IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alex Salmond , Scotland cases , sexual abuse cases

Reply
Old 8th April 2020, 09:44 AM   #41
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That the complainers were not "the office juniors" does mean my earlier comment of "It is older powerful men who have mostly written the laws and apply them, so to what extent is the law still stacked in their favour and women are expected to put up with their actions?" not applicable in this case.

No, of course I didn't mean that. Just clarifying the circumstances, and the unlikelihood that none of these women could apparently bring herself to communicate any indication that these minor invasions of personal space were unwelcome, before (years later and having continued to work with Salmond apparently happily) running to the police describing them as sexual assaults.

However, apart from the "sleepy cuddle" thing, there were defence witnesses to give a very different picture of what happened from the complainants'. One can write at length about the unacceptable behaviour of men in general, but if the particular man in question didn't actually do any of it, it's fairly irrelevant.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2020, 09:50 AM   #42
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
This may or may not be relevant to the case, but have you had much contact with Sturgeon? If so, what sort of a person does she seem to be when the cameras aren't turned on?

I have only interacted personally with Sturgeon once, and I didn't like her.

I am coming to the realisation that I always saw her as a performance, an carefully crafted production tailored to the audience she was facing. I assumed that behind the performance was a genuine human being who was as committed to the SNP's raison d'etre as anyone in the rank and file, presumably more committed.

However, over the past year, and to some extent since late 2017, I have been taking note of her lies and policy failures and pursuit of her pet agendas despite widespread unease and representations for her to think again. I think we are looking at somoene who is batting for the other team, and I wonder for how long that has been the case.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2020, 07:41 PM   #43
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post

However, over the past year, and to some extent since late 2017, I have been taking note of her lies and policy failures and pursuit of her pet agendas despite widespread unease and representations for her to think again. I think we are looking at somoene who is batting for the other team, and I wonder for how long that has been the case.
Wait, you think sturgeon is a unionist saboteur?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 03:20 AM   #44
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
I am not entirely closed to the idea, shall we say. And the way she's carrying on right now with her lockstep and her "four nations strategy" and her deference to the utterly murderous policies coming out of Westminster (all the while with a media presence that garners her an amazing satisfaction rating), while all she's doing is managing to be marginally less crap to pacify the domestic market while not actually doing anything that will annoy Westminster is not exactly reassuring me.

A genuinely independence-supporting First Minister could have capitalised on so many chances since 2015 and she has passed on every one of them. Right now she's ignoring all the powers she has that would allow her to protect Scotland from this virus. She's going along with a strategy that is killing thousands and not even making the point that her hands are tied by the union and the devolution settlement and without these she could do so much more. She clearly knows what has to be done to contain the virus, she's been talking about it for a couple of weeks so people think she's doing something, but actually nothing is being done. It's completely bizarre.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 2nd May 2020 at 03:23 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2020, 07:46 PM   #45
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I am not entirely closed to the idea, shall we say. And the way she's carrying on right now with her lockstep and her "four nations strategy" and her deference to the utterly murderous policies coming out of Westminster (all the while with a media presence that garners her an amazing satisfaction rating), while all she's doing is managing to be marginally less crap to pacify the domestic market while not actually doing anything that will annoy Westminster is not exactly reassuring me.

A genuinely independence-supporting First Minister could have capitalised on so many chances since 2015 and she has passed on every one of them. Right now she's ignoring all the powers she has that would allow her to protect Scotland from this virus. She's going along with a strategy that is killing thousands and not even making the point that her hands are tied by the union and the devolution settlement and without these she could do so much more. She clearly knows what has to be done to contain the virus, she's been talking about it for a couple of weeks so people think she's doing something, but actually nothing is being done. It's completely bizarre.
Maybe... but I generally tend to think a combination of risk-aversion and incompetence (I.e. “Theresa May syndrome “) is more likely than willful sabotage.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 01:17 AM   #46
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
That's also possible as regards her appalling coronavirus response of course, I agree.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 01:28 AM   #47
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,853
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's also possible as regards her appalling coronavirus response of course, I agree.
I haven’t been following closely, but the one statement from her I saw regarding Covid-19 was a beacon of common sense compared with what has been coming out of 10 Downing Street.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 02:32 AM   #48
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
She talks a good line and presents very well on camera but she's doing bugger-all.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 3rd May 2020 at 03:23 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 03:14 PM   #49
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 4,705
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I am not entirely closed to the idea, shall we say. And the way she's carrying on right now with her lockstep and her "four nations strategy" and her deference to the utterly murderous policies coming out of Westminster (all the while with a media presence that garners her an amazing satisfaction rating), while all she's doing is managing to be marginally less crap to pacify the domestic market while not actually doing anything that will annoy Westminster is not exactly reassuring me.

