Savage Henry Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 Legal process must be followed. The ducking stool first, if they drown their innocent. If they survive, feel free to burn them.If they drown, they were an SNP member. If they float, they must be Tories. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, BawWatchin said: Problem is, we'll never know whether he truly is or not, regardless of the verdict. He really is a marmite figure. I do wonder if it’s possible for a public figure who is quite so popular with one side of a political debate and unpopular with another to get a fair trial from members of the general public. Everyone has bias. I suppose that works both ways. Maybe the women who have come forward could claim the same thing if it doesn’t go in their favour. The defence seem to be taking the ‘your name wasn’t in the sign-in book / there was no dinner that night’ approach, but Eck doesn’t seem the type to be signing books. So, that defence wouldn’t stand up with me. I think it’ll come down to a who do you believe and if there are multiple women he’s up against it unless the building staff provide alternative evidence. Edited March 11, 2020 by Scary Bear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 I quite like the BBC headline debate. Maybe worth looking at each and scoring whether they are in favour of prosecution or defence given that they could be written either way. Day 1 - Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' is a definite goal for the prosecution. Day 2 - 'Alex Salmond trial witness denies making up allegations' I would suggest this favours prosecution too. If written the same way as Day 1 it could've said something like "Alex Salmond trial witness "made up" allegations and "wasn't in Bute House" on night of the incident. Prosecution 2-0 Defence. Granny's on! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) I wonder if Swiss Tony will mention the trial at tomorrow's FMQ's, no doubt he will be in a gloat over it and still hurting from Nicola's jibe of him being a failed used car salesman . Edited March 11, 2020 by SandyCromarty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 I quite like the BBC headline debate. Maybe worth looking at each and scoring whether they are in favour of prosecution or defence given that they could be written either way. Day 1 - Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' is a definite goal for the prosecution. Day 2 - 'Alex Salmond trial witness denies making up allegations' I would suggest this favours prosecution too. If written the same way as Day 1 it could've said something like "Alex Salmond trial witness "made up" allegations and "wasn't in Bute House" on night of the incident. Prosecution 2-0 Defence. Granny's on!If the first implies bias in favour of the prosecution (and it doesn’t to anyone who can read inverted commas), the second is surely in favour of the defence, as it implies the possibility that the woman in question is lying.Of course, as somebody pointed out earlier, it may just be the ebb and flow of a court case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 11 minutes ago, Double Jack D said: I quite like the BBC headline debate. Maybe worth looking at each and scoring whether they are in favour of prosecution or defence given that they could be written either way. Day 1 - Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' is a definite goal for the prosecution. Day 2 - 'Alex Salmond trial witness denies making up allegations' I would suggest this favours prosecution too. If written the same way as Day 1 it could've said something like "Alex Salmond trial witness "made up" allegations and "wasn't in Bute House" on night of the incident. Prosecution 2-0 Defence. Granny's on! Scottish edition of Indy... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, Savage Henry said: If the first implies bias in favour of the prosecution (and it doesn’t to anyone who can read inverted commas), the second is surely in favour of the defence, as it implies the possibility that the woman in question is lying. Of course, as somebody pointed out earlier, it may just be the ebb and flow of a court case. Disagree. 2nd headline emphasises that it has been denied. Happy with the goal for the prosecution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Scottish edition of Indy... Thats a better headline. Surely it's a matter of fact whether she was there or not.... Surely Bute House is a secure enough place that the presence of an individual is easily proved? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Double Jack D said: Thats a better headline. Surely it's a matter of fact whether she was there or not.... Surely Bute House is a secure enough place that the presence of an individual is easily proved? I'd have thought so too, CCTV by the doors at least. Maybe it's regularly scrubbed. Think she said you don't have to sign in if security recognises you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 I think the real question is if any of these headlines were written by women. Only then will we know if this is part of a feminist conspiracy or not... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 I'd have thought so too, CCTV by the doors at least. Maybe it's regularly scrubbed. Think she said you don't have to sign in if security recognises you.If we’re talking years back then theres next to no chance of it being retained. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 I wouldn't read too much in to the headlines just yet. The prosecution is still making its case so the headlines will all have this slant. Then it'll be the defence's go and the headlines will reflect that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 Bit of a weird defence strategy, switching from she wasn't there to she was gagging for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 12 hours ago, BawWatchin said: Problem is, we'll never know whether he truly is or not, regardless of the verdict. Jesus fucking Christ. There's been some amount of shite written on this site in the last few days, from DAFC on the Coronavirus thread to this absolute walloper here. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 [emoji102]Could it be...a certain QC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 24 minutes ago, NewBornBairn said: Jesus fucking Christ. There's been some amount of shite written on this site in the last few days, from DAFC on the Coronavirus thread to this absolute walloper here. Yeah, because verdicts are indisputable right enough. They can't prove it definitively. But if they say it did or didn't happen, it should just be blindly accepted by everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 22 minutes ago, SweeperDee said: Could it be...a certain QC? Wouldn't like to speculate. Just didn't expect to see that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 4 hours ago, Double Jack D said: I quite like the BBC headline debate. Maybe worth looking at each and scoring whether they are in favour of prosecution or defence given that they could be written either way. Day 1 - Woman 'humiliated' after Alex Salmond 'lay on her naked' is a definite goal for the prosecution. Day 2 - 'Alex Salmond trial witness denies making up allegations' I would suggest this favours prosecution too. If written the same way as Day 1 it could've said something like "Alex Salmond trial witness "made up" allegations and "wasn't in Bute House" on night of the incident. Prosecution 2-0 Defence. Granny's on! Day 3 - Alex Salmond trial: Woman claims former first minister gave her 'very sloppy' kisses 3-0. To be fair, I'm not sure how this could be written differently . Perhaps 'Woman claims Salmond would always greet her with a kiss' doesn't a headline make.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 8 hours ago, welshbairn said: I'd have thought so too, CCTV by the doors at least. Maybe it's regularly scrubbed. Think she said you don't have to sign in if security recognises you. Usually 30 days then scrubbed. 7 hours ago, Geez a Braco said: Rather convenient that she didn't sign in or sign out. If she didn't sign in then boot her out of court. You would have thought there is a sign in book for civil servants and the likes for official meetings. Whether there was for Salmond‘s personal guests and hingers-on is anyone’s guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.