Alex Salmond.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Stop quoting this eye rape ffs.

Who this guy will vote for

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

8 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

2/10

I'll take that. 

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I'll take that. 

Plenty of room for improvement!

[John Lambies Doos]

Outwith the P&B politics forum and the frothing BBC, does anyone actually care about this.?

[ICTJohnboy]

10 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Outwith the P&B politics forum and the frothing BBC, does anyone actually care about this.?

 

Anyone who cares about Scottish independence.

[Gordon EF]

If you like Salmond and don't like Sturgeon - accusations against Salmond were obviously false, accusations against Sturgeon are obviously true.

If you don't like Salmond and do like Sturgeon - accusations against Salmond were obviously true, accusations against Sturgeon are obviously false.

If you don't like either of them - accusations against Salmond were obviously true, now accusations against Sturgeon are obviously true.

If you like both of them - this is all just a big mis-understanding.

If you're not bothered much either way by either of them - 

Spoiler

Have I got this right?

 

[Jamie_B]

1 hour ago, Stormzy said:

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? 

It’s his evidence, yes. He has continued to claim to have corroborating evidence and documents but is saying other forces are preventing their publication but has never really said what any of it is.

The Spectator have claimed victory in terms of their application to the High Court over the contempt order. In reality, the judge rejected what they wanted the wording of the contempt order to be and made a minor, cosmetic change to the wording of it that didn’t in any way change its effect. The judgement (published on the Scottish Courts Service website) if your interesting actually give the Spectator a very slight, politely worded kicking for the tenor of their application.

The whole situation is a total mess in which nobody comes out with any credit at all - not Salmond, not the SNP, not the other parties who seem utterly gleeful about the whole thing - including people on the committee posting stuff on Twitter about having the popcorn out. I mean, fair enough, think that in private but how are people meant to take your opinion seriously when that’s how you’re acting before you’ve even heard either witness’s evidence?

[ICTJohnboy]

Newsnight doing a meaningful probe into events involving NS and AS.

[Baxter Parp]

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.

You also make sure you comply with any existing court orders.

[sophia]

52 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

It’s his evidence, yes. He has continued to claim to have corroborating evidence and documents but is saying other forces are preventing their publication but has never really said what any of it is.

The Spectator have claimed victory in terms of their application to the High Court over the contempt order. In reality, the judge rejected what they wanted the wording of the contempt order to be and made a minor, cosmetic change to the wording of it that didn’t in any way change its effect. The judgement (published on the Scottish Courts Service website) if your interesting actually give the Spectator a very slight, politely worded kicking for the tenor of their application.

The whole situation is a total mess in which nobody comes out with any credit at all - not Salmond, not the SNP, not the other parties who seem utterly gleeful about the whole thing - including people on the committee posting stuff on Twitter about having the popcorn out. I mean, fair enough, think that in private but how are people meant to take your opinion seriously when that’s how you’re acting before you’ve even heard either witness’s evidence?

No no no, Emily Maitlis tonight said that The Spectator "won" and Fraser Nelson did nothing to disabuse her and the nation of this notion.

Are you really saying that the truth and what mainstream media will have us believe are uneasy bedfellows?

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

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. 

That's a fair summary, but for two things: Lloyd, as far as I'm aware, hasn't appeared before the committee. She submitted a written statement that can be summarised as 'wisnae me', but hasn't been questioned on any aspect of it. Wonder why.

And Salmond has not yet been fucked. If they want to beat him, they'll have to kill him.

Now sit back and wait for all the experts on here to pick apart your argument point by point... 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

35 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

2 hours ago, tirso said:

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.

You also make sure you comply with any existing court orders.

How did publishing the bits were Salmond says 'it wis Nicla' run the risk of not complying with any court orders?

Why are you comfortable with a Lord Advocate (who has already admitted malicious prosecutions) threatening an actual fuckin parliament, on an an issue in which he is personally implicated?

Two very straightforward questions there.

