would be spinning in his grave at his sons speech.
> What a horribly disgusting thing to say which is of no relevance to the debate, not to mention upsetting to the entire Benn family.


TYpical Salmon, tabloid sound bite politics, all talk and no substance, his own ahem "speech" on wednesday made him sound what he is....a jumped up toon cooncilor way out his depth. In any case Benn jnr is his own man and in his own words "was not and is not a Bennite" in point of fact he wholly disasgreed with old Tony on most issues I would imagine that Tony Benn, whilst not in agreement, would have been very proud of the speech which echoed the great anti fascict speeches of the past. Given that he lost a brother fighting fascism in WW2, who knows what side he would have come down on ?? Of course theres politics at play here, Salmon acting as a divider, ie Labour divided over Syria so Salmon jumping in to enflame the situation for his and the lost indy causes bebefits, anything to create division and grievances thats what indy 2 merchants are at wesmtinster for.  ACtually Benn was a committed devolutionist but anti independance for Scotland

----------


## rob murray

> what gave Alex Salmond the right to go on national television and state that Hilary Benns father would be spinning in his grave at his sons speech.
> What a horribly disgusting thing to say which is of no relevance to the debate, not to mention upsetting to the entire Benn family.


  Salmond made his comments during a radio interview, backing an earlier message sent on Twitter by SNP MP George Kerevan.  His comments were denounced by Tony Benn's grand-daughter, Emily Benn, who tweeted:........................ "Mr Salmond, Your comments are both deeply offensive and simply untrue. I hope you reflect and retract them."

----------


## davth

I note he has not retracted his statement

----------


## rob murray

> I note he has not retracted his statement


Do you really expect him to ? He's said it, he cant retract it now anyway the politically world know SNP politics is always indy based and using Syrian situation for blatant political capital shows the free world what a bunch of insular myopic they truly are. But this aint a UK scenario, globally, others will see right through their tactics

----------


## rob murray

Splits in SNP : SNP colleague Stewart McDonald, the MP for Glasgow South, tweeted: “Using his father’s death to make a political point – ‘spinning in his grave’ – is repulsive.”A source close to Hilary Benn dismissed any suggestion that his father would not have been happy with his speech.
 He said: “Tony always used to say, ‘Say what you mean and mean what you say’ and that’s what Hilary did yesterday. “His father wanted him to be true to himself and Hilary is an internationalist.

----------


## bekisman

Did you read what Benn said: _"I think the truth is that the Labour Party isn't believed any more because people suspect it will say anything to get votes."_ Whoops that was TONY Benn in 1994!

----------


## rob murray

> Did you read what Benn said: _"I think the truth is that the Labour Party isn't believed any more because people suspect it will say anything to get votes."_ Whoops that was TONY Benn in 1994!


Thats Benn snr for you...

----------


## rob murray

Salmond opened his trap and let his belly rumble, but snake oil salesman cameron....his remarks on terrorist sympathisers......he never apologised so I guess  Slamons arguement will be whats good for Cameron is good for Salmon

----------


## davth

Corbyn has has close links with terrorist organisations in the past, so I think Cameron's comment was fair point.

----------


## orkneycadian

> what gave Alex Salmond the right to go on national television and state that Hilary Benns father would be spinning in his grave at his sons speech.
> What a horribly disgusting thing to say which is of no relevance to the debate, not to mention upsetting to the entire Benn family.


Thinking more about some of our ex First Ministers well publicised statements.

_"SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity_" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-sco...on-opportunity

From Wikipedia, the definition of a Generation reads;

_It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own".[1] In kinship terminology, it is a structural term designating the parent-child relationship. It is also known as biogenesis, reproduction, or procreation in the biological sciences.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
_
So conventional wisdom reckons a generation is a period of "about 30 years", as it is tied to the cycle of reproduction.  But some, our ex First Minister included, seem to be of the opinion that a generation is just 6 years long, meaning that the cycle of reproduction starts at..........  ????

Blimey, wheres the pukey emoticon when you need it.