A genuinely independence-supporting First Minister could have capitalised on so many chances since 2015 and she has passed on every one of them. Right now she's ignoring all the powers she has that would allow her to protect Scotland from this virus. She's going along with a strategy that is killing thousands and not even making the point that her hands are tied by the union and the devolution settlement and without these she could do so much more. She clearly knows what has to be done to contain the virus, she's been talking about it for a couple of weeks so people think she's doing something, but actually nothing is being done. It's completely bizarre.
Iacta alia est. At this point there is nothing different that NS can do. The SNP government has been in charge of health for many years. They have had a pandemic plan in place and seem to have been no more effective in providing PPE than in England, Wales or elsewhere in Europe. Testing was no better either. This is neither praise nor blame. It seems little different whether you are pro or anti Union (either UK or EU), French or British, socialist or non-socialist. In reality anticipation was no better. TSG response to the lessons of Silver Swan was no better than Westminster was to Cygnus.

Now there is nothing that Sturgeon can do that is any better than anyone else can do. There are no murderous policies - this is gross exaggeration. To be clear murderous policies are putting people in to concentration camps, clearing cities and sending people to labour in the country side like Mao or the Khmer Rouge. Pragmatically issues around stockpiling PPE, ventilators, and testing resources needed to have been addressed years ago. Immediately the most that could have been done by TSG would have been to lock down a few days earlier, but given the outbreak in Scotland is 2 weeks behind London that is not that likely.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2020, 06:37 PM   #50
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Mmm. Perhaps you aren't aware of the original plan for dealing with the epidemic, which was fully endorsed by Sturgeon and which may still be in play to some extent. This goes a lot further than a shortage of PPE and ventilators.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2021, 09:23 AM   #51
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Craig Murray, who is being prosecuted for publishing articles supporting Alex Salmond (who was found not guilty of course) while journalists attacking Alex Samond have been given an explicit free pass after publishing much more problematic material, has just published his affidavit on his blog. It's serious dynamite.

My sworn evidence on the Sturgeon affair

There has also been a lot come out about the process whereby the civil service procedures were re-written specifically in order to make these allegations against Alex Salmond admissible, including making the changes retrospective.

Chasing waterfalls

This lot stinks to high heaven, and if the mainstream media weren't such fervent supporters of the union that they won't publish anything to damage Nicola Sturgeon (who is doing a superb job of kicking independence into the long grass never-never during what could have been its best opportunity this century) it would be a scandal that would bring down the government.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 09:45 AM   #52
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
https://news.stv.tv/politics/salmond...e-redacted?top

"Former first minister Alex Salmond may not appear before a Holyrood inquiry on Wednesday after his written evidence was redacted.
Salmond’s evidence to an inquiry investigating a botched investigation into harassment allegations was originally published on Monday, but was removed on Tuesday morning before a redacted version was published a short time later."

Salmond's accusers get anonymity. The allegation is that his submission to Parliament would allow people to jigsaw together information to find out who the accusers are. His submission has been redacted after COPFS raised concenrs about protecting anonymity.

But the submission has already been published in the Spectator here;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...milton-inquiry

and declared legal, since it does not make it any easier to try and find out who the accusers are. In any case, the dates and locations of the various accusations against Salmond are publicly available, and it is easy enough to search what he was doing around each date.

The situation now is that anyone who wants to find out who the accusers are, will end up with a long shortlist of women who had contact with Salmond around the time of each accusation, which means many women are potential suspects.

What this whole sorry saga is doing is showing up the Scottish Legal System to be driven by politics, not justice.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 12:09 PM   #53
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,042
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
https://news.stv.tv/politics/salmond...e-redacted?top

"Former first minister Alex Salmond may not appear before a Holyrood inquiry on Wednesday after his written evidence was redacted.
Salmond’s evidence to an inquiry investigating a botched investigation into harassment allegations was originally published on Monday, but was removed on Tuesday morning before a redacted version was published a short time later."

Salmond's accusers get anonymity. The allegation is that his submission to Parliament would allow people to jigsaw together information to find out who the accusers are. His submission has been redacted after COPFS raised concenrs about protecting anonymity.

But the submission has already been published in the Spectator here;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...milton-inquiry

and declared legal, since it does not make it any easier to try and find out who the accusers are. In any case, the dates and locations of the various accusations against Salmond are publicly available, and it is easy enough to search what he was doing around each date.

