Alex Salmond.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Salmond backs out again.

 

[Granny Danger]

Salmond explaining what this whole exercise is really about.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Granny Danger

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Stop quoting this eye rape ffs.

[Detournement]

14 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

Shat it

The Crown Office (which is ran by a member of Sturgeon's cabinet) banned him from presenting evidence that a judge cleared. How they have the power to do this is beyond me. 

It's tinpot stuff and he is right not to attend unless he can present his full case. 

[wastecoatwilly]

It's nearly the time for Salmond to swim up the river.

[Chapelhall chap]

9 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I

Seems odd that the Lord Advocate is in the cabinet?

I think this is not the current position . He is an ex-officio, who can be invited to the cabinet and speak to Parliament as Lord Advocate. I could be wrong but I think it changed in 2007-it used to be pre devolution that the post by convention gave you a place in the Lords.

[Jamie_B]

2 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I won't claim to have followed this particularly closely now that it has descended into process based legal stuff but my general take on it at the moment is that while there is a lot about the whole situation that is tinpot we're basically at the stage where if you're going to take Salmond at face value you have to buy into the notion that Nicola Sturgeon and a cast of thousands at the top of the SNP, the civil service and legal system conspired maliciously to jail salmond, for motives that have never been explained. And now the same conspiracy has reached the crown office etc who are doing the bidding of these people. Which isn't credible to me. The stuff about the Lord Advocate being the law officer in the cabinet in particular elicits a 'so what' from me.

The alternative and much more likely explanation being that Salmond is deliberately acting the c**t because Sturgeon refused to make it go away/seems to believe the complainers.

Exactly my take on it. I can’t begin to understand so much about the whole thing. What was Sturgeon supposed to be gaining by lying about knowing about the situation on one day or three days later? I still can’t comprehend half of it and I’m generally a pretty avid follower of politics.

The other two things that strike me are a) Salmond keeps pulling out or refusing to testify at every given opportunity claiming he’s being silenced even though he’s been told he can basically say what he wants. He also claims to have hard evidence but that it’s just that some dark forces are preventing him publishing it. This all seems highly suspect. And secondly, most of the people who are actively screaming about the whole thing and basically taking Salmond’s side (and who in the end will want us to believe the current FM conspired against him and need sacking) are people who would have wanted you to believe every word that came out of his word was a lie when he was First Minister.

[tirso]

1 minute ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

Exactly my take on it. I can’t begin to understand so much about the whole thing. What was Sturgeon supposed to be gaining by lying about knowing about the situation on one day or three days later? I still can’t comprehend half of it and I’m generally a pretty avid follower of politics.

The other two things that strike me are a) Salmond keeps pulling out or refusing to testify at every given opportunity claiming he’s being silenced even though he’s been told he can basically say what he wants. He also claims to have hard evidence but that it’s just that some dark forces are preventing him publishing it. This all seems highly suspect. And secondly, most of the people who are actively screaming about the whole thing and basically taking Salmond’s side (and who in the end will want us to believe the current FM conspired against him and need sacking) are people who would have wanted you to believe every word that came out of his word was a lie when he was First Minister.

I actually take a similar view on the whole thing but to say Salmond has been told he can say what he wants is stretching it.  He's had his available evidence changed the day before he's due to give evidence. This despite being given assurances and being already heavily lawyered.  In any case this would be a disgrace.  It's a disgrace whether I believe him or not.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

Exactly my take on it. I can’t begin to understand so much about the whole thing. What was Sturgeon supposed to be gaining by lying about knowing about the situation on one day or three days later? I still can’t comprehend half of it and I’m generally a pretty avid follower of politics.

The other two things that strike me are a) Salmond keeps pulling out or refusing to testify at every given opportunity claiming he’s being silenced even though he’s been told he can basically say what he wants. He also claims to have hard evidence but that it’s just that some dark forces are preventing him publishing it. This all seems highly suspect. And secondly, most of the people who are actively screaming about the whole thing and basically taking Salmond’s side (and who in the end will want us to believe the current FM conspired against him and need sacking) are people who would have wanted you to believe every word that came out of his word was a lie when he was First Minister.

It definitely does seem suspect, that's the whole point. What he says cant be used as evidence if not submitted, he submitted it, they redacted it meaning he cant use his actual evidence unless it is a redacted version, of course he wouldnt bother.

Also to the poster that said thousands would have to be involved, that's not true at all, their involvement comes from them blindly believing the Salmond accusations, not that they were all actively hiding information. 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

56 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The Crown Office (which is ran by a member of Sturgeon's cabinet) banned him from presenting evidence that a judge cleared. How they have the power to do this is beyond me. 

It's tinpot stuff and he is right not to attend unless he can present his full case. 

He's not a 'member of Sturgeon's cabinet' though, is he. Certainly not in perjorative sense that you and others are giving to it. 

This is getting beyond parody. The boy Ronaldo above sums it up, If we're to believe Salmond, the First Minister and her husband, the Scottish government, the whole civil service, the Crown service, all these women accusers and the Advocate General....a respected and accomplished lawyer....are all conspiring against him in some machiavellian plot to what ? Send him to jail, for some unknown reason. 

