Jump to content

lichtgilphead

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    2,696
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

lichtgilphead last won the day on December 20 2019

lichtgilphead had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,692 Excellent

About lichtgilphead

  • Rank
    First Division Superstar

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Lochgilphead
  • My Team
    Arbroath

Recent Profile Visitors

11,354 profile views
  1. Amongst all the Cummings talk, I'm not sure whether this has been reported on P'n'B. I certainally don't recall it making the 6 O'clock News or Reporting Scotland Apparently, the UK Government have reneged on £70 million of Barnet consequentials due to Scotland (and the corresponding amounts due to Wales & NI) "On May 2 the UK Government announced a £617 million extension to business grants, which it advised would generate £60 million of funding consequentials under the Barnett Formula. This was then duly committed to the Scottish Government’s Covid business response. However, the UK Government informed the Scottish Government this week that this additional funding would not now materialise, increasing the pressure on the Scottish budget. Additionally, last month £35 million of consequentials was earmarked to the Scottish Government in respect of charity support direct grant, but this was amended by the Treasury to £25 million at a later date." https://www.gov.scot/news/covid-funding-plea/
  2. My 18yo nephew in Portsmouth identifies with the "Hard Right" wing of the Tories. On the cuntishness scale of 1-10, he is a definite 12. His last 13 tweets have all supported Dominic Cummings. At times, I despair. However, as he won't have a vote in indyref2, I cannot be bothered putting him right. Surely, anyone that still supports the Tories in Scotland must now be reconsidering?
  3. During WWII, my grandfather had the front of his butcher's van strengthened. He also carried a tripod to use to hang and gut any deer he hit. Venison wasn't on the ration, so it was a lucrative sideline.
  4. I don't know about Airdrie, but Arbroath have always had reduced prices for students, unemployed & pensioners. I'm sure that they would provide reduced rate access to these groups. In addition, if streaming takes off, I'm not sure how any club can stop me having my mates round whilst I stream it onto the main living-room telly. Surely something is better than nothing?
  5. Personally, I don't get to Gayfield that often (I'm at more away games because of my location) A trip to Gayfield costs me 300 miles of diesel, 2 nights in a hotel and 2 expensive meals for 2, before I even factor in the price of a pint in Tutties & paying on the gate. £20 to have it streamed to my armchair? Count me in! I'd still rather be at Gayfield, Palmerston, Somerset, Firhill & even the sh*tehole that is the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium though...
  6. I can't help thinking that the rUK student's objections are more to do with who Salmond is, rather than what he said. Remember, the original story dates from when he was falsely accused of the various offences discussed at length on this thread. Personally, I couldn't care less about inscriptions on old monuments. If I was a student from rUK, I would be trying to get fees abolished - no matter which UK University I went to. AFAIK, it still costs the same (for a rUK student) to attend 3 years at Heriot Watt as it does to attend a similar course at most other rUK universities
  7. How many of them objected? I don't subscribe to the Times, so I can't get past the paywall.
  8. Indeed, that's why I named 3 EU locations. as counterpoint to the 3 rUK locations So, firstly, what percentage of students at Heriot Watt come from rUK & non-EU locations, and why are their views to be given greater weight than the Scottish & EU educated kids? Secondly, can you provide some proof to back up your assetion about these students being annoyed when they pass it? Is it the equivalent of the Duke of Sutherland's monument to citizens of Paraguay?
  9. Right. So being educated in an Englsh, Welsh or Northern Irish school means that your views are more important than a student educated in France, Spain or Italy? That's an *interesting* take on student diversity...
  10. Firstly, the story dates from 2019 - it's hardly new news Secondly, he article states that "the decision to remove the stone was taken after consultation with the Student Union." I assume that a majority of students supported removal? It wouldn't be very democratic, otherwise. Oh... They pulled the online poll after 24 hours. The Independent "former student John Doran added: “Such a shame to see my former student union conduct itself so horrendously on this.” Exactly how many students officially voted is unclear but one comment online suggested some 320 people had registered their views with about 60 per cent in favour of keeping the rock. It was not clear if the final results would actually be published."
  11. Come to Arbroath to watch a team in maroon play football
