Alex Salmond.

[kiddy]

9 minutes ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Is some c**t no deid yet?

Hey! BRALT for that.

[Billy Jean King]

Absolutely, by taking over the investigation they're intervening in that exact way.  That's the point.

The point is Salmond is claiming that WASN'T the case though. He maintains that they continued digging in an attempt to influence the investigation. That simply would not be tolerated by the investigating officers.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Tfw the blockbuster evidence turns out to be a damp squib.

[roman_bairn]

I get the comments re ‘damp squid’. But the reason for this is that all the ‘evidence’ has been suppressed.
I think the closing comments and suggestion by Salmond that the committee engage the Scotland Act to summon his own solicitors to give evidence is probably the potential blockbuster of the last 6 hours...

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Absolutely, by taking over the investigation they're intervening in that exact way.  That's the point.

What seems to be a real issue is that the COFPS and Police Scotland disagreed about prosecuting - ultimately it was a decision for the COFPS - they are the ones with the legal expertise not Police Scotland to judge whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed. It is not the first time or the last where someone accused of a sex-related offence has been found not guilty (or not proven)

Part of me wonders what would happened if it had been another senior politician - my gut tells me they would have still investigated then prosecuted.

[Billy Jean King]

Tfw the blockbuster evidence turns out to be a damp squib.

Absolutely nothing new just reiterating what everyone already knew. He has had his day in the spotlight but it really produced nothing of note just more of the same bluster. He claims correctly to have held his tongue for a year but somehow in that time he's managed to come up with eh...the exact same story he was peddling prior to his silence.

[alta-pete]

2 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I get the comments re ‘damp squid’. But the reason for this is that all the ‘evidence’ has been suppressed.
I think the closing comments and suggestion by Salmond that the committee engage the Scotland Act to summon his own solicitors to give evidence is probably the potential blockbuster of the last 6 hours...

Well I’ve never met a dry one...

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, roman_bairn said:

I get the comments re ‘damp squid’. But the reason for this is that all the ‘evidence’ has been suppressed.
I think the closing comments and suggestion by Salmond that the committee engage the Scotland Act to summon his own solicitors to give evidence is probably the potential blockbuster of the last 6 hours...

Blockbuster of shiteness.

And it isn't clear that his lawyers could actually legally submit that evidence anymore than Salmond could.

Invoking the Scotland Act does not get around a court order. So anything that Salmond's lawyers have that is submittable could already have been given to the committee and published. Anything that is barred would still be barred.

[renton]

1 minute ago, alta-pete said:

Well I’ve never met a dry one...

Fry it longer?

[roman_bairn]

Well I’ve never met a dry one...

Bloody autotype...

[D Angelo Barksdale]

 

[tirso]

19 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

Rocks and hard place come to mind.

Any attempt to downplay a complaint would have been met with equal hysterical reaction from the opposition politicians.

Even Salmond does not think there was a conspiracy involving Sturgeon.

 

Agreed she was in a hard position politically but it looks like she has covered up when she knew to protect herself from difficult questions.  Unless you believe she was not told by her civil service for 4 months which I think stretches credulity.    

I really like Sturgeon and I'm sure she'll come out fighting but there is hard circumstantial evidence of a cover up of a cock up at best.  There's clear evidence of her civil service acting badly in the Judicial review at her direction.  The whole thing about arbitration not being originally included in a policy is a fair point to raise; it isn't asking for a sweep under which is how she's tried to charactarise it (and how I saw it until today).

it might be a damp squib to most but there's enough in there for me to think less of the civil service and Sturgeon.  I'm looking forward to her side of the story.  I also think anyone trying to portray this as a loony Salmond conspiracy story just needs to watch the committee.  He's been very adroit and evidence based.  it would be churlish to say otherwise.

Apart from this actual matter, I did hope Sturgeon was above simple and obvious lying.  I know that's probably too high a hope for any politician though!

Edited February 26, 2021 by tirso

[tirso]

24 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

32 minutes ago, tirso said:

It's not really all tinfoil hat though is it?  There are some serious credibility gaps in the FMs side of events.  That's important to me anyway..
I also think all of this started with a complaint, lets' be real here.  That's not made up.  This isn't turmpian bravado from Salmond here, there's documentation and series of events worth considering.  
All this "does the public care" stuff?  possibly accurate but it's a tired and weak argument.

It all going to be "he said, she said" at the end of this both will have provided "evidence " that their version of events is correct.

If this was done half properly Salmond shouldn't have a leg to stand on.   The fact he does tells us something.