The situation now is that anyone who wants to find out who the accusers are, will end up with a long shortlist of women who had contact with Salmond around the time of each accusation, which means many women are potential suspects.

What this whole sorry saga is doing is showing up the Scottish Legal System to be driven by politics, not justice.


It does tend to suggest that the cardinal rule about total separation of the executive and judicial arms of government might be..... not so very sacrosant in this instance.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 12:34 PM   #54
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,042
I also wonder whether Salmond might actually be more involved in all these shenanigans (around the increasingly-bizarre inquiry) than might superficially be the case.

After all, Salmond needs, from the PoV of his own personal motivation, to have three main things happen: 1) he needs his reputation - both political and personal - to remain intact and unsullied; 2) he would like to find his way back into the upper echelons of Scottish politics; and 3) he would like the SNP to fulfil its founding rationale and lead Scotland to independence.

Now, Salmond effectively already has (1) sorted, by way of his criminal & political exoneration. But (2) and (3) are trickier. It's arguable (IMO) that by fomenting a form of civil war within the SNP - and one which, like most civil wars - might end up cleaving the SNP in half at virtually every level of the party, the outcome for Salmond is unlikely to be favourable on (2) and (3).

On the other hand...... if there could be found a way to damp down the kindling flames of civil war at the right time, a position might be reached where:

a) sufficient information had made its way into the public domain to make it clear that Sturgeon was very probably making serious breaches of the ministerial code and misleading Parliament, BUT without there ending up being any formal sanctions (because the inquiry had been run off the rails)

b) it would no longer put Salmond and Sturgeon on a collision course, with Salmond winning on points, but with neither of them counted out;

c) it would at least leave open the possibility of Salmond having some future role in Scottish politics - and would not necessarily discount the idea of both Salmond and Sturgeon appearing together in the upper echelons of the SNP (perhaps with a carefully-managed "breaking of the bread" event to let bygones be bygones....); and

d) it would entirely obviate the possibility of things deteriorating into a full-on civil war within the SNP - a war which clearly could have an extremely damaging impact on the drive towards Scottish independence.


Politics - at pretty much any level - is a deeply Macchiavellian game, in which personal ambition and personal triumph are number one in most politicians' interests. And most politicians are primarily motivated by doing/saying anything which can ultimately increase the chances of those things happening. Salmond's political life's work might be for naught if bitter divisions within the SNP end up screwing up the chance to achieve Scottish independence. And in addition, were a civil war to end up happening, it'd probably be far less likely for Salmond to find his way back to the top table - even if he "won" that civil war - than if some sort of way could be found in which Salmond and Sturgeon might work together at some future stage.

I'm probably way off-base with all this, but.......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 01:24 PM   #55
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
There are so many written submissions that it is confusing which is which, but this is the now redacted submission by Salmond that is causing all the problems;

https://www.parliament.scot/Harassme...3.02.2021).pdf

There is also this submission, which in itself has very minor redactions, but the evidence attached is heavily redacted;

https://www.parliament.scot/Harassme...Submission.pdf
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Last edited by Nessie; 23rd February 2021 at 01:26 PM.
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 05:57 PM   #56
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Here's a link to the unredacted document, This is farcical.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210222...erial_Code.pdf

Anybody who wants to know who half of the complainants are can just send me a PM. Frankly anyone in Scotland (and a lot of people abroad) who is even faintly interested in the case knows by now. Someone actually tweeted three or four of the names in clear a week or two ago, although the tweet was later deleted. It's no longer about people not knowing, it's about gagging public discussion of what these women did.

The continual censoring of Salmond's submissions is simple to explain. One woman who was central to the setting up of the botched and illegal complaints process chose to become a complainant herself at a late stage in the game, apparently for the express purpose of gaining anonymity in any subsequent inquiry. It's virtually impossible for the process of the setting up of the complaints process to be described without naming her name. The committee has decided that any naming of this woman even without in any way identifying her as a complainant is illegal, and has threatened Salmond with prosecution if he even mentions her name, in any context.

The whole thing is so botched now that all you have to do is look at unredacted documents that were released into the public domain, and then at the redacted versions, and you can see whose name is being blacked out.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 06:44 PM   #57
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
LondonJohn, I know you don't pay a blind bit of attention to anything I say, but you are completely off base with this. It is Sturgeon who is behind and at the centre of the split in the SNP.

Salmond's worst mistake was in nurturing a viper as his second in command and successor. However, psychopaths aren't all mad axe murderers, some are very good actors and can string people along for a long time.

