Genuine Hibs Fan Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 Sorry wanting to identify one of the accusers in the Salmond case and prosecute them for perjury is not the same as wanting all rape accusers in not guilty cases to be identified and prosecuted for perjury because "I think she was lying?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDuffman Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 DRoss wanting to get rid of not proven verdict in Scottish Courts. Wonder if Salmond case has anything to do with it. He probably though he might have been found guilty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 6 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said: There is a pub bore like this guy in every branch meeting. Can't understand why so many people seem determined to take up arms on behalf of Salmond when he's demonstrated repeatedly that his ego is more important to him than the cause. Only zealots or extremists have causes. Most of the rest of us have hopes, dreams and aspirations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 11 minutes ago, strichener said: Only zealots or extremists have causes. Most of the rest of us have hopes, dreams and aspirations. ^^^^aspired to be an arsehole. Succeeded. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 1 hour ago, strichener said: Only zealots or extremists have causes. Most of the rest of us have hopes, dreams and aspirations. This is genuinely meaningless. Like something from a Blair speech. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, NotThePars said: This is genuinely meaningless. Like something from a Blair speech. It's worse than meaningless. If you actually try to do something to make the world better, in your eyes anyway, you're bad. If you stay on the couch dreaming about how it could be better, you're good. I'm definitely in the second category btw. Edited November 22, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 1 hour ago, strichener said: Only zealots or extremists have causes. Most of the rest of us have hopes, dreams and aspirations. That’s one of the most stupid things I’ve read on here haha. Fine effort. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 15 minutes ago, Londonwell said: That’s one of the most stupid things I’ve read on here haha. Fine effort. I know, "taking up arms", "the cause" as if there is some kind of war going on in the minds of the SNP supporters. The very same people that have continually stated that this is bigger than the SNP etc. etc. Have to agree with you, it is also one of the most stupid things I have read on here. Granny Danger's post excepted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 22, 2020 Share Posted November 22, 2020 9 minutes ago, strichener said: I know, "taking up arms", "the cause" as if there is some kind of war going on in the minds of the SNP supporters. The very same people that have continually stated that this is bigger than the SNP etc. etc. Have to agree with you, it is also one of the most stupid things I have read on here. Granny Danger's post excepted. Cause: a principle, aim, or movement to which one is committed and which one is prepared to defend or advocate. Arsehole can't understand why anyone would defend a principle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 12 hours ago, MacDuffman said: DRoss wanting to get rid of not proven verdict in Scottish Courts. Wonder if Salmond case has anything to do with it. He probably though he might have been found guilty. Anyone with any common sense should want to get rid of 'Guilty/Not Guilty', and return to 'Proven/Not Proven' since it is literally the task of juries in Scotland to determine if the prosecution case is 'Proven', or 'Not Proven'. No surprise the craven wee bootlicker would advocate for an inferior English system over a Scots one though. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, MacDuffman said: DRoss wanting to get rid of not proven verdict in Scottish Courts. Wonder if Salmond case has anything to do with it. He probably though he might have been found guilty. To be fair if DRoss came out with it, it should be ignored. We have had the Not Proven verdict in Scots Law for nearly 300 years and it serves a useful legal purpose. Edited November 23, 2020 by AndyM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 On 22/11/2020 at 00:32, welshbairn said: By that logic every defendant found guilty after pleading innocent, and every prosecution witness whose evidence isn't believed by the jury, should be charged with perjury. And in witness H's case you're basing it on a few words in court reported in the press. That's clearly not where that logic leads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 3 hours ago, AndyM said: To be fair if DRoss came out with it, it should be ignored. We have had the Not Proven verdict in Scots Law for nearly 300 years and it serves a useful legal purpose. Does it? -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Tories are "threatening" a law suit to get the Scottish Government to release the Salmond report. Why are they just threatening, rather than just filing a law suit? Anyone? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 To be fair if DRoss came out with it, it should be ignored. We have had the Not Proven verdict in Scots Law for nearly 300 years and it serves a useful legal purpose. Which is? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Tories are "threatening" a law suit to get the Scottish Government to release the Salmond report. Why are they just threatening, rather than just filing a law suit? Anyone? Because they know that they won't win it.If the evidence is published and it ends up revealing who the complainants are it would be a contempt of court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gordon EF said: That's clearly not where that logic leads. I haven't read the whole transcript like most people but I have the impression that there are 3 alternatives. 1. She remembers it one way, the defence witnesses remember it another way. 2. She and/or the defence witnesses are confused about the time and/or place. 3. She or the defence witnesses are lying their heads off. My guess would be 2, if it was 3 and provable that she or the defence witnesses were lying either to convict someone falsely, or get them off, they would already have been charged. If it's 1 or 2, that's exactly where the logic leads. Edited November 23, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 35 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Because they know that they won't win it. If the evidence is published and it ends up revealing who the complainants are it would be a contempt of court. Yeah this has been explained and the opposition understand this but it’s not in their interest to acknowledge that they understand it. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I haven't read the whole transcript like most people but I have the impression that there are 3 alternatives. 1. She remembers it one way, the defence witnesses remember it another way. 2. She and/or the defence witnesses are confused about the time and/or place. 3. She or the defence witnesses are lying their heads off. My guess would be 2, if it was 3 and provable that she or the defence witnesses were lying either to convict someone falsely, or get them off, they would already have been charged. If it's 1 or 2, that's exactly where the logic leads. Well generally, there are two types of scenario: 1. Defendant claims they're innocent, witness claims defendant is guilty. Jury cannot establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so not guilty / not proven verdict is returned. I don't think anyone is claiming the witness should be charged with perjury in this scenario. 2. Defendant claims they're innocent, witness claims defendant is guilty. Witness makes a claim that is provably false or is considered false beyond a reasonable doubt, under oath during the trial. Depending on the circumstance, it's absolutely right that bringing a perjury charge against the witness is considered in this case. Arguing that the witness should be charged with perjury in scenario 2 is not the same as arguing they should be in scenario 1. Also, a perjury charge/conviction requires a much higher standard of evidence than "a jury not believing it on the balance of probabilities". I'm not arguing that any witness in the Salmond trial should be charged with perjury btw. As you say, from what I've seen, there isn't enough evidence to suggest the witness deliberately lied, rather than just got dates and times mixed up. Edited November 23, 2020 by Gordon EF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Yeah this has been explained and the opposition understand this but it’s not in their interest to acknowledge that they understand it.Unfortunately your average voter won't.Fortunately your average voter won't give a flying f**k. 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.