Jump to content

Nipper Salmond


RadgerTheBadger

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

It's an old running joke on the politics forum.

Alex Salmond is wrong about <<any topic>> because he's fat and has an old barren wife.

But you knew that, didn't you.

I didn't. But, as I don't like the idea of her being collateral in a joke about Salmond, I don't feel too bad about being snippy with John.

Edited by Pet Jeden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

I didn't. But, as I don't like the idea of her being collateral in a joke about Salmond, I don't feel too bad about being snippy with John.

Ok, fair enough.

But I still maintain that it's been a common enough joke on P'n'B over the years.

"Well Mr Mankyjacket, can you expand on your economic reasons why we should all vote No?"

"Of çourse!

Firstly, Alex Salmond is fat and has an old wife. Secondly we Scots are incapable of governing ourselves. Thirdly, we are too wee, too poor and too stupid.

Thank you for that incisive question, Sarah Smith"

"Thank you, Mankyjacket. See you soon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Geez a Braco said:

Reading through the Craig Murray case you have to presume all of this is absolute bullshit.   

It's a whatsapp group of social climbers, and liars.    

Credit to the defence witnesses who are interested in justice.  

Craig Murray is far from impartial here. And an absolute crazy person. 

Going to be an interesting verdict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said:

Craig Murray is far from impartial here. And an absolute crazy person. 

Going to be an interesting verdict. 

It's impossible to tell from twitter reporting how convincing the witness were, but think it could be close, maybe even not proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bairn Necessities said:

Craig Murray is far from impartial here. And an absolute crazy person. 

Going to be an interesting verdict. 

Craig Murray is the patron saint of the honey-crusted nut bar wing of the indy side. I read his blog this week for the first time in ages, he showed that he doesn't understand Moorov, corroboration, witnesses, evidence, law, thinking or words. He's their equivalent of that terrible history lady for unionists. 

I'm sure everyone on all sides will accept the jury's decision as they were in the room throughout and we only got our information through reports that were often carefully curated to ensure identification of witnesses wasn't possible. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

I previously thought he was screwed, but having read reports over the last few days I'll now be surprised if he is convicted. They are only reports and I haven't been in the courtroom, mind. 

My guess is he'll be convicted on at least some of the charges, if not all. But juries are unpredictable and none of us really know what it was like to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

I previously thought he was screwed, but having read reports over the last few days I'll now be surprised if he is convicted. They are only reports and I haven't been in the courtroom, mind. 

I thought that was what he was accused of trying to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Craig Murray is the patron saint of the honey-crusted nut bar wing of the indy side. I read his blog this week for the first time in ages, he showed that he doesn't understand Moorov, corroboration, witnesses, evidence, law, thinking or words. He's their equivalent of that terrible history lady for unionists. 

I'm sure everyone on all sides will accept the jury's decision as they were in the room throughout and we only got our information through reports that were often carefully curated to ensure identification of witnesses wasn't possible. Right?

I probably harshly assume all British government civil servants are fucking useless based on this absolute loonball ever reaching a minor ambassadorial role 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

Craig Murray is the patron saint of the honey-crusted nut bar wing of the indy side. I read his blog this week for the first time in ages, he showed that he doesn't understand Moorov, corroboration, witnesses, evidence, law, thinking or words. He's their equivalent of that terrible history lady for unionists. 

I'm sure everyone on all sides will accept the jury's decision as they were in the room throughout and we only got our information through reports that were often carefully curated to ensure identification of witnesses wasn't possible. Right?

Surely his point that the accusers colluded prior to making statements hence Moorov can't apply is a good one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Detournement said:

Surely his point that the accusers colluded prior to making statements hence Moorov can't apply is a good one?

No, it's complete bollocks. The jury are entitled to conclude that they did not collude, in which case Moorov applies. The fact that some of them contacted each other is not evidence of collusion. And not all of them were in contact with each other before describing their experience to someone else.

If Craig Murray had an interest in accuracy he could have asked any experienced criminal defence lawyer who would have told him that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...