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.

How rude 

 

I was contributing. Religion is a pile of made up pish to keep the gullible masses in line. It's a massive power game, as is blatantly obvious to anyone who's ever been to the Vatican, which I assume you have?

 

As for art, bonny pictures and interesting statues, which is what classical art is, is fine and dandy. The rest, where you're "searching for the meaning" amongst an unmade bed, or a mono coloured sheet of paper. Yer having a laugh, the "artist" is having a laugh, and they know it, but arty farty types can't admit it, so the farce goes on.

 

I agree that organised religion is a pile of shite, a system designed to exploit and control the masses but no, I've not been to the Vatican. Well I've been to the square and I seen the queues of people waiting to part with their cash but why the fuck would I want to do that?

 

However, religion tries to explain some of the big questions and whilst I don't accept their answers, this doesn't mean that the questions don't exist. They are still valid questions despite their invalid interpretations. Rejecting an interpretation doesn't mean we should ignore or deny the subject.

 

As for your looking for "evidence" and "facts" (of a "higher power" or the "divinity of nature" or whatever the subject might be), there might be plenty and in various forms but these could be invisible to many by virtue of their inability to recognise them. It's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it and in order to do that, you need to define the subject properly first. At least I read the bible in full (voluntarily I may add) before rejecting it when I was already a teenage atheist. I was probably an atheist for 20+ years until I hit 30-ish when I started to realise that some of the magic that happens in this world (including to us, directly as individuals) can not be rationally explained, therefore putting some new (and old) questions back on the table.

 

The problem with your interpretation of modern art is once again of definition. Where do we or where can we draw the lines? I don't see anything in Tracey Emin's work but I like hearing her speak. She's a very intelligent and interesting woman and whilst I can't see any artistic merit that she supposedly has, I'm certain that she's serious about it and is most definitely not "taking the piss". Damien Hirst is another I wouldn't get out of bed to go and see his work but I'm at least closer to recognising something about his output (than I am of Emin) so I recognise that it's my limitation, it's my fault, it's my make up and outlook that makes it invisible to me. It's not the artist taking the piss out of art itself, even though some of the subjects are valid piss-takes on that theme.

 

Those were the two artists you specifically mentioned but where have you drawn the lines? I don't profess to understand Francis Bacon's paintings but I love them and went to Tate Britain particularly to see his triptych. I consider Hockney as the other great British artist of my lifetime but again, even when I read about others interpretations of the same work that I've seen myself, I don't understand what some are seeing in it but on many other occasions (Picasso's Guernica in Madrid being the most striking example for me), I can only fully appreciate the art after being educated about it, whether how and why it was made or what the constituent parts (or the whole) represents. The iconic Goya and Velasquez works in the Prado weren't works that I understood at first but they grabbed me, big time. I didn't have to know everything about the image I was looking at to recognise the beauty within it.

 

Abstract Expressionism isn't meant to be understood arguably but it doesn't mean it's "pish" or "shite". I loved seeing Jackson Pollock's stuff in the RA whereas Mark Rothko's work I couldn't see or feel anything in. That was 18 months ago and last weekend I went into a room of his big works at Tate Modern. I had seen a documentary on BBC4 in the intervening period which explained Rothko and the church he was commissioned to do in the US was brilliant, the way he used his art and his distinct uses of colour to create ambience and atmosphere. I therefore changed my view of his work after educating myself about it and whilst I still don't understand the basics of his particular modern art, I can at least feel something of his intent now, without being a full convert. That's Paul Klee in my avatar, who like Cezanne, are artists who have created stuff I would travel to see, which indeed I've done. I went from Aberdeen to London on my own to see Picasso's Picassos aged 16. This has been a lifelong passion for me and so when I hear views like yours, I would want to know that you've invested a minimum amount of time to be qualified to reject it, rather than taking the easy cop-out, which is what the blind and ignorant might do, unable to confront their own lack of comprehension.

 

Having said that, I was pleased to see Koons getting a pasting last week. His pop art is plain vulgar to me and if ever there was an artist who got incredibly wealthy for reasons I don't see, it's him. I wouldn't describe Warhol as the greatest and most important artist of the 20th century (as some do) but some of his stuff, the soup cans in particular are very clever and deeply thought provoking.