If he has hard evidence....not just his opinion...Salmond needs to stand up, present it to the committee, and let it be scrutinised and questioned.  If he can't do that, he can shut the f**k up. 

And at the same time, those such as Murdo Fraser, who have already signed, sealed and delivered the death penalty on Nicola Sturgeon (aka The Flanders Pigeon Murderer) need to display some kind of adult integrity instead of using the occassion as a daily mouthpiece to attack the SNP. 

 

 

[tirso]

Whatever your opinion of Salmond the lead up to him giving evidence has been a total embarrassment from committee to Parliament.  If you want justice you give all sides a fair hearing and allow them time to consider their case.  Running around making these sorts of omissions at this hour is in noones interest and it should not be characterised as running away.  Absolute shambles.

Edited February 23, 2021 by tirso

[Jamie_B]

8 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

It definitely does seem suspect, that's the whole point. What he says cant be used as evidence if not submitted, he submitted it, they redacted it meaning he cant use his actual evidence unless it is a redacted version, of course he wouldnt bother.

Also to the poster that said thousands would have to be involved, that's not true at all, their involvement comes from them blindly believing the Salmond accusations, not that they were all actively hiding information. 

What he submitted isn’t evidence though. It’s his interpretation of events in the form of a written submission. From what I understand of it the redactions don’t stop the committee from considering what he has written - it’s just that they can’t publish it in full in case it tends to aid in identifying the complainers in a criminal case. He was also told he can make a statement on basically whatever he wants at the outset of his evidence.

[SweeperDee]

Anyone willing to take up a £100 charity bet that Salmond will come out of this looking like an arsehole and Sturgeon will cigar it in the upcoming elections with unprecedented popularity?

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

He's not a 'member of Sturgeon's cabinet' though, is he. Certainly not in perjorative sense that you and others are giving to it. 

This is getting beyond parody. The boy Ronaldo above sums it up, If we're to believe Salmond, the First Minister and her husband, the Scottish government, the whole civil service, the Crown service, all these women accusers and the Advocate General....a respected and accomplished lawyer....are all conspiring against him in some machiavellian plot to what ? Send him to jail, for some unknown reason. 

If he has hard evidence....not just his opinion...Salmond needs to stand up, present it to the committee, and let it be scrutinised and questioned.  If he can't do that, he can shut the f**k up. 

And at the same time, those such as Murdo Fraser, who have already signed, sealed and delivered the death penalty on Nicola Sturgeon (aka The Flanders Pigeon Murderer) need to display some kind of adult integrity instead of using the occassion as a daily mouthpiece to attack the SNP. 

 

 

This is so purposefully naive..

They weren't all actively directly and consciously involved in a conspiracy, what's allegedly happened is an accusation of Salmond has happened, this has then been over egged purposefully with the full weight of the party, people did so without having the satisfactory evidence but just joined in the witch hunt without necessarily realising the extent in which Nicola and her husband had actively attempted to make political gain of the matter and seemingly plumped up the story. 

The issue with the crown service is of course based around the position and the closeness to the party. (I don't necessarily think this is dodgy tbf? There could have been some sound legal advice that we dont know about)

 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

What he submitted isn’t evidence though. It’s his interpretation of events in the form of a written submission. From what I understand of it the redactions don’t stop the committee from considering what he has written - it’s just that they can’t publish it in full in case it tends to aid in identifying the complainers in a criminal case. He was also told he can make a statement on basically whatever he wants at the outset of his evidence.

His interpretation of events if believed would very well constitute as evidence surely.. 

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but didn't the Spectator win a court battle relating to the idea this being published would categorically not identify the complainers? 

[SANTAN]

3 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

Anyone willing to take up a £100 charity bet that Salmond will come out of this looking like an arsehole and Sturgeon will cigar it in the upcoming elections with unprecedented popularity?

Salmond always looks like an arsehole. This is rigged. 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

This is so purposefully naive..

They weren't all actively directly and consciously involved in a conspiracy, what's allegedly happened is an accusation of Salmond has happened, this has then been over egged purposefully with the full weight of the party, people did so without having the satisfactory evidence but just joined in the witch hunt without necessarily realising the extent in which Nicola and her husband had actively attempted to make political gain of the matter and seemingly plumped up the story. 

The issue with the crown service is of course based around the position and the closeness to the party. (I don't necessarily think this is dodgy tbf? There could have been some sound legal advice that we dont know about)

 

That seems to me to be the other side of the 'purposefully naive' coin, to be honest. 

 

[Detournement]

35 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I won't claim to have followed this particularly closely now that it has descended into process based legal stuff but my general take on it at the moment is that while there is a lot about the whole situation that is tinpot we're basically at the stage where if you're going to take Salmond at face value you have to buy into the notion that Nicola Sturgeon and a cast of thousands at the top of the SNP, the civil service and legal system conspired maliciously to jail salmond, for motives that have never been explained. And now the same conspiracy has reached the crown office etc who are doing the bidding of these people. Which isn't credible to me. The stuff about the Lord Advocate being the law officer in the cabinet in particular elicits a 'so what' from me.

