Jump to content

Nipper Salmond


RadgerTheBadger

Recommended Posts

Just now, Boo Khaki said:

Then I must be misunderstanding you. 

Are you not suggesting that in the particular case of the Salmond trial, had the 'not proven' verdict been unavailable he may well have been found guilty of that one charge?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

Then your point is a nonsense as I thought. There are no circumstances whereby a jury could return a 'not proven' verdict and it be reasonable to return a 'guilty' verdict instead.

You have no idea what the verdict would have been.  You can take an educated guess but no more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Granny Danger said:

You have no idea what the verdict would have been.  You can take an educated guess but no more than that.

As I've already explained, the jury chose 'not proven' because they evidently believed the prosecution did not prove Salmond's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Take 'not proven' out of the equation and leave the circumstances the same. 

Are you seriously suggesting that the jury may well have returned 'guilty' in the exact same scenario whereby they believed they prosecution had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

'Educated guess' yes, but in the same way predicting sun will come up tomorrow, I'll drop if I jump out my third floor window, and that if I chuck water over myself I'll get wet are 'educated guesses'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

We don’t know what the verdicts would have been had not proven had not been available.

If we adopted the English legal system, you would need 10 guilty votes (out of 12) to secure a guilty conviction. Otherwise, the jury is considered to be "hung" and usually a retrial would follow.

The advantage of the Scottish system is that a hung jury is impossible. If 8 jurors think someone is guilty, that's it. Take him down!

However, the absolute maximum of guilty votes in Salmond's case is 7, so even in that worst-case scenario, at least 3 not guilty/not proven voters would need to switch to guilty to secure a conviction. 

Do you really think that a potential retrial is a better result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only solution must be to abolish the court system and juries and let Facebook decide. No point in TL'DR whole trials and testimonies when you can have infuencers picking out the juicy bits and passing them on. Truth can be decided by likes, if a witness doesn't get enough they're banned from social media with a twitter vote to say if jail would be appropriate. Punishments of the guilty accused live streamed of course, same for loser accusers naturally. "See I read this blogger quoting this bit of what she said then this other bloke said this so she's a fucking liar innit."

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Salmond episode has been a total damp squib as far as the public outside the political bubble are concerned. 

I'm actually amazed at that myself, but even talking in the Corona virus it seems the public have become desensitized to these types of stories 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

 

Edit - more than a bit worrying that 5% of jurors believe the correct thing to do is return a 'guilty' verdict based on gut feeling and irrespective of evidence :blink:

Is that the ones who've admitted to it? I'd wager it's well higher. Look at the amount of times the police in America get away with gunning black people down on camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, ICTChris said:

The Salmond Stone at Heriot Watt University is to be removed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-52748722

Firstly, the story dates from 2019 - it's hardly new news

Secondly, he article states that "the decision to remove the stone was taken after consultation with the Student Union."

I assume that a majority of students supported removal? It wouldn't be very democratic, otherwise.

 

 

Oh... They pulled the online poll after 24 hours.

The Independent

"former student John Doran added: “Such a shame to see my former student union conduct itself so horrendously on this.”

Exactly how many students officially voted is unclear but one comment online suggested some 320 people had registered their views with about 60 per cent in favour of keeping the rock.

It was not clear if the final results would actually be published."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

It's not about democratic choice it's about it making fee paying students annoyed having to get the bus past it every day.

Right.

So being educated in an Englsh, Welsh or Northern Irish school means that your views are more important than a student educated in France, Spain or Italy?

That's an *interesting* take on student diversity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:


In this matter, yes sure. It would also apply to non EU international students.

Indeed, that's why I named 3 EU locations. as counterpoint to the 3 rUK locations

So, firstly, what percentage of students at Heriot Watt come from rUK & non-EU locations, and why are their views to be given greater weight than the Scottish & EU educated kids?

Secondly, can you provide some proof to back up your assetion about these students being annoyed when they pass it? Is it the equivalent of the Duke of Sutherland's monument to citizens of Paraguay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:

Who cares how many? One is enough.

I can't help thinking that the rUK student's objections are more to do with who Salmond is, rather than what he said. Remember, the original story dates from when he was falsely accused of the various offences discussed at length on this thread.

Personally, I couldn't care less about inscriptions on old monuments. If I was a student from rUK, I would be trying to get fees abolished - no matter which UK University I went to. 

AFAIK, it still costs the same (for a rUK student) to attend 3 years at Heriot Watt as it does to attend a similar course at most other rUK universities

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
5 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Live stream here at 2 pm.

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/

I persisted with this wholly procedural event until they went into private session and given entering a private session with Alec Coke-Hamilton participating is not something that I could ever see me being interested in, I was glad to be excluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sophia said:

I persisted with this wholly procedural event until they went into private session and given entering a private session with Alec Coke-Hamilton participating is not something that I could ever see me being interested in, I was glad to be excluded.

Yeah, forgot all about it till it was already cameras off. I hope they don't do that for all the juicy stuff.

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...