 

Turner's Snowstorm was incredible in the flesh. I've never liked his paintings before (nor Constable's brand of realism) but it's important to allow the natural changes that occur within us all to allow us to change our outlooks, our reflections and our opinions. The great work done by professor Carol Dweck (of Stanford Uni) on the differences between people of fixed and growth mindsets applies here, particularly on these subjects of religion and art.

 

 

I just like picters.

I agree that organised religion is a pile of shite, a system designed to exploit and control the masses but no, I've not been to the Vatican. Well I've been to the square and I seen the queues of people waiting to part with their cash but why the fuck would I want to do that?

Well, it's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it surely? And it has a lot of bonny picters and steen mannies & wifies. 

 

 

However, religion tries to explain some of the big questions and whilst I don't accept their answers, this doesn't mean that the questions don't exist. They are still valid questions despite their invalid interpretations. Rejecting an interpretation doesn't mean we should ignore or deny the subject.

Religion exists to enslave the masses, and it mostly does that. Exploration is not something they are interested in, it's doctrine, learn it, repeat it, accept it. Questions are invalid.

 

 

I was probably an atheist for 20+ years until I hit 30-ish when I started to realise that some of the magic that happens in this world (including to us, directly as individuals) can not be rationally explained, therefore putting some new (and old) questions back on the table.

 

 

 

 

I neither like picters nor do I like religion particularly. I have been to the Vatican though ( despite nominally being protestant.....family are half protestant half Catholic) and found it a pretty awesome place. Also agree there are some questions that just cannot be answered.....

 

However I also never realised that Alex Salmond was a world class artist, nor that he was in the running to be next Pope.

 

Back on topic please fellow dandies......

Well, it's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it surely? And it has a lot of bonny picters and steen mannies & wifies. 

 

But I also said it's important to define the subject first, before choosing to investigate or not, before accepting or rejecting.

 

What is the subject? The Vatican? The catholic church? Religion itself? I think the catholic church is an evil organisation so why would I give money to it? Why would any non-believer give money to see stolen gold? I know what's in there but fucked if I'm paying to see it.

However I also never realised that Alex Salmond was a world class artist, nor that he was in the running to be next Pope.

Back on topic please fellow dandies......

 

Why? Did we offend you? You didn't have to read it.

 

If you hadn't found our various discussions so offensive, you might have seen that I was objecting to another poster saying that Salmond wouldn't get a fair trial. He decided to introduce my use of "karma" in another thread (or threads) as an insult and I asked him, fruitlessly thus far, what he meant by this. From that discussion, he asked for "enlightenment" and our discussion went into other fields. The subject of closed minds and lack of imaginations were put on the table in relation to Salmond's upcoming trial, subjects that are equally applicable to religion and art so it wasn't a random diversion, not that there's anything wrong in that. So shut the fuck up you moron.

Have I raised your blood pressure old man?

 

Job done!

 

Why? Did we offend you? You didn't have to read it.

 

If you hadn't found our various discussions so offensive, you might have seen that I was objecting to another poster saying that Salmond wouldn't get a fair trial. He decided to introduce my use of "karma" in another thread (or threads) as an insult and I asked him, fruitlessly thus far, what he meant by this. From that discussion, he asked for "enlightenment" and our discussion went into other fields. The subject of closed minds and lack of imaginations were put on the table in relation to Salmond's upcoming trial, subjects that are equally applicable to religion and art so it wasn't a random diversion, not that there's anything wrong in that. So shut the fuck up you moron.

 

Read every word btw. Not offended in the slightest. Just bored the tits aff me.

Why? Did we offend you? You didn't have to read it.

 

If you hadn't found our various discussions so offensive, you might have seen that I was objecting to another poster saying that Salmond wouldn't get a fair trial. He decided to introduce my use of "karma" in another thread (or threads) as an insult and I asked him, fruitlessly thus far, what he meant by this. From that discussion, he asked for "enlightenment" and our discussion went into other fields. The subject of closed minds and lack of imaginations were put on the table in relation to Salmond's upcoming trial, subjects that are equally applicable to religion and art so it wasn't a random diversion, not that there's anything wrong in that. So shut the fuck up you moron.

 

I believe that you are well aware of exactly what I meant. I'm not speaking in riddles or in Dutch. 

No you're not speaking in riddles nor Dutch but despite repeated requests, you are reluctant to explain yourself;

 

Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.

 

Putting aside your insulting "grown man" and "tries to portray himself as an intellect", why does my use of "karma" in other threads devalue any points that I made?