As soon as she had what she wanted, the leadership, she started to turn the SNP into a cult of personality. (I have good information that her husband is believed to have sabotaged the Yes campaign in 2014 when it looked as if victory might be within grasp, because that would have left Salmond the heroic winner and Sturgeon as a perpetual Robin to his Batman. They needed the referendum lost so that he would step down and she would succeed. I don't care if you believe that or not, I don't even know if I do, but I'm told there is evidence.)

It's also common knowledge, and I don't care if you believe this either, I'm just passing it on, that Peter Murrell is as camp as a row of tents and that the Sturgeon-Murrell marriage is one of political convenience, to allow them to control the party between them. (I had to go and look up Lavender Marriage the other day as it was trending, but then I knew what it was about.) Also Sturgeon said to be in a relationship with the (female) French ambassador who was involved in the Carmichael thing a few years ago. Whether any of this is true or not, having a married couple as leader of the party and First Minister, and Chef Executive, is something that simply should never have been allowed. Three people now run the SNP, put their favourites into key positions, and so it goes.

As soon as she took over, independence went on the back burner. It wasn't obvious at first because nobody was expecting another run at it within the couple of years following 2014, but after the Brexit referendum it started to get more and more obvious. She'd rally the troops about how independence was just round the corner (and to my shame I have been among the troops she was rallying), but then there was never a clear route or a clear timetable, and such strategy as she revealed actually explicitly ruled out any course of action that might have had a chance of success.

Money that was given to a fund earmarked for fighting a future referendum has vanished. Sturgeon has become increasingly obsessed with "trans rights", intent on forcing self-ID through against the increasingly well-organised and well-argued opposition of women. Every time she's forced to give some ground in public she sneaks round the back to force it through anyway. It's quite the opposite of the independence thing. There she claims publicly to be pursuing independence, but does nothing. On self-ID she takes a back seat, lets her pawns take the lead, everyone says "it's just administrative, nothing to see here and there will be another consultation anyway" while they're actually ramming it through.

In the course of all this Salmond is said to have become increasingly alarmed, and to have begun to regret stepping down and handing the viper the controls. He made some announcement in 2018 about maybe moving back into frontline politics, and everything snowballed from there. A couple of complants of sexual harrassment were solicited (one from a jealous woman who had pursued him in the past and whom he'd had a short fling with, but he'd broken it off) with the intention of putting them on file so that if he applied to be approved as a parliamentary candidate he could be rejected.

Now considering that one of the complaints was attempted rape, this stinks. If someone really thinks she's been the victim of attempted rape it's the police she should be going to, and if for some utterly inexplicable reason she goes to her political party about it, she should then be directed to the police. You don't file something that serious in case someone wants to be vetted as a candidate, with the comment "hopefully it won't be needed".

Salmond got wind of the shenanigans (the improper new complaints process that was dreamed up for the express purpose of allowing these retrospective complaints to be considered) and eventually applied for a judicial review. The Scottish government spent an enormous amount of money fighting this but had to fold near the end as their own lawyers said they would pull out if they didn't fold, because their case was impossible to win. Coincidentally the pull-out happened just before evidence was due to be taken that could have blown the whole thing wide open.

Incensed, the conspirators then had a plan that would see them "win the war" even though they'd "lost this battle", and someone had an idea about how they could engineer "strong repercussions" while at the same time remaining anonymous. This was when the complaints were passed to the police.

The police were encouraged to mount a massive investigation, more suited to catching the Yorkshire Ripper, into Salmond. Who bear in mind had been a Westminster MP since 1987, right under the noses of a lot of people who would have brought him down any way they could, but in the midst of a lot of sex scandals at the time, nobody had anything on him. Something like 400 women were approached in a massive trawl for more complainants, specifically they were desperate to get someone who wasn't part of the wee close Sturgeon clique to complain. That was why there was so much fuss about the "killer heels" joke, because that woman wasn't one of the clique. But it had to be dropped because there was nothing in it. My friend Anne Harvey who works for the party in Westminster, and who is a lawyer, has given an affidavit about this, as she was approached to get the names of women who had worked with Salmond to try to get some of them to complain. One woman was approached by the police and asked if she wanted to make a complaint of sexual harrassment because someone had seen Salmond kiss her on the cheek when they met in a theatre foyer! She said, don't be ridiculous.

