Scottish Politics Thread

Must be a slow news day for the Sunday Times the innocent sexual predator gets at least three pages worth of stories…….with a picture of Nicola recoiling from a peck from eck
 

Union Jack

Old-Salt
Even his defence chappie was equivocal on his innocence, and the BBC even gave that a mention.
So he was, and so they did, and here it is....https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790 and I understand that Gordon Jackson QC has indeed now referred the matter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

Jack
 

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
A special defence of consent which was used by Salmond’s defence team doesn’t seem to have lodged with both the general public or those SNP supporters who’re now loudly screaming “not guilty” and accusing every media outlet of a smear campaign (including the National). After all that means he’s actually admitting that every thing actually did happen, but the women involved, consented to it happening.
 
One interesting comment in today’s Sunday times
When asked the SNP replied Eck Salmond is no longer a member.

Now call me Auld Yin , I doubt the party members will welcome him back with open arms unless they acknowledge his warts n all
may hinder the future chance of
Freedom
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
A special defence of consent which was used by Salmond’s defence team doesn’t seem to have lodged with both the general public or those SNP supporters who’re now loudly screaming “not guilty” and accusing every media outlet of a smear campaign (including the National). After all that means he’s actually admitting that every thing actually did happen, but the women involved, consented to it happening.
Iirc at least 2 of the ladies admitted previous consensual interactions with the former FM
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Seadog

ADC
Even better, here's the recording of the man himself describing how Alex Salmond was a bully and a ‘sex pest’, his own QC says on train

Jack
Did I hear the learned gentleman call Eck an '********'?

Much as I hate Salmond and the SNP, I agree with the jury's 'not guilty' / 'not proven' verdicts. From what made the newspapers and TV news, there wasn't enough to find him guilty - although I thought the prosecution QC's closing speech was a belter.

A 'not proven' verdict is an acquittal. In the eyes of the law, Alex Salmond is innocent.
 
Last edited:

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
Iirc at least 2 of the ladies admitted previous consensual interactions with the former FM
So?

Just because they had previously had consensual interactions does not mean those occasions involved in the case were consensual.
Unless you believe it does, and therefore makes all future sexual contact “consensual”?
Did the #metoo movement miss the Highlands? The crux of the case is not whether these allegations are true or not, a special defence of consent doesn’t exactly refute the veracity of the allegations, it means that Alex Salmond admits these actually happened but were consensual which obviously is the point under contention. As we’ve seen today it’s more about what your defence can make the jury believe than what actually happened, no matter what your defence actually think about the behaviour of the person who has engaged their services.

Never mind the whole questionable moral morass of “consensual” when in a work place setting when one of the parties is in a position of power. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation when any potential question of impropriety is raised it never looks good if someone who has considerable power over a complainant is accused, it is highly surprising that in the light of Weinstein, Spacey et al that such a case when brought to court in Scotland resulted in an acquittal.
 

SDFA

Old-Salt
Sat musing about activities of the last few days.

Boris and Matt have CV and have delegated powers to continue providing accurate and timely information.

What would happen if, God forbid, wee Nicky gets CV, who would take over the reigns?
Would she relinquish the responsibility to another? Would we see, although we already know, the ineptness and dearth of leaders who could stand up?
Frankly, I'm not full of optimism.
Ive watched the last few Scottish briefs on the news and I really, really feel sorry for the CMO. Even when she's talking she looks like she's going to burst into tears. Either she knows more than she's letting on or she's well out of her depth.
Anyway, good health to Nic, the other options arent looking pretty!
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
So?

Just because they had previously had consensual interactions does not mean those occasions involved in the case were consensual.
Unless you believe it does, and therefore makes all future sexual contact “consensual”?
Did the #metoo movement miss the Highlands? The crux of the case is not whether these allegations are true or not, a special defence of consent doesn’t exactly refute the veracity of the allegations, it means that Alex Salmond admits these actually happened but were consensual which obviously is the point under contention. As we’ve seen today it’s more about what your defence can make the jury believe than what actually happened, no matter what your defence actually think about the behaviour of the person who has engaged their services.