----------


## orkneycadian

This guy back in court again; 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/107936...used-rape/amp/

SALMOND COURT DATE Alex Salmond in court accused of rape and string of sex assaults

----------


## orkneycadian

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-51206284

*Alex Salmond sex offences trial to start in March*

----------


## Gronnuck

> Thinking more about some of our ex First Ministers well publicised statements.
> 
> _"SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity_" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-sco...on-opportunity
> 
> From Wikipedia, the definition of a Generation reads;
> 
> _It can also be described as, "the average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children of their own".[1] In kinship terminology, it is a structural term designating the parent-child relationship. It is also known as biogenesis, reproduction, or procreation in the biological sciences.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation
> _
> So conventional wisdom reckons a generation is a period of "about 30 years", as it is tied to the cycle of reproduction.  But some, our ex First Minister included, seem to be of the opinion that a generation is just 6 years long, meaning that the cycle of reproduction starts at..........  ????
> ...


The phrase, “Once in a generation opportunity” was a was a rhetorical flourish and has no legal Standing - anywhere; the same as Boris Johnston's, "I'd rather be dead in a ditch."

----------


## mi16

> The phrase, “Once in a generation opportunity” was a was a rhetorical flourish and has no legal Standing - anywhere; the same as Boris Johnston's, "I'd rather be dead in a ditch."


You will note that Boris said "Id rather be dead in a ditch." at no point did he say that he would be dead in a ditch.
Perhaps the once in a generation thing was an off the cuff remark but it was not taken in that way by most, so there is a moral obligation to adhere to it.

----------


## Bystander1

Come on now, dinna be silly Mi16. We are talking about Alec Salmond/SNP here. They don't do Moral or obligation. Is this one of these oxymoron thingies ?

----------


## mi16

> Come on now, dinna be silly Mi16. We are talking about Alec Salmond/SNP here. They don't do Moral or obligation. Is this one of these oxymoron thingies ?


Innocent until proven guilty and all that but his character is most certainly questionable.
This he may have been stuck in the 1970s

----------


## orkneycadian

And what security do the women of Edinburgh, Strichen and everywhere in between get?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news...snp-court/amp/

----------


## Goodfellers

The earlier hearings cost £5,096 based on £28-per-hour PC pay.

I doubt very many pc's earn that!

----------


## orkneycadian

A general rule of thumb is that an employee costs an employer twice their wage.  £14 an hour sounds feasible.

----------


## orkneycadian

If I read it right, its a week today the trial starts?

----------


## Shabbychic

> If I read it right, its a week today the trial starts?


Well, look on the bright side.....at least you won't need any form of Sildenafil for the next couple of months. The very thought of a member of the SNP, especially Alex Salmond, being charged in court with anything that could possibly result in a custodial sentence, will be the highlight of your life.  Bet you're drooling already, eh?

----------


## orkneycadian

An unusually crass comment from you there Shabbychic. Shame on you. The real people this case is about are the alleged victims. This is the chance for them to get justice. You'll note a few posts above, my question was "what security do the victims get? "

Yesterday, we have the government saying that police may have to focus on serious crimes only.  Here we have serious allegations of crime, but a lot of police resources being wasted on security for the alleged perp.

----------


## Fulmar

Whatever one personally thinks and whatever one's prejudices, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and I for one do not want it to be any other way.

----------


## Shabbychic

> Whatever one personally thinks and whatever one's prejudices, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and I for one do not want it to be any other way.


I totally agree with you.




> An unusually crass comment from you there Shabbychic. Shame on you. The real people this case is about are the alleged victims. This is the chance for them to get justice. You'll note a few posts above, my question was "what security do the victims get? "
> 
> Yesterday, we have the government saying that police may have to focus on serious crimes only.  Here we have serious allegations of crime, but a lot of police resources being wasted on security for the alleged perp.


Oh come on. Crass you call me? That's good coming from you. Don't try and go all PC on us now. At least be honest. You don't give two hoots for the victims...it's the *alleged perp*, you have your claws out for and fine well you know it. The victims in sexual assault and rape cases are entitled to anonymity in respect to the allegations made, throughout their lifetime. So, where does your concern about their security come from?


If you are so concerned about the victims, why do you always race on here to announce proudly, when the next court appearance of AS is? Why are you always first to have a go at any SNP MP or MSP accused of anything at all? You want us to believe it's all about the victims?


Where is your outraged concern for the victims of the the Westminster paedophile rings, and all the cover-ups? Or sexual assault charges against MPs in other Parties? I'll tell you where....they don't exist.


