welshbairn Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Front page of Herald: "Is this the beginning of the end of the SNP?"Bit of desperate hysteria there about the party who just won 4/5ths of Scotland's seats at Westminster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Front page of Herald: "Is this the beginning of the end of the SNP?"Bit of desperate hysteria there about the party who just won 4/5ths of Scotland's seats at Westminster. It's utterly ludicrous.Political parties of all colours have survived far worse.With the attention span of the electorate he'll be Derek Who? in a few months time.Salmond''s case could be damaging but you'd think that if would have affected the SNP vote already - but it hasn't.I also think that most people can distinguish between what is entirely personal and what is political. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 I still think they could have done both. I'm not a legal expert but that level of texting and the fact the boy told him he wasn't interested looks like stalking. Mackay wouldn't come under sections 42-45 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 ('the 2009 Act') that cover where an adult who engages in sexual activity with a child under the age of 18 in respect of whom they are in a 'position of trust' also commits an offence - the definition of 'position of trust' is very narrow - usually those like teachers or social workers with a direct link to the under-18. They could have gone to the police then gone to the papers - it wouldn't have mattered if the police found a case to answer or not - I'm sure the papers would be interested either way. Its a murky one but i dont think MSP would fall under the ‘position of trust’ category. Also there was no overt sexual behaviour from what’s been published. Its predatory yes, but he’s not overtly saying anything like ‘i want to do this and that to you’ so it would struggle to reach that threshold. If there are texts/messages from the boy whereby he says ‘stop talking to me’ or similar and there are multiple unwanted messages then id agree maybe a sec 39 stalking. Agree with the comments re the parents, i’d be complaining to the parliamentary standards commissioner and not the papers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Its a murky one but i dont think MSP would fall under the ‘position of trust’ category. Also there was no overt sexual behaviour from what’s been published. Its predatory yes, but he’s not overtly saying anything like ‘i want to do this and that to you’ so it would struggle to reach that threshold. If there are texts/messages from the boy whereby he says ‘stop talking to me’ or similar and there are multiple unwanted messages then id agree maybe a sec 39 stalking. Agree with the comments re the parents, i’d be complaining to the parliamentary standards commissioner and not the papers. I did say that he didn't fall into the 'position of trust' category. I do think that it looks like a potential stalking offence and at the very least warrants a complaint regards parliamentary standards. I don't think the SNP can do much else - and given their previous zero tolerance policy regards any SNP member who steps out of line - I don't think there is any whiff of a cover-up. He is suspended and I do believe he'll be kicked out of the party. If he has any sense he should resign as an MSP - but that is his decision - not the SNP's. Singing songs whilst drunk does not make you a risk or a sexual offender or stalker - if that were the case then a large number of politicians wouldn't be fit for office - it's something that most of us will have do e at some point. It also strikes me that Mackay was, like most sexual predators, very private in how he carried out any approach - there certainly won't have been witnesses - it would be his word against theirs - what will likely damn him is the text messages - the only verifiable evidence available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 The creepiest bit of the story is the boy stopped replying in December and he kept texting him till February. Hence why I think there may be a case for stalking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 The creepiest bit of the story is the boy stopped replying in December and he kept texting him till February. Also having a son nearly the same age. Makes you think women get off lightly with the menopause compared to the middle age crisis. -5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 I suspect the ones coming off worst will be Mackay’s children. Schoolkids can be incredibly cruel. And imagine your dad providing them with all that material. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Can we concentrate on the budget part of this now and accept that the snp, whilst being a little timid for my liking, will deliver another year of responsible fiscal management? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philyerboots Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 15 hours ago, sophia said: Can we concentrate on the budget part of this now and accept that the snp, whilst being a little timid for my liking, will deliver another year of responsible fiscal management? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Angelo Barksdale Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 4/10 for me tbh. I've seen Phil on top form and this isn't it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 It's almost like he was on some kind of subconscious self-destruct mission. Even putting aside the propriety issues, on what possible basis did he think that this was not going to hit the headlines and end his career? Did he really think for one moment that he would be able to take this boy to rugby matches? Or for a meal - and people would just say "Oh, there's young so-and-so. Who's that he's with? Isn't that Scotland's finance Minister? Strange. But best not be nosy.... pass the salt, dear" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 Has anybody actually discussed any details about the budget in these 16 pages? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rider Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Suspect Device said: Has anybody actually discussed any details about the budget in these 16 pages? Us Scotch are getting taxed much more than the rest of the UK!!!!! Amirite? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Suspect Device said: Has anybody actually discussed any details about the budget in these 16 pages? This texting malarkey was an obvious ploy dreamt up by Sturgeon to detract from the budget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 The parents went to the papers rather than the police, because no law has been broken. Sending sexually explicit texts to a 16 year old is not against the law. It would need to be blatant harassment for a legal case to be presented. But from what I understand of this situation, the boy of legal sexual consent made no objection to the messages being received and exchanged. We can argue against the morals of it until we're blue in the face, but there is no age gap law beyond 16 in this country. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 7 hours ago, MixuFixit said: Good summary here of the nuts and bolts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51406838?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cqgpmnzkv1dt/scottish-budget&link_location=live-reporting-story Is Vivian Nicholson Scotland's new finance minister? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 8 hours ago, MixuFixit said: You can be relied on to draw exactly the wrong conclusion about anything involving sex, you utter weirdo. Exactly how is my conclusion wrong? What illegality took place here? I don't expect any kind of coherent answer from you though, because let's face it. You don't have one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 The parents went to the papers rather than the police, because no law has been broken. Sending sexually explicit texts to a 16 year old is not against the law. It would need to be blatant harassment for a legal case to be presented. But from what I understand of this situation, the boy of legal sexual consent made no objection to the messages being received and exchanged. We can argue against the morals of it until we're blue in the face, but there is no age gap law beyond 16 in this country.This is a good justification for why they went to the papers instead of the polis then. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 On 11/02/2020 at 02:19, The_Kincardine said: Is Vivian Nicholson Scotland's new finance minister? It was actually Vivienne, and for a bonus point what was the last drawn result on her husband's coupon which won them £150k ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Cawdor Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 1 hour ago, oaksoft said: Can they? According to who? Almost everyone, seemingly. That's the reason MacKay is out of office. Did you achieve your Laird of Oaksoft status through persistent amoral behaviour? 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.