Mr Rational Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 As someone who has went through the SNP vetting process you are required to state any convictions as you are not allowed to stand if you have been convicted for fraud etc. You are encouraged to disclose anything harmful to the party and the branch normally volunteers any additionsl information that is required. Then it goes to hustings where you are grilled, then a vote, then you are selected as candidate. It's pretty thorough although not as stringent as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Three claims that the SNP have not refuted Armstrong's version of events, despite the fact that their single statement on the matter, err, did. No it didn't, other than to dispute the point of the meeting. The SNP have categorically not disputed Armstrong's version of events, in terms of what information he provided to the SNP official around concerns about Walker. Indeed, they have admitted that they investigated the issue, and found there to be no case to answer. This was their fundamental mistake, and it's why they have looked like utter fools. Armstrong's evidence, as he contends, was based on the judicial comments in the public domain, and newspaper articles about Walker, along with his own experiences as a member of the family. There is no question that this was presented to the SNP. What is in dispute is what the officials did with it. It's a f**k up. They got it badly wrong, and it's rebounded on them horribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Bill Walker being a c**t is as much of a reason to vote no as Eric Joyce being a c**t is a reason to vote Yes. Completely irrelevant to the independence debate. On the independence debate Blair Jenkins is a car crash every time he goes on TV. All over the place last night. Surely the Yes side can get one of the more able politicians to do the media for them. Patrick Harvie, Canavan, Sturgeon all streets ahead of Jenkins. I get the non-political, grassroots campaign stuff but there has to be a better performer out there than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Better Together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 You are encouraged to disclose anything harmful to the party Yes, and turkeys are encouraged to vote for Christmas. This is pretty pointless, and it's standard tactics only useful in terms of applying retrospectively punishment for failure to disclose it. For example, TV quiz shows have a very similar requirement. Result being, if you win the £1 million top prize and they later find you were on the front page of the Daily Record previously for sexual misconduct, they will withold your prize. The failure here is in the SNP's investigations concerning allegations made against Bill Walker. Had these been "he said/she said" tales then you are in a difficult position. They weren't. It was information easily verifiable by looking at the court reports from the previous cases such as Swindon. You knew then that Walker was someone who had committed acts of violence against the children in his care. Either the SNP official concerned knew this and shrugged and said "so what" or they didn't bother their arse to find out and shrugged and said "so what". That's fine, but when it turns out later that this evidence had been presented to you and you ignored it, you end up looking like utter fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I get the non-political, grassroots campaign stuff but there has to be a better performer out there than him. He's horrific. As is Blair McDougall. In fact, is there anyone called Blair that isn't a c**t and/or an incompetent fool. I can't think of any. I'm not counting Lionel Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Bill Walker being a c**t is as much of a reason to vote no as Eric Joyce being a c**t is a reason to vote Yes. Completely irrelevant to the independence debate. On the independence debate Blair Jenkins is a car crash every time he goes on TV. All over the place last night. Surely the Yes side can get one of the more able politicians to do the media for them. Patrick Harvie, Canavan, Sturgeon all streets ahead of Jenkins. I get the non-political, grassroots campaign stuff but there has to be a better performer out there than him. I said as much on Twitter last night. For the sham that is all-party-non-party campaigning (with both designated campaigns) putting Patrick Harvie in charge of the Yes campaign would be an absolute masterstroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I'm not counting Lionel Blair. Why not? He might be a right c**t off screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Yes, and turkeys are encouraged to vote for Christmas. This is pretty pointless, and it's standard tactics only useful in terms of applying retrospectively punishment for failure to disclose it. For example, TV quiz shows have a very similar requirement. Result being, if you win the £1 million top prize and they later find you were on the front page of the Daily Record previously for sexual misconduct, they will withold your prize. The failure here is in the SNP's investigations concerning allegations made against Bill Walker. Had these been "he said/she said" tales then you are in a difficult position. They weren't. It was information easily verifiable by looking at the court reports from the previous cases such as Swindon. You knew then that Walker was someone who had committed acts of violence against the children in his care. Either the SNP official concerned knew this and shrugged and said "so what" or they didn't bother their arse to find out and shrugged and said "so what". That's fine, but when it turns out later that this evidence had been presented to you and you ignored it, you end up looking like utter fools. My take is that you get a lot of innuendo flying about the candidates which you have to ignore. If there's