Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alex Salmond accused (and then cleared) of sexual misconduct.

Fedayn said:
From Dani Garavelli ,a well written piece

members.tortoisemedia.com

Scotland after the trial of Alex Salmond - Tortoise

This was a case about power, sex – and the future of Scotland. From court, Dani Garavelli covered every minute
members.tortoisemedia.com
Click to expand...
No, it's a load of shite and not well written at all.

Salmond was tried in the highest civil and criminal courts in Scotland. Cleared of every charge.

22 police worked for a year interviewing around 400 possible victims or witnesses. Guess what they came up with? That's right, nothing.

Accusations of sexual misconduct, assault or worse must always be taken extremely seriously and investigated properly, that's been done here. The biggest investigation in Scots history if I'm right.

The man's innocent of any crime and that's that.

People may not like Salmond (or me) but that's neither here nor there. Ignoring all the evidence and carrying on as normal means you can be filed under 'only accepts justice when it goes the way they want'.

Feel free to addess any concerns if it can be done in an adult and respectful manner.
 
DexterTCN said:
No, it's a load of shite and not well written at all.

Salmond was tried in the highest civil and criminal courts in Scotland. Cleared of every charge.

22 police worked for a year interviewing around 400 possible victims or witnesses. Guess what they came up with? That's right, nothing.

Accusations of sexual misconduct, assault or worse must always be taken extremely seriously and investigated properly, that's been done here. The biggest investigation in Scots history if I'm right.

The man's innocent of any crime and that's that.

People may not like Salmond (or me) but that's neither here nor there. Ignoring all the evidence and carrying on as normal means you can be filed under 'only accepts justice when it goes the way they want'.

Feel free to addess any concerns if it can be done in an adult and respectful manner.
Click to expand...
He's been acquitted of all the charges and is legally not guilty but there's still a shitty stink all over the man as a human being. His own defence admitted that he has behaved inappropriately, though not illegally, and nobody contests the fact that his behaviour led to an apology to one of his accusers. He's hardly come out of this smelling of fucking roses.
 
Last edited:
Saul Goodman said:
Being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent. We all know he was found not guilty but we can't say with any degree of certainty that he's innocent.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the Crown appeal, and the re-trial be held in Portsmouth.

The verdicts were all by a majority, so not all jurors convinced of his innocence. I would love to know the split.

Did you see that his lawyer was caught mouthing off on a train, and recorded whilst doing so. He named two of the victims, which is illegal.
 
Sasaferrato said:
The verdicts were all by a majority, so not all jurors convinced of his innocence. I would love to know the split.
Click to expand...
Well we know it was at least 61.5% (I think?) not guilty but it could have been far higher and some may have gone with the ridiculous 'not proven' option (which is also an acquittal). We'll never know for sure which is why speculation on it is pointless. As far as the trial is concerned he's not guilty and that's the end of it. Dexter is right about that bit.
 
Last edited:
Spymaster said:
Well we know it was at least 61.5% (I think?) not guilty but it could have been far higher and some may have gone with the ridiculous 'not proven' option (which is also an acquittal). We'll never know for sure which is why speculation on it is pointless. As far as the trial is concerned he's not guilty and that's the end of it. Dexter is right about that bit.
Click to expand...
I have to be pedantic, but what you mean is that on majority verdicts on each charge, the jury decided to aquit. That does not mean he is not guilty.

Cf Birmingham six, Guildford four et Al.
 
Sasaferrato said:
I have to be pedantic, but what you mean is that on majority verdicts on each charge, the jury decided to aquit. That does not mean he is not guilty.
Click to expand...
Well if we're being pedantic, in the eyes of the law it most certainly does mean he is not guilty. The verdict says exactly that. What I think you are suggesting is that it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it; which I would agree with.
 
Sasaferrato said:
I have to be pedantic, but what you mean is that on majority verdicts on each charge, the jury decided to aquit. That does not mean he is not guilty.

Cf Birmingham six, Guildford four et Al.
Click to expand...
It means a jury of his peers found him not guilty. They found him not guilty based on the evidence at hand. They didn't find him innocent, because that isn't an option.
 
Sasaferrato said:
I have to be pedantic, but what you mean is that on majority verdicts on each charge, the jury decided to aquit. That does not mean he is not guilty.

Cf Birmingham six, Guildford four et Al.
Click to expand...
Not sure what relevance your examples have here.

Both the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were originally found guilty by juries, on evidence which was later demonstrated to have been faked, hence their convictions eventually being quashed.

Unless if course you're saying you still think they were guilty, which wouldn't actually surprise me
 
Spymaster said:
Well if we're being pedantic, in the eyes of the law it most certainly does mean he is not guilty. The verdict says exactly that. What I think you are suggesting is that it doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it; which I would agree with.
Click to expand...
Yep, you have put it better than me.
 
andysays said:
Not sure what relevance your examples have here.

Both the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were originally found guilty by juries, on evidence which was later demonstrated to have been faked, hence their convictions eventually being quashed.

Unless if course you're saying you still think they were guilty, which wouldn't actually surprise me
Click to expand...
I think he was just pointing out that sometimes juries get it wrong.
 