This was all said to be in pursuit of something known as the Moorov doctrine, which is that if you can find a number of examples of similar behaviour attested to by independent witnesses, that strengthens your case. But there were two things wrong with that, One is that these women weren't independent, they were all in communication and egging each other on (at one time they denied that, and then when it couldn't be denied, it was just "a support group" - but such support groups should not happen, that's what independent counselling services are for). The other was that most of the complaints were beyond trivial - a push in the back to hurry someone up, pinging someone's curly hair which was apparently a pastime indulged in my many, an alleged hand on a knee in a car, and an alleged hand on an arm or a shoulder, over clothes. These incidents don't do a lot to support an allegation of attempted rape, and indeed one might wonder why the barrel had to be scraped quite so hard. I suspect the jury wondered too.

In fact as I understand it, the thinking wasn't really Moorov at all, but to get a range of allegations in front of the jury on the reasoning that juries who were going to acquit on the serious charges might well decide to split the difference or compromise a bit and convict on one or two of the really trivial one, in which case this could be used to trash Salmond's reputation and career anyway, even though he had been acquitted of attempted rape.

That didn't work and indeed it appears that the jury saw right through it.

Now we have two inquiries, one into whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code by lying to the parliament about the affair (spoiler, she did) and one into the squandering of some insane amount of money trying to oppose the judicial review when they hadn't a leg to stand on. Including the evidence that they concealed evidence from their own counsel, thus prolonging the process, and when counsel finally found out about it they said, fold or we'll walk, we cannot argue the case now we know the truth about what you weren't telling us.

What is going on now is a last-ditch attempt to stem the flood of revelations. Sturgeon is toast if half of what she did gets out. Salmond naturally wants the evidence he has to become public, and I know people who know him and who say he categorically has documentary proof of the whole thing, but the committee is entirely bent (three SNP MSPs plus Wightman who is a spineless wannabee seduced with promises of a nice place in the cabal if he plays along, against three opposition). They are repeatedly refusing to publish his submissions on the grounds that even mentioning the name, or I think it's now even the name of the senior position she holds, of She Who Must Not Be Named is illegal, even if she isn't in any way identified as a complainant. Since the main evidence of the stitch-up is related to meetings she attended, this is an impasse. This is of course why she added her name to the complainants list at the time, on a small exaggerated complaint, so that the anonymity extended to complainants in complaints of sexual harrassment, no matter how conclusively proved to be malicious lies, would cover her. Salmond is literally being threatened with prosecution if he mentions the name or indeed the position of someone who was central to crafting the illegal complaints procedure which is what this is all about.

I still can't be sure this will all break open as the Crown Office is frantically covering up on their behalf. And it's all compounded by the alphabet women squealing to the press about how this is all so unfair and stressful for them and it will be an outrage if any of them is identified, and anyway everyone should always believe the woman even if the man was acqutted and it's all so unfair...

So there you go. Deep-fried banana fritter republic. And I will in all probability spoil my ballot paper in May.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 23rd February 2021 at 06:52 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd February 2021, 08:10 PM   #58
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,042
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
LondonJohn, I know you don't pay a blind bit of attention to anything I say <snip>

????

(But thanks for that interesting perspective. Though I'd say tends to indicate the very real division line which seems to be opening up throughout the SNP: one must be either in "Team Salmond" or "Team Sturgeon", with little or no centre ground. Would you not agree that if/when this inquiry finds in favour of Salmond and at the same time determines that Sturgeon broke the ministerial code pretty egregiously and also misled parliament.... that this will only have the effect of lighting the blue touchpaper?)


ETA: And who wins if Sturgeon is forced out of office and there's a bitter division within the SNP? Well, clearly Sturgeon doesn't win. But I'd argue that Salmond probably doesn't win either. As I said before, his political and personal reputations are more-or-less restored thanks to the emphatic nature of the acquittals. But would destroying Sturgeon actually be in Salmond's best interests? I'd argue not (as per my previous post).

Last edited by LondonJohn; 23rd February 2021 at 08:19 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 06:36 AM   #59
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
It is quite a crisis. Not just the time and money spent trying to convict Alex Salmond on spurious evidence, but the time and money spent on a malicious prosecution of the Rangers FC administrators and other less well know failed prosecutions that should have never been started, such as allegations of Data protection Act breaches by police officers.

It is amazing how politicised the Scottish legal system has become and how it has become a tool for some to try and destroy others to fit their agendas.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 07:03 AM   #60
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Yes. I'm no fan of Rangers, but what was done in that context is also emblematic of what is going on. You might also consider the malicious prosecutions of Mark Hirst and Craig Murray, while at the same time giving explicit indemnity to Dani Garavelli and other unionist, Sturgeon-supporting journalists who published much more serious "jigsaw" evidence identifying several complanants.