I may not like the policies of many of the Political Parties, but I don't have the hatred you have against everyone involved with them. As individuals, I actually quite like some of them, believe it or not, even Tories, I just don't agree with their Party Policies.


So please, don't come across all high and mighty all of a sudden, your views on this forum are too well known for that.

----------


## aqua

It’ll be interesting to watch Salmond’s behaviour when cornered in the witness box. His usual form of defence in difficult political situations was to lash out at his opponents, often with unjustifiable claims or even outright lies. 

How incorrigible is he? Will he emerge as a sociopathic liar or the victim of a political or personal vendetta. I doubt it will be the latter.

----------


## orkneycadian

Does any one know (when Tesco opens) why 5 SNP ministers have, in less than a fortnight, said they will not be standing at the next election?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-51790745

*SNP minister Aileen Campbell quits for better 'work-life balance'*https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-51662942

*SNP's Gail Ross to stand down as an MSP at next election*https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-51696368

*Two leading SNP figures to step down from Holyrood*https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...es-plan-stand/

*SNP MSP James Dornan announces plan to stand down*OK, so they all have their reasons, age and work/life balance amongst them.  But 5 announcing plans in a period little more than 10 days?  When the next Scottish election is not till next year?  Thats over 8% announcing their stand-down, in less than 2 weeks.  Co-incidence?

----------


## orkneycadian

Sorry, I have missed 2.....

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18...ping-holyrood/

*Aileen Campbell is seventh SNP MSP stepping down from Holyrood*

----------


## aqua

Having betrayed her constituents over health provision in Caithness, I suspect Gail Ross wouldnt be re-elected in 2021. Did she make a genuine mistake, or did she put Party before people as others have suggested? Either way, she seems to have been more popular at Holyrood than in Caithness in recent years.

----------


## aqua

I was cringing while reading Woman H’s account of Alex Salmond’s alleged deeds on the night he is accused of attempting to rape her. I await his response.

----------


## Shabbychic

> I was cringing while reading Woman Hs account of Alex Salmonds alleged deeds on the night he is accused of attempting to rape her. I await his response.



Not going quite so smoothly for her on the *second day*. An awful lot just doesn't add up.

----------


## Bystander1

> Not going quite so smoothly for her on the *second day*. An awful lot just doesn't add up.


Must be a slot for the missing Derek MacKay at this stage, is he not the best adder up in Team Nicla ?
s

----------


## Goodfellers

I'm sure you all know, I'm no AS fan, but I do wonder about H's story. Why would you not leave the job after the 1st 'assault' or ask to be moved, or even report incident to superiors? Why put yourself in a position where you are alone with AS again? No sane person would do that.

----------


## aqua

I find the complainants’ accounts eminently believable. Whether they are the truth, the whole truth, and all that, is of course up to the jury to pronounce on. The man should get a fair trial.

----------


## aqua

> Not going quite so smoothly for her on the *second day*. An awful lot just doesn't add up.


I’m not sure I value Gareth Wardell as an unbiased or disinterested reporter, but his account here seems ok.

I don’t share your opinion of the second day’s proceedings. The defence are bound to attack the prosecution witness’s account of events. As far as I can judge, Woman H and her account of events emerged intact. She feared a powerful bully who was on the same side as her in the independence debate; she feared for her job and she didn’t want to upset the independence applecart. 

What are Gareth Wardell’s views on Salmond these days? I know he fell out big time with Nicola Sturgeon and her administration a year or so ago.

----------


## orkneycadian

At a time when gatherings over 500 are to be banned to free up emergency service resources, why on earth are there police officers standing about outside an Edinburgh courthouse who are not activity involved in escorting crims to custody?

----------


## Shabbychic

> Im not sure I value Gareth Wardell as an unbiased or disinterested reporter, but his account here seems ok.
> 
> I dont share your opinion of the second days proceedings. The defence are bound to attack the prosecution witnesss account of events. As far as I can judge, Woman H and her account of events emerged intact. She feared a powerful bully who was on the same side as her in the independence debate; she feared for her job and she didnt want to upset the independence applecart. 
> 
> What are Gareth Wardells views on Salmond these days? I know he fell out big time with Nicola Sturgeon and her administration a year or so ago.