[lichtgilphead]

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

Leslie Evans gave all her evidence to the police and leaked it to the Record. 

 

Agree with most of your points, but I don't think that Evans is the main suspect for leaking to the Record...

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

How did publishing the bits were Salmond says 'it wis Nicla' run the risk of not complying with any court orders?

Why are you comfortable with a Lord Advocate (who has already admitted malicious prosecutions) threatening an actual fuckin parliament, on an an issue in which he is personally implicated?

Two very straightforward questions there.

The committee (as far as i'm aware) are not bound by the decision of the Crown Office and if they disagree they can take it to a judge. The Lord Advocate has no power over the committee.

Until the committe actually decide if they want to challenge a decision they are well advised to heed the legal advice of Scotland's Senior Law Officer.  It would be even more of a farce if the committee investigating the failing of procedures themselves ignored legal advice and breached a court order.

The Lord Advocate's legal advice is not binding though. For example the UK attorney general's legal advice over prorogation of parliament was thrown out by the Supreme Court. Geoffrey Cox was deemed to be talking out his arse.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Who this guy will vote for

I assume the monkey with a red rosette was aimed at me as well.

The first time I voted for the SNP was in the 2019 European election.

The last time I voted Labour was in 2007 - and that was only because it was Iain Luke.

Hardly a swift swap.

Now trot off you joyless gammon.

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

How did publishing the bits were Salmond says 'it wis Nicla' run the risk of not complying with any court orders?

How does 474 words equate to "it wis Nicla"?

1 hour ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Why are you comfortable with a Lord Advocate (who has already admitted malicious prosecutions) threatening an actual fuckin parliament, on an an issue in which he is personally implicated?

Except he's not actually implicated other than in your fevered dreams.

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The committee (as far as i'm aware) are not bound by the decision of the Crown Office and if they disagree they can take it to a judge. The Lord Advocate has no power over the committee.

Other than to threaten them with contempt of court proceedings.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Other than to threaten them with contempt of court proceedings.

His opinion is that publishing parts of the evidence violates the standing court orders therefore the committee would be in contempt of court.

It is fairly straight forward. If the committee disagree they can go to court.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

His opinion is that publishing parts of the evidence violates the standing court orders therefore the committee would be in contempt of court.
It is fairly straight forward. If the committee disagree they can go to court.
 

Exactly - the Crown Office are fulfilling their role in providing that advice.

I am increasingly frustrated by those who don't or rather choose not to understand that.

As far as I can see they are taking on board the revised ruling from the judge - if the Committee disagrees they can take it back to the judge.

Has there been any view from the Committee to the advice that the Crown Office has provided?

When we discussed the revised ruling last week I did not see anyone disagree that redaction was the likely consequence - so why the uproar that redaction has been advised?

For me, it is the only way to try and bring two conflicting positions together - Salmond can present his full evidence but the anonymity of the claimants is preserved.

The problem is there are too many prepared to throw the principle of anonymity and by implication, women's rights, under the bus - just because it suits their agenda.

For me the principle of anonymity it far more important than any petty political squabble.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

35 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Exactly - the Crown Office are fulfilling their role in providing that advice.

I am increasingly frustrated by those who don't or rather choose not to understand that.

As far as I can see they are taking on board the revised ruling from the judge - if the Committee disagrees they can take it back to the judge.

Has there been any view from the Committee to the advice that the Crown Office has provided?

When we discussed the revised ruling last week I did not see anyone disagree that redaction was the likely consequence - so why the uproar that redaction has been advised?

For me, it is the only way to try and bring two conflicting positions together - Salmond can present his full evidence but the anonymity of the claimants is preserved.

The problem is there are too many prepared to throw the principle of anonymity and by implication, women's rights, under the bus - just because it suits their agenda.

For me the principle of anonymity it far more important than any petty political squabble.

I’d like to apologise to BobMaHelp for calling him a fuckin idiot earlier on.

On reflection, having read the above post, I think you should be nominated for a Nobel prize.