Spymaster said:
I think he was just pointing out that sometimes juries get it wrong.
Click to expand...
many who come here suspected that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were fitted up by the state. It would be excellent if Sasaferrato had been amongst them, but i doubt it. I like to be charitable though, so your point stands. Juries are not infallible.
 
redcogs said:
many who come here suspected that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were fitted up by the state. It would be excellent if Sasaferrato had been amongst them, but i doubt it. I like to be charitable though, so your point stands. Juries are not infallible.
Click to expand...

I think that the way the the two groups were treated was beyond appalling.

The Birmingham Six appeared in court having obviously had a 'confession' beaten out of them, no one batted an eyelid. The fact that the people responsible did not all answer for their behaviour in a court of law is a permanent stain on our legal system.

Ditto the gross miscarriage perpetrated against the Guildford Four.

What I was saying, a bit obliquely, was that juries don't always get it right. In retrospect, a bad example to choose, because the 'evidence' as presented to the jury in both of those instances was so morally derelict that the jury could not have arrived at the right decision.
 
Sasaferrato said:
I think that the way the the two groups were treated was beyond appalling.

The Birmingham Six appeared in court having obviously had a 'confession' beaten out of them, no one batted an eyelid. The fact that the people responsible did not all answer for their behaviour in a court of law is a permanent stain on our legal system.

Ditto the gross miscarriage perpetrated against the Guildford Four.

What I was saying, a bit obliquely, was that juries don't always get it right. In retrospect, a bad example to choose, because the 'evidence' as presented to the jury in both of those instances was so morally derelict that the jury could not have arrived at the right decision.
Click to expand...
Not so. Many on the Left imediately questioned the role of the state and campaigned around the issue. i doubt that you were amongst them? As i've said though, i like to be charitable, and i would be entirely prepared to be wrong on this point.
 
redcogs said:
Not so. Many on the Left imediately questioned the role of the state and campaigned around the issue. i doubt that you were amongst them? As i've said though, i like to be charitable, and i would be entirely prepared to be wrong on this point.
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
So...any updates on what's happening here from those with their fingers on the pulse? Fedayn ?

Or have you sent out the state message and you're happy leaving it there?
 
Fedayn said:
Oh dear....
Click to expand...
It's one of the strangest links I'e ever seen.

There's no links to anything else in the article, not even a homepage.

If I go to the homepage Home - Tortoise then it tells almost nothing but does have an offer to join a 'digital thinkin' about "What does God think about the corona virus"

Kinda just looks like you pay it to publish what you want and they do it.

Where did you get it?
 
Neither of you so quick to reply now though.

It was paid for by this lot Tulchan names new directors among series of promotions

So seeing as how it's... you know...the tories that paid for it...and it's a private site for members only (hover over fed's link) and it's full of paid for shite including how god deals with the corona virus...and the article mentions weinstein, a convicted sex criminal, a bunch of times re an innocent man, and its entirely one-sided approach whilst appearing to identify a juror and the way he voted...and this is the only free to access article on the entire site that I can see...because the tories must have paid for that too...I'm calling shenannigans. Asking where fed got it is entirely reasonable.

In Scotland the far left and labour in general are in bed with the tories, it's a fact. :)

This slanderous shite of an article just shows how the right manage to push the left's buttons.
 
DexterTCN said:
Neither of you so quick to reply now though.

It was paid for by this lot Tulchan names new directors among series of promotions

So seeing as how it's... you know...the tories that paid for it...and it's a private site for members only (hover over fed's link) and it's full of paid for shite including how god deals with the corona virus...and the article mentions weinstein, a convicted sex criminal, a bunch of times re an innocent man, and its entirely one-sided approach whilst appearing to identify a juror and the way he voted...and this is the only free to access article on the entire site that I can see...because the tories must have paid for that too...I'm calling shenannigans. Asking where fed got it is entirely reasonable.

In Scotland the far left and labour in general are in bed with the tories, it's a fact. :)

This slanderous shite of an article just shows how the right manage to push the left's buttons.
Click to expand...

The articlet was on twitter, so, you know, really secretive and underground.
 
Fedayn said:
The articlet was on twitter, so, you know, really secretive and underground.
Click to expand...
What was it that you thought was well-written? Whose twitter? Twitter links are usually from twitter.

What stood out for you as relevant to post? (some people here have problems if you just post a link without comment...sometimes)

I've pointed out the fact that it was paid for by tories and published on a dodgy site. Not unreasonable to ask why you post it and what you liked about it.

And that fuckwit squirrel as well, obviously.

I, personally, just think that you're a fuckwit that repeats anything you're fed when it suits your cadres and you oblige every time. Still have to question whether you actually have an opinion though.

You're very terse when challenged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
"Alex Salmond Plots His Next Moves Against the British State" (Newsweek)
2 3
Replies
65
Views
7K
eskdave
eskdave
Q
What's up with Salmond, Leveson, and regulating the press?
Replies
7
Views
3K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
David Starkey "Salmond like Hitler".
2 3
Replies
86
Views
35K
DexterTCN
DexterTCN
D
Include Salmond in the BBC election debate?
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Peter Dow
Are you ready for Salmond's St. Andrew's day betrayal?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
179
Views
12K
Sgt Howie
S
Back
Top Bottom