These reports are actually by James Doleman and Philip Sim, not Gareth Wardell. I don't know his views on anybody these days, and couldn't care less.

My comment was in no way in reference to the witness's account of events, or her thought process, as I wasn't there at the time, and don't believe we are allowed to discuss that at the moment anyway. It was more to do with her dealings with SNP's Ian McCann, and the details,given to him, with the stated intention that it should be used in vetting AS to prevent him being an SNP candidate again, and his response to this. Also the fact that at least 4 of the alleged victims were in regular touch with each other and discussing their "plans".

Unlike some, I am keeping an open mind on this case, and don't have any views on whether he is guilty or not, but like yourself, I believe he is entitled to a fair trial.

----------


## orkneycadian

One thing I am gleaning from this trial is that the drinks cabinets in Bute House appear to have been very well stocked.

----------


## aqua

> These reports are actually by James Doleman and Philip Sim, not Gareth Wardell. I don't know his views on anybody these days, and couldn't care less.
> 
> My comment was in no way in reference to the witness's account of events, or her thought process, as I wasn't there at the time, and don't believe we are allowed to discuss that at the moment anyway. It was more to do with her dealings with SNP's Ian McCann, and the details,given to him, with the stated intention that it should be used in vetting AS to prevent him being an SNP candidate again, and his response to this. Also the fact that at least 4 of the alleged victims were in regular touch with each other and discussing their "plans".
> 
> Unlike some, I am keeping an open mind on this case, and don't have any views on whether he is guilty or not, but like yourself, I believe he is entitled to a fair trial.


Thanks for elaborating. I found Ian McCanns reported statement slightly disturbing. I suppose communication between the complainants could be regarded as anything between a support network and collusion in a stitch-up.

----------


## orkneycadian

Does anyone know how much of the extra tax take in Scotland,  the highest taxed part of the UK, goes on drinks for the occupants of Bute House?

----------


## aqua

I put in a freedom of information request after I read your post. The response was almost instant. They sent detailed figures for Bute Houses 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.

----------


## orkneycadian

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

----------


## Shabbychic

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

----------


## aqua

> 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.

----------


## aqua

> I was cringing while reading Woman Hs account of Alex Salmonds alleged deeds on the night he is accused of attempting to rape her. I await his response.


Alex Salmond claims Woman H wasnt at Bute House that night, so it couldnt have happened. Simples.  

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

Not so simples.

----------


## orkneycadian

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.

----------


## aqua

> 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.

----------


## aqua

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.

----------


## orkneycadian

> 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.

----------


## Goodfellers

> 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!

----------


## aqua

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

I imagine the losers (or losers) lawyers would claim theyre not really lying because they cant be sure of the veracity (or lack thereof) of the testimony of their client(s).

----------


## orkneycadian

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.

----------


## aqua

There may be minor mitigations in the drinking and driving case. First offence, not much over the limit, didnt 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.

----------


## orkneycadian

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.

----------


## Fulmar

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!

----------


## aqua

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 clients car could not have passed.

----------


## orkneycadian

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?

----------


## Fulmar

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

----------


## orkneycadian

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

----------


## orkneycadian

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.

----------


## Corky Smeek

> 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.

----------


## Fulmar

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)?

----------


## orkneycadian

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.

----------


## Oldsparky

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

----------


## The Horseman

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.

----------


## Goodfellers

> 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?

----------


## Corky Smeek

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/

----------


## Stargazer

> 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.

----------


## aqua

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.

----------


## The Horseman

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

----------


## aqua

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?

----------


## The Horseman

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!

----------


## aqua

Well, lets hope the celebritys 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?

----------


## Fulmar

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.

----------


## Oddquine

> 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.

----------


## Fulmar

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.

----------


## Oddquine

> 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.

----------


## Corky Smeek

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

Wings Over Scotland

Craig Murray

----------


## Fulmar

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.

----------


## Corky Smeek

> 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).

----------


## Fulmar

Ok, I'll take a look.

----------


## aqua

> 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?


I have since discovered that the celebrity didn’t make a personal appearance in court. Videoed evidence was shown in court instead.

----------


## aqua

> 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.


Me too. 

Jacksons behaviour on the train was unacceptable, and his comments on Salmond are telling. 