Also, watch Channel 5 at nine tonight. The ongoing 15-year imprisonment of an innocent man for a murder which had no evidence tying him to it, and which happened when he was a 14-year-old schoolboy, is of a part with this. He has spent half his life in prison, lost his late teens and all of his twenties, all because an incompetent investigation latched on to him at the start, colleceted none of the evidence that could have identified someone else as the murderer, and then when there was no evidence against him they had nowhere to go and had to fit him up. We have a thread on that of course, but if we're talking about police and Crown Office corruption, that one is right up there.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 11:35 AM   #61
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Here is the full text of Alex Salmond's most recent submission, which the inquiry again at the last minute demanded should be removed from the web site and heavily redacted. The redactions demanded are highlighted in bold. No reasons for the redactions have been given and requests to share the legal advice that led to this development have been refused. Salmond's own lawyers believe there is nothing illegal or improper in the text.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...ein-testimony/

Murray is also (at the head of the article) offering a reward to anyone who will leak the submission of Geoff Aberdein, which has been refused in its entirety by the inquiry. Mr Aberdein was also at the meeting Sturgeon wants kept secret and it is believed that his statement, and the evidence that supports it, is if anything even more explosive than Salmond's.

Again, it appears that the inquiry will not allow one of the people at that meeting to be named, in any context. It is impossible to provide the evidence of wrongdoing without naming that person. Who made herself untouchable by adding herself to the list of complainants, and so acquiring anonymity which she and others are insisting must extend to any mention of her name at all, even though nothing is said to suggest that she is a complainant.

You may notice that everything redacted seems to involve Nicola Sturgeon's chief of staff. Now, of course everyone and his budgie knows that redacted passages refer to a complainant, even though the passages themselves only referred to the woman in her capacity as an official involved in drawing up the illegal and prejudicial complaints procedure.

The Lord Advocate is currently tying himself in knots trying to protect Sturgeon on this.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2021, 01:00 PM   #62
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
Paragraph 15 has not been redacted and it references Sturgeon's Chief of Staff.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 12:53 AM   #63
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 16,235
Salmond turns into an inappropriate groper when he drinks.

Seems he has a vendetta against the women he pestered and who forced him to admit his inappropriate behaviour under oath.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 04:21 AM   #64
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Citation required.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 07:48 AM   #65
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 16,235
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Citation required.
See the case, his sleepy cuddles, Kisses etc.
I note your offer to name names. I see someone had just been given 6 months jail time for similar.
The law protects alleged sex attack victims. That is to stop victims being scared to come forward.

The law is perhaps one sided but I suggest that solution to that would be to protect the accused not to 'slut shame' or publicise those who complained.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 07:59 AM   #66
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Salmond turns into an inappropriate groper when he drinks.

Seems he has a vendetta against the women he pestered and who forced him to admit his inappropriate behaviour under oath.
Family friends who have met him on numerous occasions, often socially where drink was involved, say that he is tactile, but not in a disturbing way.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:04 AM   #67
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
See the case, his sleepy cuddles, Kisses etc.
I note your offer to name names. I see someone had just been given 6 months jail time for similar.
The law protects alleged sex attack victims. That is to stop victims being scared to come forward.

The law is perhaps one sided but I suggest that solution to that would be to protect the accused not to 'slut shame' or publicise those who complained.
The issue here is that contempt law is being used to suppress evidence that has nothing to do with the trial.

That is why the redaction of evidence that was put into the public domain is very odd, because it has clearly identified one of the complainers. In effect, COPFS has broken the law, as it has enabled an easy jigsaw identification.

That is one reason why this whole episode is a farce and it has further revealed COPFS to be not fit for purpose.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:09 AM   #68
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 16,235
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Family friends who have met him on numerous occasions, often socially where drink was involved, say that he is tactile, but not in a disturbing way.
I recall that was his evidence. He confessed to needing to be more careful with people's 'personal space'. The problem from a social aspect is that it is the feelings of the "victim" trump those of the "space invader.". Not everyone will agree it is non disturbing even if it falls short it assault.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:12 AM   #69
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 16,235
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
The issue here is that contempt law is being used to suppress evidence that has nothing to do with the trial.

That is why the redaction of evidence that was put into the public domain is very odd, because it has clearly identified one of the complainers. In effect, COPFS has broken the law, as it has enabled an easy jigsaw identification.

