Bairn Necessities Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Bula Bairn said: Word of mouth from the SNP WhatsApp group? Plenty of female witnesses are defending him and must have been convincing as the prosecution decided not to question most of them, hence the trial being ahead of schedule. The MSP wasn't part of that group. And salmond doesn't deny most of the sleazeball incidents happened. He just has a different take on the seriousness or the intent. If it wasn't for Me Too accumulation of evidence and women sharing experiences, Harvey Weinstein wouldn't be in prison and Salmond wouldn't be in court. Edited March 21, 2020 by Bairn Necessities 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, Bula Bairn said: Plenty of female witnesses are defending him and must have been convincing Defending him from what? That he never tried to rape or sexually assault them? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clockwork Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Maybe naively i was surprised by how much he admitted to. I thought there would be more 'all of that was made up' rebuttal Imagine your missus had to work closely with Salmond over that period . Doesn't bear thinking about . Having to go in groups of two so as not to be alone with our first minister as part of standard operating procedure. Grim. The biggest travesty in the ‘playing out’ of this court case is that the term ‘Sex Walrus’ wasn’t used in the summing up!I know this is no laughing matter but cap duly doffed to the P&B comedic master that coined that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bula Bairn Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 18 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: The MSP wasn't part of that group. And salmond doesn't deny most of the sleazeball incidents happened. He just has a different take on the seriousness or the intent. If it wasn't for Me Too accumulation of evidence and women sharing experiences, Harvey Weinstein wouldn't be in prison and Salmond wouldn't be in court. He denies all charges. Looks like the prosecution have accepted what most of the female defence witnesses have said. You know this and that's why you've randomly name checked Harvey Weinstein. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Bula Bairn said: He denies all charges. Looks like the prosecution have accepted what most of the female defence witnesses have said. You know this and that's why you've randomly name checked Harvey Weinstein. What? Denying charges doesn't mean denying behaviour. Salmond admitted to many really sleazeball antics in the course of the case. He even apologised to Woman F after one of the evenings for his behaviour. He admitted stroking the face of complainer D, a civil servant, several times as she slept beside him in a car during a visit to Hong Kong; he did so because he was trying to gently wake her up. How nice of him... The court is there to determine if the very high burden of proof of criminality has been reached. We'll see next week what they decide. Regardless of the verdict, Salmond's conduct as a man is there for all to see. Even if you entirely believe his defence and 100% accept his version of events, you're left with a disturbing pattern of behaviour from an old man with young women. Edited March 21, 2020 by Bairn Necessities 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 I have no idea what the verdicts will be, but Salmond has been outed as a sleazeball and will hopefully disappear from public view for ever. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 13 hours ago, GordonS said: If those were the only two allegations you'd have a point, but they're not. I think if the jury believe there was collusion between witnesses Moorov is obviously an irrelevance, seeing as they believe the witnesses are lying and making false accusations. But I was talking about Craig Murray's blog, and it was horseshit. Edit: to tone it down as it was much too angry and I'm trying to be less of a dick online. There is apparently a WhatsApp group where the accussers discussed the things they would later report to the police. That is obviously collusion! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Detournement said: There is apparently a WhatsApp group where the accussers discussed the things they would later report to the police. That is obviously collusion! I'm not sure you know what collusion means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, GordonS said: I'm not sure you know what collusion means. Collusion means people colluding. I don't think them discussing the allegations prior to making statements means they are being dishonest but it definitely means that the complaints can't be considered independent of each other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, Detournement said: Collusion means people colluding. I don't think them discussing the allegations prior to making statements means they are being dishonest but it definitely means that the complaints can't be considered independent of each other. You're wrong, so I'll leave it there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 I don't think so. Let's leave it there! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: I have no idea what the verdicts will be, but Salmond has been outed as a sleazeball and will hopefully disappear from public view for ever. Its a shame you can't pick people to just be better humans cos I think the movement could do with him right now... His legacy is set though. We know what he is. Edited March 21, 2020 by Bairn Necessities 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, Detournement said: Collusion means people colluding. I don't think them discussing the allegations prior to making statements means they are being dishonest but it definitely means that the complaints can't be considered independent of each other. This is just patently wrong. Its like you've learned nothing from MeToo. Person A telling Person B what happened to them in Harvey Weinstein 's bathroom isn't collusion. Person B affirming that story by giving details of their experience with Weinstein isn't collusion. Them asking Person C if they had any similar experiences also isn't collusion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: This is just patently wrong. Its like you've learned nothing from MeToo. Person A telling Person B what happened to them in Harvey Weinstein 's bathroom isn't collusion. Person B affirming that story by giving details of their experience with Weinstein isn't collusion. Them asking Person C if they had any similar experiences also isn't collusion. The Harvey Weinstein victims weren't in a WhatsApp group together discussing the allegations prior to the first complaint and the accusers also had witnesses and evidence relating to the time of the assualts. It's completely different. Edited March 21, 2020 by Detournement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 What an unpleasant tit of a man (?) you are.Ffs... What a woooooosh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said: On 19/03/2020 at 23:00, Pet Jeden said: What an unpleasant tit of a man (?) you are. Ffs... What a woooooosh Yep. I was whooshed. But if you think it's okay to call his wife "fat/auld/barren" in order to make your "in" joke, then I think you are indeed an unpleasant tit of a man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Yep. I was whooshed. But if you think it's okay to call his wife "fat/auld/barren" in order to make your "in" joke, then I think you are indeed an unpleasant tit of a man.[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Two jurors dismissed this morning for undisclosed reasons. Down to 13 now. Improves the situation for Salmond 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: Two jurors dismissed this morning for undisclosed reasons. Down to 13 now. Improves the situation for Salmond Why so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairn Necessities Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Just now, welshbairn said: Why so? You still need 8 for a guilty verdict so that now has to be 8 from13 not 8 from 15. The two who have been dismissed are by default voting for him 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.