Hymlick Manouvre Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, Antlion said: Ah, surprising - another “unionist” who opposes political union. The desperate hope that women had been raped just cements the lunacy of resident Little Englanders. That another one considers a sexual assault case being thrown out a “loss” tells us a lot about the morality and mental capacity of those obsessive opponents of Scotland who choose to spunk their thoughts on this forum. Ah, surprising - another "nat" who opposes democracy when it doesn't go their way and starts whingeing about something they have no idea about but it sounds really "Scottish" and very anti-tory. Nice chip there, you wear it so well. -5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Just now, Hymlick Manouvre said: Ah, surprising - another "nat" who opposes democracy when it doesn't go their way You mean like when a man goes to court on false charges and walks away freely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: Ah, surprising - another "nat" who opposes democracy when it doesn't go their way and starts whingeing about something they have no idea about but it sounds really "Scottish" and very anti-tory. Nice chip there, you wear it so well. You consider an unraped woman “a loss”. You are one of the most hideous Little Englanders to infect the forum yet (and I’ve seen MinterMind). ETA: the Kincardine will be crying into his union flag that yet another crackpot right-wing loyalist has failed to adopt “natter”. Edited March 23, 2020 by Antlion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 I wonder which previously banned user Hymlick Manouvre is 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 12 minutes ago, BawWatchin said: You mean like when a man goes to court on false charges and walks away freely? The charges weren't false. They weren't proven either way. When the witnesses are convicted of perury you can say they were false. Very unfair to accuse people of a crime when they haven't been found guilty in a court m8. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Innocent, I've said it since day one! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Tinfoil Hat is an utter embarrassment on this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: The charges weren't false. They weren't proven either way. When the witnesses are convicted of perury you can say they were false. Very unfair to accuse people of a crime when they haven't been found guilty in a court m8. He was found not guilty on all counts other than on an attempted rape where the case was 'not proven'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 47 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said: Because he's an actual crazy person I don't think he is a crazy person. He occasionally takes some strange positions on his blog but it's always down to the fact that he holds a grudge against the UK government for how they treated him as a whistleblower. He is also clearly milking the more gullible part of his readership but that's the paetron model. As soon as he started regularly blogging about Jacobites a couple of years ago I knew the begging bowl would be out shortly after. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Venom Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Who were the previous creepiest incel pollutants? This one is up there. I wonder which previously banned user Hymlick Manouvre is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 This new zoomer has Malky's fingerprints all over it. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, The DA said: He was found not guilty on all counts other than on an attempted rape where the case was 'not proven'. There is no legal difference. And just because he was acquitted doesn't mean the witnesses lied. The jury could have decided that they believed the women but decided Salmond's actions did not meet the standard of criminality. It does not mean the charges were false. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 'After falling 13 points behind in the title race, Rangers suffered another hugely damaging defeat on Monday when ...' 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: start taking a bit of responsibility for your own failings Sounds like independence m8. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, Hymlick Manouvre said: Can't you read properly due to your substandard SNP education ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: This new zoomer has Malky's fingerprints all over it. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, ICTChris said: Can someone who is more adept at the Kremlinology of all this confirm? Basically, Salmond thinks that the accusations were put together by a conspiracy of the accusers along with a faction of the SNP who are supporters of NIcola Sturgeon, as well as the civil service who report to the Scottish Government? It doesn't fit exactly but it's a retread of the old 'gradualist' (in this case Sturgeon) against 'fundamentalist' (in this case Salmond) approaches to achieving indepdence, with the criminal charges part of a campaign to pre-emptively destroy any potential comeback by Salmond before it could take off? 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. Leslie Evans went further and changed the civil service code so that they could use allegations against Salmond to launch an HR investigation into his conduct as First Minister. Salmond then took the Scottish Government to court over this. Salmond won costing the SG £600,000 and the judge was highly critical of Leslie Evans and Judith McKinnon. There was then due to an inquiry into the episode which would have ended Evans and McKinnon's careers and potentially put Sturgeon under pressure as well. That didn't happen though because the accusers then chose to go the police which sparked the criminal case and delayed the inquiry. We are now at the point where the inquiry into Sturgeon, McKinnon and Evans should go ahead. Sturgeon did a bizarre interview last summer where she claims she barely uses email and there have been reports that pertinent information may have been deleted already. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: This new zoomer has Malky's fingerprints all over it. It's definitely Malky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: There is no legal difference. And just because he was acquitted doesn't mean the witnesses lied. The jury could have decided that they believed the women but decided Salmond's actions did not meet the standard of criminality. It does not mean the charges were false. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 As for the political dimension. Sturgeon is clearly very close to the UK civil service and Salmond was working for RT. 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. 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.