  12. If we adopted the English legal system, you would need 10 guilty votes (out of 12) to secure a guilty conviction. Otherwise, the jury is considered to be "hung" and usually a retrial would follow. The advantage of the Scottish system is that a hung jury is impossible. If 8 jurors think someone is guilty, that's it. Take him down! However, the absolute maximum of guilty votes in Salmond's case is 7, so even in that worst-case scenario, at least 3 not guilty/not proven voters would need to switch to guilty to secure a conviction. Do you really think that a potential retrial is a better result?
  13. Perhaps if you stopped posting nonsense, we could bring this to a close Here's the official Crown Office definition of Not Proven. It's bracketed together with "Not Guilty" https://www.copfs.gov.uk/involved-in-a-case/glossary-of-legal-terms#N Not guilty/not proven – Verdicts that mean there was not enough evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, or there were other special reasons for not finding the accused guilty. Both verdicts mean the accused will be free to leave the court and cannot be tried again for the same offence. The actual Scottish legal term for collusion is "defeating the ends of justice" Here's a link to the number of recorded offences over a number of years https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-18-03281/ Finally, the Scottish Government inquiry does specifically relate to at least one of the women. Jigsaw identification rules prevent me from posting further detail.
  14. So, the MSP's Special Inqury into the Scottish Government's botched unfair procedure used to investigate Salmond about the original allegations should be dropped in your opinion?
  15. Salmond faced 14 charges. He was formally acquitted on one charge halfway through the trial, when the prosecution chose not to lead any evidence. That left 13 charges for the jury to reach verdicts upon. Here's two quotes from The Guardian relating to the jury's verdicts (my emphasis): "A jury of eight women and five men at the high court in Edinburgh on Monday found Salmond not guilty of 12 charges of attempted rape, sexual assault and indecent assault after about six hours of deliberations. They came to the uniquely Scottish verdict of not proven on one charge of sexual assault with intent to rape, after hearing nearly nine days of evidence." "The not proven verdict on sexual assault with attempt to rape stops short of a finding of not guilty but leaves the accused innocent in the eyes of the law." So, 14 charges, one formal acquittal, 12 not guilty verdicts and one not proven verdict. As I said above, I accept the jury's finding that Salmond was innocent of all charges. Why then do you believe that "he wasn’t found innocent of all charges". Are you disputing the jury's verdicts? I'll firstly quote Salmond directly (from the same report in the Guardian that I link to above) "“As many of you will know, there was certain evidence I would like to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we weren’t able to do so. At some point that information, that fact and that evidence will see the light of day but it won’t be this day, for a very good reason,” he said. (the very good reason was the beginning of the lockdown to deal with the coronavirus epidemic) The report goes on to state that: "In pre-trial court hearings, Salmond’s defence lawyer, Gordon Jackson QC, had told Dorrian there were text messages between complainants, Scottish government officials and SNP officials that raised questions about an orchestration of some of the allegations against his client. Jackson sought to get some of that material admitted into evidence. In January he told Dorrian the defence believed “there was [a] concerted effort made by people in the government to influence this process, to get it as best they could in terms of criminal prosecution”. He alleged those efforts were motivated by revenge because Salmond had won his judicial review in January 2019, after the Scottish government admitted it had botched an internal inquiry into two sexual harassment complaints against him. One of those texts included one sent by Leslie Evans, as permanent secretary the Scottish government’s top civil servant, to another official after they lost the judicial review, which read: “We may have lost the battle, but we will win the war.” So, in summary, Salmond appears to have wanted to introduce evidence of collusion between some of the prosecution witnesses during the trial, but was not allowed to do so. He has also said that this evidence will see that light of day at some future unspecified date. If Salmond's evidence is correct, then there is a prima facie case against the alleged conspirators. You also appear to have forgotten that there is still an ongoing special inquiry by MSP's into the Scottish government’s handling of the original botched investigation into claims of sexual harassment against Alex Salmond. Salmond won a civil case, where he alleged that this investigation was unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”. The special inquiry was suspended during the course of the criminal trial, but will resume at some future unspecified time. I fully expect Salmond to raise the matter of collusion as part of this enquiry.
×
×
  • Create New...