concrete evidence then it's a def no but you can't stop a candidate standing because of office gossip. Hindsight is great, walker should never have been near selection never mind office but we deal with what's in front of us. Selection has been reviewed and tightened up and I doubt this will happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Evidence that he had witheld damaging information at the selection stage. Information they were already in receipt of from Rob Armstrong. Apparently you can be guilty by hearsay, says the Unionist lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I said as much on Twitter last night. For the sham that is all-party-non-party campaigning (with both designated campaigns) putting Patrick Harvie in charge of the Yes campaign would be an absolute masterstroke. The reality is he and other elected politicians are probably quite happy for Blair Jenkins to be the lightning rod for any f**k ups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I said as much on Twitter last night. For the sham that is all-party-non-party campaigning (with both designated campaigns) putting Patrick Harvie in charge of the Yes campaign would be an absolute masterstroke. For who? Harvie is a vile Marxist c**t, best kept well away from the spotlight in case folk actually hear what the little rat actually believes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 The reality is he and other elected politicians are probably quite happy for Blair Jenkins to be the lightning rod for any f**k ups Harvie has already been binned by Salmond and his clique. He was a useful idiot for the launch jamboree, had a few soundbites and then it was a "thanks and f**k off" to him. I wonder how frustrated he is that no "compelling" case for independence has been forwarded by the ailing yes clowns? Hopefully he is grasping his hemp handbag really tightly as he seethes at the prospect of a Marxist Scotland sliding off over the horizion as f**k up after f**k up continues by the yes amateurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMDP Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Goodness me, the Unionist bloc on here (which seems to consist of failed lawyers, trainee lawyers and DeeGas) are really struggling now. Is this the positive case for the union now chaps - Bill Walker and the difficulty of moving a legal department? Well, you've won me over - if I could vote, it would be no all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Goodness me, the Unionist bloc on here (which seems to consist of failed lawyers, trainee lawyers and DeeGas) are really struggling now. Is this the positive case for the union now chaps - Bill Walker and the difficulty of moving a legal department? Well, you've won me over - if I could vote, it would be no all the way. You stick an X in a box. I'm sure that with a bit of help, you will manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Goodness me, the Unionist bloc on here (which seems to consist of failed lawyers, trainee lawyers and DeeGas) are really struggling now. Is this the positive case for the union now chaps - Bill Walker and the difficulty of moving a legal department? Well, you've won me over - if I could vote, it would be no all the way. Last time I checked there isn't a single "failed lawyer" or "trainee lawyer" on this thread #unlucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If there has been illegal hacking into the Yes confidential files, it says a lot that the worst they can come up with is somebody being paid a very small amount of money to write a pro-independence article. I demand to hear of secret Salmond-Merkel pacts, Donald Trump being paid gazillions on the sly and inflammatory pictures of Sturgeon and Prince Harry. I DEMAND IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I genuinely forgot those three months pretending to be a Libertarian. Reynard must be gutted at losing his only mate. Those days are long gone. Now he's a tory authoritarian. I find it interesting how stories and discussions about joyce go on the politics thread, and stories about this guy go on the independence thread. Smearing by association, and if ad lib genuinely can't see that, then this is willie rennie levels of fail. Now, to address his specific accusation, how can a post where I point out that clegg endorsed the miranda detention count as not mentioning him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Last time I checked there isn't a single "failed lawyer" or "trainee lawyer" on this thread #unlucks You're right, but the thread does contain world leading legal authorities on legal, constitutional, and european law. Apparently. Who all know more than any other legal pundit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Those days are long gone. Now he's a tory authoritarian. Factually inaccurate. Zero engagement. I find it interesting how stories and discussions about joyce go on the politics thread, and stories about this guy go on the independence thread. Eric Joyce not being brought up in the Independence thread Eric Joyce not being brought up in the Independence thread (mk II) Are these attempts to "smear by association"? Smearing by association, and if ad lib genuinely can't see that, then this is willie rennie levels of fail. Wow. Fail. I explicitly acknowledged that some people might be commenting about it on this thread to smear by association. For some, absolutely, it is because they want to attach embarrassment for "the SNP" or "the Tories" or "Labour" or "the Lib Dems" to the broader credibility of their positions and approaches to the referendum. Chapter and fucking verse. Now, to address his specific accusation, how can a post where I point out that clegg endorsed the miranda detention count as not mentioning him? what are you on about? I've not said you haven't mentioned Miranda or Clegg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.