Baxter Parp Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 6 minutes ago, Scary Bear said: Usually 30 days then scrubbed. 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. I would have expected an electronic ID system at the very least. Most civil service facilities have them these days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 Any other of you PnBers keep records of who come and go that go back more than a couple of years? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 18 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. Not everyone has to sign in and out of government buildings, usually only visitors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 (edited) On 11/03/2020 at 16:08, BawWatchin said: 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. You're right of course. We should sort this out by releasing all the prisoners and deleting the criminal records of anyone ever found guilty in a trial. Let Peter Tobin see out the remainder of his days in peace. Edited March 13, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 5 hours ago, Geez a Braco said: Alta-pete here desperate for Alex Salmond to be found guilty because of football team he supports. Indoctrinated to believe it's better for Scotland to be a non-country because he worships some Dutch King who fought pesky Roman Catholics. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 5 hours ago, Geez a Braco said: Alta-pete here desperate for Alex Salmond to be found guilty because of football team he supports. Indoctrinated to believe it's better for Scotland to be a non-country because he worships some Dutch King who fought pesky Roman Catholics. Tbf it's the last remaining piece of hope your average *** has left to cling onto this season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 34 minutes ago, Geez a Braco said: I get that, but it would have strengthened her case if she'd signed in. Allows the defence to say it didn't happen because she wasn't even there ( she hadn't signed in). "I better sign this book, it's not normal practice because it's one of my regular work stations and I'm already security cleared, but I might be involved in a high profile court case in a few years. Better safe than sorry." 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 In absolutely, no way related news to this trial, Joanna Cherry has at the last minute cancelled her surgery today. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 The women who are testifying under Woman A, B etc, how are they getting into court without being identified? Are they driven into the court grounds in a van or something, or smuggled under a blanket? Just that obviously at least two of them will be known publically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 I'm sure journos and members of the public will be aware of the identities of these women but the aren't allowed to be named publicly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: I'm sure journos and members of the public will be aware of the identities of these women but the aren't allowed to be named publicly Yes for sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 56 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: "I better sign this book, it's not normal practice because it's one of my regular work stations and I'm already security cleared, but I might be involved in a high profile court case in a few years. Better safe than sorry." "Hang on, I better ask to take a photocopy of it too in case they throw it out at the end of the year when they get a new one." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 (edited) @BawWatchin Edited March 12, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pack Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Thank f**k the Coronavirus wasn’t about when slobbery chops Salmond was kissing anything that didn’t move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Going on today’s report, if I was betting on the outcome, I’d have money on ‘toast’. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 4 hours ago, Rugster said: The women who are testifying under Woman A, B etc, how are they getting into court without being identified? Are they driven into the court grounds in a van or something, or smuggled under a blanket? Just that obviously at least two of them will be known publically. I think that, for a journalist, naming a woman who the court has specifically said shouldn't be named (even if you recognise them as they are walking into court) is a bit naughty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, The OP said: I think that, for a journalist, naming a woman who the court has specifically said shouldn't be named (even if you recognise them as they are walking into court) is a bit naughty. I think that's straight to Contempt of Court is it not? Do not pass Go, do not collect £200, etc... Edited March 12, 2020 by alta-pete spelling pedants 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, alta-pete said: I think that's straight to Contepmt of Court is it not? Do not pass Go, do not collect £200, etc... Yes indeed. Pro-Salmond psychopaths on Twitter would need to be wary too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Has to be a worry that the identities become known after the trial. The women don't deserve that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 23 minutes ago, The OP said: I think that, for a journalist, naming a woman who the court has specifically said shouldn't be named (even if you recognise them as they are walking into court) is a bit naughty. I realise that I'm just wondering how they're getting them into the courtroom with Joe Public hanging around and it being filmed etc. 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.