The alternative and much more likely explanation being that Salmond is deliberately acting the c**t because Sturgeon refused to make it go away/seems to believe the complainers.

I don't think they set out to jail him just smear him enough through the Civil Service procedures that he would be finished as a public figure. That obviously went tits up and the choice became a criminal complaint or the end of some high profile and highly paid careers. Also remember that the accusers didn't decide to go the police, Leslie Evans gave all her evidence to the police and leaked it to the Record. 

We have now seen the following

(I) An illegal civil service investigation into Salmond as judged by Court of Session

(II) Women who were involved in administering the investigation later filing their own complaints about historic incidents despite participating as impartial officials. 

(III) Multiple eye witnesses at the trial saying that the allegations did not happen. The woman at the dinner, the line manager and a senior SNP official all categorically stated that incidents the accusers said they witnessed did not happen. This almost caused the trial to collapse.

(IV) The BBC producing a documentary that omitted all the evidence that caused Salmond to walk free. 

(V) The leaked messages showing that SNP officials were willing to conspire with the Police to create evidence against Salmond.

(VI) Police Scotland stating that they believed the revised Civil Service code was designed specifically to ensnare Salmond and advising against it's implementation. Whitehall also advised against it. 

(VII) Sturgeon claiming she knew nothing about this despite her senior civil servants and husband being involved in it for months. Also Sturgeon extending the contract of Leslie Evans who was found to have acted illegally by the CoS

(VIII) The hostile performances from Murrell, McKinnon, Evans and Lloyd at the committee.

(IX) The ongoing attempts to stop Salmond appearing and the delays in Sturgeon appearing. 

All the evidence is in Salmond's favour and points to a conspiracy. Politics is a dirty business. Salmond has been fucked like Jez. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Detournement

[strichener]

7 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

As I understand it, the statement has to be redacted because of a possible breach of a court order. Legal technicalities which may, or may not, effect the proceedings. As you say, we'll see how this plays out. 

Salmond, as ever, deals only in certainties. It was ever thus. He's so absolutely certain he's correct in everything he says, he refuses to entertain the possibility that he can be wrong or mistaken. And so when people disagree with him, or something trivial like the law becomes a stumbling block, he screams 'conspiracy'. He must have been wronged, because he's always right. So how can others have a case ?

Of course, it's all grist to the mill of people like yourself. 

 

 

No the submission has been altered because of concerns from the Crown Office.  The same Crown Office that prosecuted the guy making the submission and who were in attendance at the hearing that cleared the way for the parliament to allow the submission to be published in the first instance.  Nothing to see here guv.

7 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

The most breathtaking part of it is that those directly responsible are still in post, have never at any point even been placed on temporary leave, and indeed, one of them has just received yet another vote of 'full confidence' by the FM. It beggars belief.

We have the leader of the government giving full confidence in the the person who not only wrote the flawed rules but also led the flawed investigation.  Absolutely nuts.

3 hours ago, Detournement said:

The fact that the Crown Prosecutors can order a Parliamentary committee to redact documents is Banana Republic stuff. 

It surely has to be a judge. 

That posts following this all alude to there having to be some grand conspiracy ignores the need for all the involved parties to hide their own and the collective incompetence over the entire events.

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

The Crown Office (which is ran by a member of Sturgeon's cabinet) banned him from presenting evidence that a judge cleared. How they have the power to do this is beyond me. 

It's tinpot stuff and he is right not to attend unless he can present his full case. 

After this latest twist there should be moves afoot to have an independent public enquiry into this.  It is certainly not showing either the government, civil service or Crown Office in a good light.

19 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

What he submitted isn’t evidence though. It’s his interpretation of events in the form of a written submission. From what I understand of it the redactions don’t stop the committee from considering what he has written - it’s just that they can’t publish it in full in case it tends to aid in identifying the complainers in a criminal case. He was also told he can make a statement on basically whatever he wants at the outset of his evidence.

Nothing that the committee refuse to publish can make it into the final report.  The change in the publication was not about redacting information identifying complainers but let's pretend that it makes no difference as he can say what he wants when providing oral submissions.  The reality is that he could lay out exactly the sequence of events with all the details that he can muster with this oral submission and it won't make an iota of difference to the evidence that the committee will be able to use in their final report.  That is why he is refusing to attend whilst his entire submission is not published.

There can be no sane person that can look at the events from the initial complaints through to today and think "That's a government I can support."  Of course the SNP is relying on people like @DeeTillEhDeh to just ignore the events and swap from being any monkey with a red rosette to one with a yellow one.  The entire charade is madness and Salmond is possibly the least mad and certainly the most wronged.

Edited February 23, 2021 by strichener

[SANTAN]

14 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

That seems to me to be the other side of the 'purposefully naive' coin, to be honest. 

 

2/10