That is one reason why this whole episode is a farce and it has further revealed COPFS to be not fit for purpose.
Was Salmond identifying complainers in his statement? Was he using " evidence" as an excuse to shame victims or was he naming then in a context not connected with the complaints?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:35 AM   #70
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
I recall that was his evidence. He confessed to needing to be more careful with people's 'personal space'. The problem from a social aspect is that it is the feelings of the "victim" trump those of the "space invader.". Not everyone will agree it is non disturbing even if it falls short it assault.
I don't like tactile people. I like being assaulted even less. I know the difference and so do most people. In this case, tactile acts were being overstated by the prosecution and made to appear to be assaults. The jury was not convinced in the slightest and as a result it was not guilty to the lot.

His own QC Gordon Jackson was no fan of his behaviour, as made well know by the recording of his comments during a train journey. But Jackson understands the law and what is criminal sexual assault.

That has happened at the same time as various other prosecutions where it is clear now COPFS acted maliciously or went to trial knowing there was insufficient credible evidence or exculpatory evidence meaning a prosecution was highly unlikely.

COPFS has become more and more politicised and less an independent prosecutor.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 08:40 AM   #71
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 13,124
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Was Salmond identifying complainers in his statement? Was he using " evidence" as an excuse to shame victims or was he naming then in a context not connected with the complaints?
Salmond's submission as it stood, by naming certain people due to their jobs, if anything took suspicion away from them.

The issue is that the complainers against him in the trial also worked in politics and so when it comes to his complaint about how Parliament investigated him, there is bound to be an overlap.

Redacting the evidence that was in the public domain means one name stands out as in the submission as a worker and then disappears with the redactions, which shows she is more than likely also a complainer.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:17 AM   #72
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Family friends who have met him on numerous occasions, often socially where drink was involved, say that he is tactile, but not in a disturbing way.

That is my experience of him as well. He comes over as avuncular, not creepy. And this has been attested by so many people I would think that Lothian's statement could well be defamatory. As was one he made earlier in this thread of course.

The "sleepy cuddle" was admitted as a one-off incident, which was consensual but recognised after the fact as inappropriate by both parties. Apologies were tendered and accepted and all seemed to be settled until the allegation was resurrected with a lot of additional detail that Salmond did not agree happened. The jury rejected this along with the rest of it, although I believe this was the "not proven" one, which is still an acquittal. I think this was because this allegation was a he said/she said thing based on a real occurrence, whereas there was concrete evidence that the rest of the allegations had not happened, at least in the way the complainants described.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:20 AM   #73
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
See the case, his sleepy cuddles, Kisses etc.
I note your offer to name names. I see someone had just been given 6 months jail time for similar.
The law protects alleged sex attack victims. That is to stop victims being scared to come forward.

The law is perhaps one sided but I suggest that solution to that would be to protect the accused not to 'slut shame' or publicise those who complained.

Everybody in Scotland with an IQ above room temperature and an actual pulse knows who (at least some of) these harpies are. The draconian steps being taken at the moment are to prevent people discussing the shenanigans in public.

The most damaging thing that can happen for real victims of sex attacks is for vindictive witches to make false, lying, invented allegations. This inevitably undermines the credibility of all complainants.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 25th February 2021 at 09:27 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:26 AM   #74
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Was Salmond identifying complainers in his statement? Was he using " evidence" as an excuse to shame victims or was he naming then in a context not connected with the complaints?

He was doing none of this, and you seem very unfamiliar with what is going on.

It was Salmond himself, early in the course of events, who took positive steps to ensure the anonymity of the complainants. NOT victims, by the way, because no crime was found to have been committed against them.

His statements have been gone over by his own lawyers with a fine-tooth comb and certified every which way to Tuesday as not identifying any complainants. However the inquiry, which is as bent as a corkscrew, is hiding behind spurious claims of "naming a complainant" to reject all of Salmond's evidence so that he can't bring forward what he knows about various meetings and so on.

Ironically, although Salmond's submissions as they stood wouldn't have given any clue as to the identity of any complainant, subsequent events have done just that. His submissions (twice) were published on legal advice that all was OK, then belatedly the inquiry then shouted no, we insist on redactions. All one then has to do is look at which paragraphs were redacted to see whose name (not identified as a complainant by Salmond) they are trying to suppress.

I did explain this in a long post above, which I can only assume you haven't read. The entire unredacted text of the submission is posted here, see if you can find out where he identifies anyone as a complainer, let alone shames her.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 25th February 2021 at 09:30 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:38 AM   #75
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 16,235
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Everybody in Scotland with an IQ above room temperature and an actual pulse knows who (at least some of) these harpies are. The draconian steps being taken at the moment are to prevent people discussing the shenanigans in public.