Meanwhile, Craig Murray claims the whole anti-Salmond case was a conspiracy, supported at the highest levels of the Scottish government and by MI5!

Who filmed Jackson on the train? How did they do it without being spotted? Did they use a concealed camera? Were they following or even stalking him, as some have claimed?

----------


## The Horseman

I never saw that video, but in the end....
Twelve Good Men and True found him not guilty!  Phrase coined from the 1700’s!
Pls excuse the number and I think two thirds were women!

----------


## aqua

You should watch the video: 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/salmond-s-not-a-sex-pest-says-his-lawyer-gordon-jackson-tsfb7j0gv

I accept that AS was found not guilty of attempted rape and other crimes by a jury. That doesnt imply his behaviour was acceptable. We all know workplace bullies and tactile creeps who go a touch too far without attracting criminal charges.

----------


## The Horseman

I agree, but he was discharged.....found Not Guilty.
Then find an appropriate action to take against him.
And......did he do what you are suggesting.......or was he ‘stitched up’?
Time will tell.  
Yes, people in power can be Objectionable!  Many are......

And I just read that they may be taking another ‘run’ at him!

----------


## Corky Smeek

> You should watch the video: 
> 
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/salmond-s-not-a-sex-pest-says-his-lawyer-gordon-jackson-tsfb7j0gv
> 
> I accept that AS was found not guilty of attempted rape and other crimes by a jury. That doesn’t imply his behaviour was acceptable. We all know workplace bullies and ‘tactile’ creeps who go a touch too far without attracting criminal charges.


Is that not an argument for anonymity for all in such cases? Here we are, a week after he has been cleared of all charges, and yet still the press and others are continuing with the insinuations. The fact remains, AS was cleared. Despite this his reputation has been ruined and his name continues to be dragged through the mud. 

The people charged with examining the evidence and making the decisions as to innocence or guilt did so honestly and faithfully, I am sure. These continued attempts at character assassination actually impugn the integrity of both judge and jury. Surely it is wrong to suggest any impropriety on the part of either/both, but that is what these insinuations imply.

The defendant's reputation will never recover from this despite the verdict. Yet the people whom the jury did not believe get to walk away and resume their lives.  Is it not time that we protected the identities of all concerned until innocence or guilt is established?

----------


## Gronnuck

The press, the civil servants, the politicians who continue to defame Alec Salmond are doing a sterling job of undermining the Scottish Judicial system, the Jurors and all women.  The women who made these allegations do a great disservice to the women who have a genuine case in need of prosecution.
Alec Salmond might be a bit of a creep but he’s been proven to be an innocent creep.

----------


## Fulmar

As a woman, I can't imagine how it must feel to be described in public as 'flaky' and that all the defence counsel needed to do was to put a 'smell' on her.

----------


## Oddquine

> As a woman, I can't imagine how it must feel to be described in public as 'flaky' and that all the defence counsel needed to do was to put a 'smell' on her.


As a woman, I wouldn't have had the dimwittery to put myself in the position where I could be called "flaky" or had Counsel able to put a "smell" on me.  Anyway, it isn't as if the whole world knows the identity of who was being talked about.....I certainly don't know who she is. However, even if we did know her identity, any reaction to her would be nothing compared to the effect on a person in public life who was deemed innocent but is still being traduced all over the place because she won't accept the verdict.  Where is the equality in that state of affairs?

----------


## Fulmar

From the Guardian, admittedly England and Wales but doubt it is much different in Scotland:
The figures show women are five times more likely than men to have experienced some type of sexual assault, including unwanted touching or indecent exposure, in the previous 12 months.

*England and Wales police record highest number of violent sexual crimes in EU*


Read more



The Office for National Statistics said the scale of sexual assaults against women, as measured by the crime survey, had changed little since 2005. More than 80% of victims did not report their experiences to police, the ONS said.

The vast majority of these involved unwanted touching or indecent exposure rather than rape or assault by penetration.
The figures, which come after a string of allegations against Harvey Weinstein and others, show women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual assault.
Less than 4% of men have experienced sexual assault in their adult lives, meaning women are five times more likely to have experienced it.