Never mind the whole questionable moral morass of “consensual” when in a work place setting when one of the parties is in a position of power. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation when any potential question of impropriety is raised it never looks good if someone who has considerable power over a complainant is accused, it is highly surprising that in the light of Weinstein, Spacey et al that such a case when brought to court in Scotland resulted in an acquittal.
I was in no way trying to insinuate that past consent was indicative of future consent.
I merely attempting to give a foundation for where his QC might have tried to use that particular defence.

I, like everyone else who was not in the court, have not seen all the evidence but I was amazed as everyone else on here at his acquittal.

Prior to the unveiling of the recording of his QC on the train, I'd have said it was because he had a very clever lawyer but the evidence would point otherwise
 

SDFA

Old-Salt
I was in no way trying to insinuate that past consent was indicative of future consent.
I merely attempting to give a foundation for where his QC might have tried to use that particular defence.

I, like everyone else who was not in the court, have not seen all the evidence but I was amazed as everyone else on here at his acquittal.

Prior to the unveiling of the recording of his QC on the train, I'd have said it was because he had a very clever lawyer but the evidence would point otherwise
So what you, and many others are saying is, the QC is a cu##, Salmondd is a cu## and as we all know, it's how you play the game?

I know in this country you are presumed innocent unless convicted, however there are more lawyers and QC's guilty of crimes against the state than there are criminals!

If I was a believer, I would hope that after a lifetime of riches beyond their wildest dreams all criminal defence solicitors have a good 14 day, all inclusive trip down below!
 

craven50

War Hero
Unfortunately bully and sex pest does not automatically make rapist.
But does make him/she a sexual criminal if any sexual activity occurred without consent! As for rape? The majority of charges were not for that.
About time jury services be overhauled to rid incompetents.
 
Unfortunately bully and sex pest does not automatically make rapist.
But does make him/she a sexual criminal if any sexual activity occurred without consent! As for rape? The majority of charges were not for that.
About time jury services be overhauled to rid incompetents.
two jurist were discharged by the judge….
it would be interesting to see how many were selected before the final fifteen were chosen.
 

CanteenCowboy

LE
Book Reviewer
I was in no way trying to insinuate that past consent was indicative of future consent.
I merely attempting to give a foundation for where his QC might have tried to use that particular defence.

I, like everyone else who was not in the court, have not seen all the evidence but I was amazed as everyone else on here at his acquittal.

Prior to the unveiling of the recording of his QC on the train, I'd have said it was because he had a very clever lawyer but the evidence would point otherwise
Yes you clearly were trying to do that. If you cannot go back, reread your post and identify that very fact, then I suggest you definitely make sure your equality and diversity training is fully up to date.

A single sentence stating that they’d previously had consensual sexual contact with no further context or explanation is clearly implying that they were “fair game” for Alex Salmond. I suggest you take your blinkers off in this particular subject, the matter of his previous behaviour was definitely going to become open knowledge when the current FM instigated an investigation into the perceived sexual bullying culture in Scottish politics. This whole matter is not just worthy of further investigation or a parliamentary committee but indeed full criminal investigation. It’s clear that the matter goes much further into not only the Scottish Government but also the SNP. The only bright side for all parties involved, for any further investigation may result in criminal proceedings against people from both factions of the SNP, is that the longer the current coronavirus crisis drags on the less likely to seriously damage the SNP’s reputation.
 

Union Jack

Old-Salt
two jurist were discharged by the judge….
it would be interesting to see how many were selected before the final fifteen were chosen.
The advice on "Jury Service in the High Court and Sheriff Court" reads simply:

The selection of the jury

Once it is known that a trial is to start, the clerk of court will draw fifteen names at random from a glass bowl containing all the names of the jurors present. If your name is called out, you should come forward and take the seat you are directed to in the jury box.

Unless good reason is given, or an objection to the balloted juror is allowed, the first fifteen jurors balloted will make up the jury for the trial.

Scotland is not the United States!

Jack
 

Latest Threads

Top