 

What interpretation of "karma" did you attribute to me and why was it so offensive?

 

I think you'll find that I'm speaking in plain English too.

But I also said it's important to define the subject first, before choosing to investigate or not, before accepting or rejecting.

 

What is the subject? The Vatican? The catholic church? Religion itself? I think the catholic church is an evil organisation so why would I give money to it? Why would any non-believer give money to see stolen gold? I know what's in there but fucked if I'm paying to see it.

OK, so it's important to investigate a subject properly, unless it's something you define as unworthy of investigation, in which case you'll just spout your opinion. What a fucking hypocritical pseudo-intellectual wank you are. You're an utter fraud. Bet you're really 5'2" with a 3" cock 

Bet you're really 5'2" with a 3" cock 

 

Fit's that in metric?

Fit's that in metric?

 

1.575 m and 7.62 cm - when flaccid, unerect (hopefully).

 

Get the converter App. Get with the beat. Use technology, don't be afraid of it.

Bet you're really 5'2" with a 3" cock 

 

What about it?   

What about it?   

 

Don't wind it up. It can't think properly. It can't read properly. It's granite thick.

 

Interesting hypothesis about how the typical NE man is such a thick cunt. Traditionally men of the earth - fishers and farmers - they lack the imagination and education to consider anything outwith their (incredibly) narrow frame of reference. This leads them to reject anything to do with subjects such as religion and art, before they've even considered the arguments, incapable of doing so as they are.

Two things happened in the last hour which reminded me of this thread.

 

During a very moving documentary on Bowie's last five years on BBC4, Visconti gave a great description about the point of art in the context of him not giving interviews latterly.

 

A friend sent me a pic where a quote attributed to Leonardo da Vinci said - There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when shown, and those who do not see. I replied with - Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who go "shit, what happened?"

 

I guess Salmond might fall into the category of trying to make sex happen but he wasn't attractive enough to his target for consummation to take place. He only then could see, when shown by the non-consent that he's really not that desirable nor powerful after all. Sad old creep. Allegedly. Possibly.

.It can't think properly. It can't read properly. It's granite thick.

 

it can't think properly. It can't read properly. It contradicts itself constantly. It's a fucking rocket.

C'mon Alex

 

 

Get stuck into these bastards.

 

 

That's precisely what landed him in bother in the first place.....

Never been any word of him feeling up blokes in the bar in Westminster.

 

That would have been seen as more acceptable I presume.

I can’t believe there are some window lickers that think this is some sort of set-up.

 

Given the list of charges it is very difficult to imagine that Salmond could be innocent of ALL of them.

I can’t believe there are some window lickers that think this is some sort of set-up.

 

Given the list of charges it is very difficult to imagine that Salmond could be innocent of ALL of them.

 

I wasn't aware of anyone protesting his innocence. And unless they were there, how could they?

 

Legally speaking, there is something called the Moroov doctrine which may come into play here. It's worth checking out online. it's a beautiful concept, invented by us Scots in criminal law matters.

 

Me Too is a manifestation of the same principle.

 

Never liked Salmond. Slippery cunt. Almost wanted to take him by the lapels in Fraserburgh Golf Club 25+ years ago when he couldn't answer the simplest of questions - what is your handicap? Given that every participant had to have an official handicap in order to compete, or at least be eligible for the prizes at the Pro-Am, his sidestepping was a thing of political habit but like a hound with a bone, I never let go. He was an arse already but I made him look like an even bigger one in front of a dozen or so.

 

Don't like Sturgeon either. Her crime is that she doesn't get enough good sex. Salmond's crime may be that whilst he doesn't get enough either (given the extraordinary age-gap between he and his his wife), he may have attempted to supplement this shortfall by abusing his perceived position of celebrity/power. He's a fucking wank onyhoo. And that's from someone who is VERY pro Scottish Independence and always has been.

Some interesting comments from "John Adams" on facebook, and Craig Murray and @mairstheshame on twitter.

 

 

 

Some interesting comments from "John Adams" on facebook, and Craig Murray and @mairstheshame on twitter.

 

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.

 

I don't believe it is a setup, but I could imagine a situation where 10 of the complaints wouldn't have made it anywhere near a court but 1 of the complaints was evidenced enough to bring the others forward.

 

If all else fails, then they'll at least get him on breach of the peace, which I assume is why it's in there (a certain charge, to bring the whole case forward)? I've nae idea how these things work like.

 

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?