[Billy Jean King]

Agreed she was in a hard position politically but it looks like she has covered up when she knew to protect herself from difficult questions.  Unless you believe she was not told by her civil service for 4 months which I think stretches credulity.    
I really like Sturgeon and I'm sure she'll come out fighting but there is hard circumstantial evidence of a cover up of a cock up at best.  There's clear evidence of her civil service acting badly in the Judicial review at her direction.  The whole thing about arbitration not being originally included in a policy is a fair point to raise; it isn't asking for a sweep under which is how she's tried to charactarise it (and how I saw it until today).
it might be a damp squib to most but there's enough in there for me to think less of the civil service and Sturgeon.  I'm looking forward to her side of the story.  I also think anyone trying to portray this as a loony Salmond conspiracy story just needs to watch the committee.  He's been very adroit and evidence based.  it would be churlish to say otherwise.
Apart from this actual matter, I did hope Sturgeon was above simple and obvious lying.  I know that's probably too high a hope for any politician though!

It's a moot point about arbitration specific to his case. He was accused of attempted rape (two counts) ffs, you can't arbitrate in a case of that gravity whether the organisations complaints policy allows for it or not.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 hours ago, paranoid android said:

Someone went for a shite during the break - that was quite interesting, tbf. 

Did they leave their microphone on?

[diegomarahenry]

7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

What seems to be a real issue is that the COFPS and Police Scotland disagreed about prosecuting - ultimately it was a decision for the COFPS - they are the ones with the legal expertise not Police Scotland to judge whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed. It is not the first time or the last where someone accused of a sex-related offence has been found not guilty (or not proven)

Part of me wonders what would happened if it had been another senior politician - my gut tells me they would have still prosecuted.

It was, or maybe still is the case, post Saville, that any allegations of a sexual nature are treated as fact in Scotland and he would be charged by police regardless of evidence. It is then up to the crown to prove it based on evidence the police provide, which includes if the potential crime was corroborated or not. 

So you could claim that you were touched up, you tell your pal you were touched up at the time and go to the Police and give statements. This would be enough to have the alleged perpetrator arrested and charged. 

 

[Granny Danger]

40 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

I almost feel sorry for yoons and tinfoil hatters. They were SO looking forward to this

I wouldn’t get too smug.  The MSM has one objective imo, to ensure support in the May elections for pro Independence/second Referendum parties is below 50%.  I don’t think they will achieve that but we’ve not seen the depths they will sink to or the lies they will tell yet.

I never thought the biggest impediment to securing a second Referendum and the likelihood of a YES vote would be Alex Salmond but that is how it is looking at the moment.

Whatever side of the debate you’re on, if Salmond achieves his end he will go down as one of the most reviled individuals in modern political history.  And rightly so.

 

[Boo Khaki]

Nice of the committee to unwittingly give away the identity of yet another of the complainants today.  

[diegomarahenry]

11 minutes ago, tirso said:

Agreed she was in a hard position politically but it looks like she has covered up when she knew to protect herself from difficult questions.  Unless you believe she was not told by her civil service for 4 months which I think stretches credulity.    

I really like Sturgeon and I'm sure she'll come out fighting but there is hard circumstantial evidence of a cover up of a cock up at best.  There's clear evidence of her civil service acting badly in the Judicial review at her direction.  The whole thing about arbitration not being originally included in a policy is a fair point to raise; it isn't asking for a sweep under which is how she's tried to charactarise it (and how I saw it until today).

it might be a damp squib to most but there's enough in there for me to think less of the civil service and Sturgeon.  I'm looking forward to her side of the story.  I also think anyone trying to portray this as a loony Salmond conspiracy story just needs to watch the committee.  He's been very adroit and evidence based.  it would be churlish to say otherwise.

Apart from this actual matter, I did hope Sturgeon was above simple and obvious lying.  I know that's probably too high a hope for any politician though!

Unless she distanced herself from the whole thing due to her relationship with Salmond, left it to Evans to deal with and she has made a complete James Hunt of it, I can't see how she will come out of this without sacking 4-5 folk including her husband. 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

42 minutes ago, tirso said:

It's not really all tinfoil hat though is it?  There are some serious credibility gaps in the FMs side of events.  That's important to me anyway..

I also think all of this started with a complaint, lets' be real here.  That's not made up.  This isn't turmpian bravado from Salmond here, there's documentation and series of events worth considering.  

All this "does the public care" stuff?  possibly accurate but it's a tired and weak argument.

I think we all have to recognise that from start to finish, this whole shambles was handled appallingly by the civil service and Scottish government. 

Does that mean that there was a deliberate conspiracy or illegal behaviour from the First Minister ? 

I'm afraid that nothing presented so far would suggest this.