The most damaging thing that can happen for real victims of sex attacks is for vindictive witches to make false, lying, invented allegations. This inevitably undermines the credibility of all complainants.
Yes,that is what I am talking about. Victimising women who complained. Just because a court decides an act is not criminal doesn't mean that women were not made to feel uncomfortable. These women as I understand it were witnesses they were not personally suing Salmond.

You accuse them of lying. I don't think a court has found them guilty of that. Because the court did not convict Salmond doesn't mean the women lied. If this was a criminal case you are not looking at balance of probability.

The language you use about these women says a lot, not so much about them.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:43 AM   #76
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 16,235
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
He was doing none of this, and you seem very unfamiliar with what is going on.

It was Salmond himself, early in the course of events, who took positive steps to ensure the anonymity of the complainants. NOT victims, by the way, because no crime was found to have been committed against them.

His statements have been gone over by his own lawyers with a fine-tooth comb and certified every which way to Tuesday as not identifying any complainants. However the inquiry, which is as bent as a corkscrew, is hiding behind spurious claims of "naming a complainant" to reject all of Salmond's evidence so that he can't bring forward what he knows about various meetings and so on.

Ironically, although Salmond's submissions as they stood wouldn't have given any clue as to the identity of any complainant, subsequent events have done just that. His submissions (twice) were published on legal advice that all was OK, then belatedly the inquiry then shouted no, we insist on redactions. All one then has to do is look at which paragraphs were redacted to see whose name (not identified as a complainant by Salmond) they are trying to suppress.

I did explain this in a long post above, which I can only assume you haven't read. The entire unredacted text of the submission is posted here, see if you can find out where he identifies anyone as a complainer, let alone shames her.
In any litigation you have two sides going in on the back of legal advice. One of those will normally be wrong. Legal advice doesn't mean you are right.
I don't think Salmond needs to shame people when he had others labeling them witches and harpies.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:43 AM   #77
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
Yes,that is what I am talking about. Victimising women who complained. Just because a court decides an act is not criminal doesn't mean that women were not made to feel uncomfortable. These women as I understand it were witnesses they were not personally suing Salmond.

You accuse them of lying. I don't think a court has found them guilty of that. Because the court did not convict Salmond doesn't mean the women lied. If this was a criminal case you are not looking at balance of probability.

The language you use about these women says a lot, not so much about them.

You can think what you like about me, I'm entitled to think and indeed express what I believe the actual evidence demonstrates about the behaviour of these women, which is that they were lying in their teeth. It simply is not the case that all women are truthful, honourable, and entirely incapable of stooping to damage another person by lying. Some women are vindictive harpies who are entirely prepared to lie and cheat, either to take revenge on someone, or to advance their own careers by acting on behalf of others who wish to damage that person.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 25th February 2021 at 09:46 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:45 AM   #78
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 47,243
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
In any litigation you have two sides going in on the back of legal advice. One of those will normally be wrong. Legal advice doesn't mean you are right.
I don't think Salmond needs to shame people when he had others labeling them witches and harpies.

Salmond has never at any point shamed or attempted to shame anyone. He has been, from the first, exercised to ensure their anonymity was protected. Unless of course you can point me to somewhere where he did? Others are not compelled to follow his example of course.

Here's his latest submission, if you're at all interested in what's actually happening.

https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpres...-alex-salmond/
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:52 AM   #79
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,042
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
He was doing none of this, and you seem very unfamiliar with what is going on.

It was Salmond himself, early in the course of events, who took positive steps to ensure the anonymity of the complainants. NOT victims, by the way, because no crime was found to have been committed against them.


Careful with this:

The acquittals of Salmond meant nothing more or less than this: the court decided that Salmond's guilt BARD had not been established wrt the crimes he'd been charged with.

That does not necessarily logically imply that the crimes did not occur. And nor does it necessarily logically imply that these women were "crying wolf", overexaggerating, or otherwise making these allegations up.

So, in other words, Salmond's acquittals do not necessarily mean that these women were not victims.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2021, 09:56 AM   #80
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 17,042
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Everybody in Scotland with an IQ above room temperature and an actual pulse knows who (at least some of) these harpies are. The draconian steps being taken at the moment are to prevent people discussing the shenanigans in public.

The most damaging thing that can happen for real victims of sex attacks is for vindictive witches to make false, lying, invented allegations. This inevitably undermines the credibility of all complainants.


See my previous post
.

Incidentally, if law-enforcement authorities actually did believe there was evidence that one or more of these women had lied (whether for political gain or for another reason), then this in itself constitutes a criminal offence and the woman/women in question ought to be prosecuted accordingly.

Outside of that, I'd suggest that it probably isn't too wise an idea to be openly accusing any of these women to have been liars........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.