He may well be innocent of the allegations, but of course he way well not be.

The allegations are surprising but god knows what folk get up to in private. He’s always been a bit of a fud.

 

But he’s done a helluva job turning sexual allegations into a story about civil service in the Scottish Government instead.

It’s a defect-deflect-deflect tactic and if it turns out he is found guilty then I hope the happy clappers donating to this millionaire’s crowd fund will regret it.

 

As previously stated I’m not the worlds biggest SNP fan but I think Salmond is going to damage the party. Sturgeon was quite happy to sign up to the new complaints process.

It is basic forum ettiquette to provide links ye ken. I'm not saying it's worse than what Salmond is accused of, but it's up there.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Granite-heided lazy thick cunt.

 

 

Is Moorov the one they tried to get rid of a few years back Rocket? Corroboration of witnesses who didn't witness or some such?

 

There was talk about it earlier this decade. Put simply it's this;

 

Criminal burden of proof requires corroboration. This means one person's word isn't enough. It needs corroborated by other evidence, which can be circumstantial. However, when you have a number of different complaints against the same perpetrator for the same crime (five in the case of HMA v. Moorov if I recall), none of which can be corroborated by further individual evidence on each then the number of same complaints can be taken into consideration to corroborate them all. Fucking class.

Extremely inconvenient timing for this to crop up in the middle of a general election campaign. No matter how much she tries to deflect.....Sturgeon was his deputy when all this was happening. I'd like to think it wouldn't cost the SNP any votes but I'm sure it will.

 

Salmond was a smooth operator as First Minister. Probably the best we have had to date in the relatively brief history of Holyrood. But as a person he is a total cunt. I've no doubt whatsoever of his guilt and hop he gets what's coming.

Exactly what I was thinking. Granite-heided lazy thick cunt.

 

 

There was talk about it earlier this decade. Put simply it's this

sorry, I'd kinda assumed someone speaking with so much authority on politics would be following these people themselves already? I was and am on my phone, where copying links to facebook and twitter is a pain in the arse so didn't do it.. That OK ye arse?

People who make assumptions are fatally deficient in their critical thinking capabilities, unable to distinguish between facts and opinions, let alone appreciate the relative values of each. Assumers are therefore granite-heided, lazy and thick. Personally I've never been on Facebook in my puff and I don't "follow" anyone on Twitter. Original thinkers and creative innovators aren't sheep. They don't follow, they lead.

Nah, people who make assumptions generally overestimate the abilities of others to be as intelligent and conscientious as themselves, and I apologise for making that mistake, as the saying goes, it makes an ass out of *you* and me..

 

What surprises me is that you're not on twitter or Facebook, it's literally where knowledge is shared nowadays in huge volumes, anyone with the critical skills that you claim would soon filter the wheat from the chaff, indeed as I do, whereas you seem to have no areas of learning, just opinions based on your own verbosity

I didn't say that I don't source from social media. I get stuff from it every day.

 

The difference is how we access it, how we process it and what we do with it.

I didn't say that I don't source from social media. I get stuff from it every day.

 

The difference is how we access it, how we process it and what we do with it.

 

 

Personally I've never been on Facebook in my puff and I don't "follow" anyone on Twitter.

If you've never been on facebook, that's way more than 50% of social media gone right off, if you don't "follow" anyone on twitter, then all you'll have on your timeline without searching for specific items is what is "trending", so you're being fed a trend obviously, a follower, a sheep, an uncritical thinker by definition and by your own design.

 

Kinda the opposite of how I imagined you to be, from your own frequent boasting.

You seem determined for conflict. That's a statement in itself.

 

I've never been on Facebook but this doesn't mean I'm blind to what appears there. I've never followed anyone on Twitter (apart from the original banksy account, now defunct) but this similarly doesn't mean I'm oblivious to what's posted there.

 

You and I have different ways of doing things, of gathering information, different values and different conclusions. That's ok. It's good that there is variety in life. If I ever thought, felt, breathed and existed like you however, I would want to kill myself.

You seem determined for conflict. That's a statement in itself.

No it isn't

 

I've never been on Facebook but this doesn't mean I'm blind to what appears there. I've never followed anyone on Twitter (apart from the original banksy account, now defunct) but this similarly doesn't mean I'm oblivious to what's posted there.

It kinda by definition states you are

 

You and I have different ways of doing things, of gathering information, different values and different conclusions. That's ok. It's good that there is variety in life. If I ever thought, felt, breathed and existed like you however, I would want to kill myself.

I'm sorry, have you considered Dignitas?

Cleared 

Cleared 

 

 

The fuck's the face for? 

I think what we can take for truth out of this is three things; that Salmond's conduct was highly offensive and inappropriate, but it wasn't illegal and that political skullduggery extends to attempting to discredit others. That last one isn't exactly news but that in Scotland, a campaign has been staged against him that might have resulted in him going to and dying in a jail cell shows how sick politics can be.

And much as I never liked the man (but agreed with his politics), as Nicola immediately said, there needs to be an inquiry (but not just now of course). Some cunts need jailing after this.

 

The fuck's the face for? 

 

I don’t believe he was innocent of ALL charges.

I’m not sure his QC does either.

 

-Alex Salmond's lawyer faces inquiry after 'sex pest' comment https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790

 

Amateur hour all over the place on this case.

There is truth, spin, politics and agendas. There are two sides to every story.

Kirsty Wark's Panorama last night was disgusting. It was what the BBC does. You and I weren't there at the trial but this commentator was. All we know for sure is that the jury did not convict Salmond.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/i-have-a-plan-so-that-we-can-remain-anonymous-but-have-maximum-effect/

Salmond accuses Sturgeon of misleading parliament https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55593864
 

So what’s he up to here? If his allegations are true, or if he believes them to be true, this could rip the SNP apart?! 
 

Personally it feels like a classic deflect tactic given he’s already said he acted at times inappropriately (but was cleared in court obviously). 
 

I just can’t see what he’s trying to achieve other than to benefit his ego.