----------


## aqua

> Is that not an argument for anonymity for all in such cases? Here we are, a week after he has been cleared of all charges, and yet still the press and others are continuing with the insinuations. The fact remains, AS was cleared. Despite this his reputation has been ruined and his name continues to be dragged through the mud. 
> 
> The people charged with examining the evidence and making the decisions as to innocence or guilt did so honestly and faithfully, I am sure. These continued attempts at character assassination actually impugn the integrity of both judge and jury. Surely it is wrong to suggest any impropriety on the part of either/both, but that is what these insinuations imply.
> 
> The defendant's reputation will never recover from this despite the verdict. Yet the people whom the jury did not believe get to walk away and resume their lives.  Is it not time that we protected the identities of all concerned until innocence or guilt is established?


I have often thought courts should impose anonymity for those accused of sexual crimes on the basis that they’re deemed to be innocent unless they are (eventually) proved guilty (or not). On the other hand, it could be argued that there’s a big difference between the accused and the accuser. I don’t have a firm opinion at present, I’m open to persuasion in either direction. 

In legal terms, AS has been found innocent of all charges, and we must accept that decision, although I read somewhere that the jury wasn’t unanimous in any of its decisions. I speculate some jurors thought he was guilty, although it’s conceivable (but unlikely?) that all the dissenters went for ‘not proven’.

Given all we’ve heard about his behaviour, I certainly wouldn’t work for AS!

----------


## aqua

> As a woman, I can't imagine how it must feel to be described in public as 'flaky' and that all the defence counsel needed to do was to put a 'smell' on her.


Me too. 

Despite being found innocent, AS has had a smell put on him. Some would deem it a stink, some cant smell it at all, but its there, rightly or wrongly.

----------


## aqua

> From the Guardian, admittedly England and Wales but doubt it is much different in Scotland:
> The figures show women are five times more likely than men to have experienced some type of sexual assault, including unwanted touching or indecent exposure, in the previous 12 months.
> 
> *England and Wales police record highest number of violent sexual crimes in EU*
> 
> The Office for National Statistics said the scale of sexual assaults against women, as measured by the crime survey, had changed little since 2005. More than 80% of victims did not report their experiences to police, the ONS said.
> 
> The vast majority of these involved unwanted touching or indecent exposure rather than rape or assault by penetration.
> The figures, which come after a string of allegations against Harvey Weinstein and others, show women are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual assault.
> Less than 4% of men have experienced sexual assault in their adult lives, meaning women are five times more likely to have experienced it.


I find these figures surprising. I would have guessed the imbalance would be at least a factor of ten, or significantly higher than ten, and certainly not as low as five.

----------


## Corky Smeek

> Given all we’ve heard about his behaviour, I certainly wouldn’t work for AS!


In a way this is my point. Where are people hearing about his behaviour? Mostly from a MSM who had him tried and guilty before the trial even started and still guilty after it had finished.  I think the fact that the jury could not have avoided the news coverage beforehand yet still cleared him speaks volumes for the quality of evidence presented against him.

----------


## Fulmar

But he has admitted to 'behaviours', Corky that I for one find utterly repulsive, even if not criminal which I accept. Also, before all this happened and when AS was FM, I'm sorry but he came across as utterly arrogant and unpleasant in attitude and many judged him to be such in the court of public opinion. I can only go on the judgements that friends/ neighbours- whoever used to openly say. You can't change that- people will form opinions.

----------


## aqua

> In a way this is my point. Where are people hearing about his behaviour? Mostly from a MSM who had him tried and guilty before the trial even started and still guilty after it had finished.  I think the fact that the jury could not have avoided the news coverage beforehand yet still cleared him speaks volumes for the quality of evidence presented against him.


Agreed on all counts. 

A lot of the evidence was contradictory, one persons word against another persons word. Some of the accusers claims were contradicted by defence witnesses, and so on. 

Did woman H really make up the entire attempted rape accusation against AS? He says she wasnt at Bute House that night. Samantha Barber, who attended the dinner at Bute House, says she didnt see Woman H that night. So AS was found not guilty because there was no convincing evidence against him. Faced with that evidence, I think I would have made the same decision.  But I still I find it hard to understand how Woman H could have taken the witness box and told a pack of lies so convincingly. Do you think thats what she did?

----------


## Corky Smeek

Just been out for my HMG sanctioned daily exercise so a lot to catch up on.

