GordonS Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, BawWatchin said: They had no evidence to convict him on. Not even a shred. They would have taken anything they could get to convict him and still couldn't. If there hadn't been a shred of evidence the case would have been dismissed before trial. That's literally how it works. I know everyone's going to express their opinions but it would help if they weren't obviously wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The DA said: Your post said the charges 'weren't proven either way'. Since 'not proven' has a very specific meaning in Scots Law, I merely clarified that only one of the charges was 'not proven'. He was found 'not guilty' of the others. There is no difference between Not Guilty and Not Proven in the law. It is a meaningless distinction. Edit: The point is that the trial is not an evaluation of whether charges were correctly brought. The trial is only to find out if someone is guilty or not of the charges. Slatherers are immediately saying since Salmond got off the women lied or the trial shouldn't have happened which is clearly nonsense. Edited March 23, 2020 by Jim McLean's Ghost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Detournement said: It's proven that the SNP had gathered together a dossier of complaints against Salmond and were basically intending to blackmail him if he attempted a comeback. Assuming you have evidence to back this up in regards to the blackmail? When you say "gathered together a dossier" do you mean they received multiple complaints? Edited March 23, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, John Lambies Doos said: We live in a democracy. Innocent until proven guilty, therefore he is innocent. People that don't accept this don't accept civilised society. That isn't what innocent until proven guilty means. It means the state cannot prejudice the person who was accused. It doesn't mean anyone else has to believe that a jury got it right or wrong, and it definitely doesn't mean that they have to believe the alleged events didn't happen. Imagine your fate hung on the opinions of 15 random people from this thread... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymlick Manouvre Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, Antlion said: Didn’t previous crackpots at least try and hide their glee at the the prospect of women having been assaulted by a former SNP leader? This one has openly admitted that he feels he and his fellows have “lost” due to the law have established that women weren’t sexually assaulted. What a clueless fool you are, can you point everyone in the direction of where I've openly admitted any support of anti rape laws ? What does "due to the law have established that women weren't sexually assaulted" mean ? Pure word salad, and stop mentioning me in the masculine tense please. -7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 23 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: This new zoomer has Malky's fingerprints all over it. It's hard to compete with BawWatchin, but he's managed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Dear old Sarah Smith on the BBC: “what we thought would be the most important trial in political history isn’t as important as we thought it would be.” I do wonder if a “guilty” verdict would have been as unimportant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: It's hard to compete with BawWatchin, but he's managed it. It would probably be easy enough to find which banned mutant wrote like ? This ? When asking ? Questions ? Edited March 23, 2020 by Antlion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: What a clueless fool you are, can you point everyone in the direction of where I've openly admitted any support of anti rape laws ? What does "due to the law have established that women weren't sexually assaulted" mean ? Pure word salad, and stop mentioning me in the masculine tense please. Are you going to provide your preferred pronouns? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 I’ve worked in a Ministerial Private Office (not FM’s) and found the consternation about Sturgeon saying she doesn’t deal with her emails amusing. Of course she doesn’t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bula Bairn Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 No surprise to anyone who was reading beyond the headlines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiGi Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 12 minutes ago, Detournement said: I've believed for a while that Sturgeon has no interest in independence. She tried to dampen it with the Growth Commission and barely mentions the issue. She is more interested in the UK being part of the EU. This is right up there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: What a clueless fool you are, can you point everyone in the direction of where I've openly admitted any support of anti rape laws ? What does "due to the law have established that women weren't sexually assaulted" mean ? Pure word salad, and stop mentioning me in the masculine tense please. I must have missed that lesson at school. (Non SNP education, at that.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Assuming you have evidence to back this up in regards to the blackmail? When you say "gathered together a dossier" do you mean they received multiple complaints? There was a portion of the trial which was only reported on by the Telegraph out of all the MSM that one of the accusers reported a sexual assualt to the head of SNP compliance who informed her that they would "sit on it" and potentially "deploy" the allegation. Clearly they intended to deploy the allegation if Salmond tried to re-enter politics. (He did and they did). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: can you point everyone in the direction of where I've openly admitted any support of anti rape laws ? So you support pro-rape laws, then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 37 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: This new zoomer has Malky's fingerprints all over it. 39 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: Can't you read properly due to your substandard SNP education ? Now you are judging me on something you don't understand. I certainly do not have to explain my politics to you and your narrow bigoted little 'Scotlander' attitude. You are the exact reason that Scotland can't become independent, start taking a bit of responsibility for your own failings instead of jumping on the NastyNat bandwagon. You have upset me so much I need to go and w**k off my dog, again. Ah, yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Detournement said: Clearly they intended to deploy the allegation if Salmond tried to re-enter politics. (He did and they did). You've got a very low standard of proof, Alex will be grateful you weren't on the jury. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, GiGi said: This is right up there. She doesn't campaign for independence. She doesn't talk about independence. Her closest political allies are unionists and one of her circle who was put forward as an SNP candidate for parliament described herself in court as a "lukewarm supporter of independence". Join the dots. She is happy managing Scotland within the UK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Oh aye and she is adamant that Boris Johnson has a veto on Indyref2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: You've got a very low standard of proof, Alex will be grateful you weren't on the jury. When do you think they would have deployed the allegation? 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.