*Fulmar*, I completely get what you say but justice is (or should be) based upon verifiable facts. We cannot condemn someone just because we don't like them. The court of public opinion should have no say when someone's liberty is at stake.  Make no mistake, AS would have probably spent the rest of his life in prison if found guilty.

If AS's admissions have been reported accurately and not spun out of all recognition by the MSM then, of course, I condemn him wholeheartedly. The problem is our media is far from impartial and will publish news in a manner that best serves its agenda. Can you be absolutely sure that your views on AS have not been coloured by what you have been presented with by a media intent upon bringing him down?  


The MSM smeared him before, during and after the trial. They have continued to paint him in the worst possible light at every opportunity. His head on a stick was what they wanted and despite not getting it their pursuit of him continues with a dogged relentlessness that I find disturbing.  Sure, the press have a role to play but surely it's not to try to get a man sent to prison.


But, let me say again. I condemn any behaviour of the type reported. My worry is, has the reporting been honest. I don't feel it has.

*Aqua*, I agree that this case has left us pondering many wider issues. It appears that AS intends to make sure his side of the story becomes public once we are free of Covid19. I get the feeling we will be hearing about the trial and its fall-out for quite some time.

As for Woman H, you wonder how she "... told a pack of lies so convincingly.".  I don't think she could have been convincing otherwise the verdict would have been different.  I have no idea what to believe about her testimony for the reasons outlined above but certainly I would not wish anything from this trial to discourage anyone coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct or worse.  My fear is that is what is going to happen and the MSM must accept a significant share of the blame for that.

----------


## The Horseman

> Agreed on all counts. 
> 
> A lot of the evidence was contradictory, one person’s word against another person’s word. Some of the accusers’ claims were contradicted by defence witnesses, and so on. 
> 
> Did woman H really make up the entire attempted rape accusation against AS? He says she wasn’t at Bute House that night. Samantha Barber, who attended the dinner at Bute House, says she didn’t see Woman H that night. So AS was found not guilty because there was no convincing evidence against him. Faced with that evidence, I think I would have made the same decision.  But I still I find it hard to understand how Woman H could have taken the witness box and told a pack of lies so convincingly. Do you think that’s what she did?


Aqua...Sent a PM..

----------


## Oddquine

> From the Guardian, admittedly England and Wales but doubt it is much different in Scotland:
> The figures show women are five times more likely than men to have experienced some type of sexual assault, including unwanted touching or indecent exposure, in the previous 12 months.
> 
> *England and Wales police record highest number of violent sexual crimes in EU*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more
> ...


And that excuses women being economical with the truth in a court of law, does it?   Really? At any rate most of the accusations were more sexual harrassment than violent sexual crimes or even sexual assault.  I don't think the women in this instance have done other women, with a geniuine case to pursue; any favours at all.

If any of them had been me, I'd have made their actions public when they occurred in public by complaining loudly,or clouted him on the face if in private, walked out and never worked with him on my own again, and/or taken it to a grievance procedure within the employment set-up and if nothing was done and I was genuinely aggrieved, I'd have, resigned and taken it to an industrial tribunal as constructive dismissal.......and only if that failed, would I even have _considered_ involving the police.  

I wonder why nine intelligent women,some of whom had seemingly been agonising over their treatment since before 2014, didn't follow the route which existed before 2018, but waited until a change in the "company" procedures was instituted and within a month of that were there chapping at an open door.

----------


## Fulmar

Your views are, as always, highly revealing. People will, of course, have their  own opinions.

----------


## The Horseman

Does anyone yet know who the Celebrity was?
It does tell how weak your Judicial System has become, when an ANON Celebrity.....person, can give evidence!
This Special allowance is given to people such as Victims of Sexual Assault...et cetera!

----------


## The Horseman

> Does anyone yet know who the Celebrity was?
> It does tell how weak your Judicial System has become, when an ANON Celebrity.....person, can give evidence!
> This Special allowance is given to people such as Victims of Sexual Assault...et cetera!


No one care to comment....or is this ‘too hot to handle’, as the Olde Movies depict.
I spoke above of ‘your Judicial System....methinks we are ‘all in the same boat’!

----------


## orkneycadian

Perhaps a freedom of information act request could be made to get details of the Bute House expenditure on vodka, ready meal stroganoffs and vatrushka in the run up to this "celebrity's" arrival?

----------

