Jump to content

Alex Salmond.


kevthedee

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
10 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Surprised no one mentioned the Leslie Evans testimony at the Holyrood enquiry earlier 2day. 

 

 

Couldn't find much on it, had a look at Wings and he's decided that Evans is going to jail, Sturgeon will lose a vote of no confidence and possibly also go to jail, and Swinney too for good measure.

Below The Line, Campbell is being touted for a Pulitzer and others are decrying a wider conspiracy against men.

So.... aye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I can only imagine that's because if Salmond, Sturgeon et al 'told the truth' exactly as the shrieking heads are demanding, it would immediately dismantle the anonymity of at least one of the women who made the original allegations

Edited by Boo Khaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Wanting immunity from prosecution to testify at an inquiry investigating your criminality is a brass neck.

That's an interesting spin on things. Here's what his legal representative has to say.

Graphic of quote from Alex Salmon lawyer:     Our client is now effectively being forced into a position of being asked to take an oath to tell the âtruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truthâ, but being simultaneously advised by those acting in the name of the Lord Advocate that he would be committing a criminal offence if he does so. That cannot be a tenable position.â      Alex Salmondâs lawyer, David McKie

BTW

1) Salmond isn't a criminal. He was acquitted of all charges in the recent trial, and AFAIK, he had no previous convictions

2) The inquiry isn't into his "criminality"

3) The inquiry relates to the Scottish Government's botched complaint handling procedure

But you knew all that already, didn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

That's an interesting spin on things. Here's what his legal representative has to say.

Graphic of quote from Alex Salmon lawyer:     Our client is now effectively being forced into a position of being asked to take an oath to tell the âtruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truthâ, but being simultaneously advised by those acting in the name of the Lord Advocate that he would be committing a criminal offence if he does so. That cannot be a tenable position.â      Alex Salmondâs lawyer, David McKie

BTW

1) Salmond isn't a criminal. He was acquitted of all charges in the recent trial, and AFAIK, he had no previous convictions

2) The inquiry isn't into his "criminality"

3) The inquiry relates to the Scottish Government's botched complaint handling procedure

But you knew all that already, didn't you?

How would telling the truth be a criminal act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

How would telling the truth be a criminal act?

Salmond will require to take the oath. That oath states that he will tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

The prosecution witnesses in his criminal trial have their identities protected by a court order. If he answers any question relating to any actions taken by any of these witnesses and that answer could be considered to aid identification of that witness (including jigsaw investigation), he may commit a criminal act.

To give an extreme example, what can he do if the inquiry directly asks him "who is witness Z?" Should he commit contempt by answering the question truthfully, or should he commit contempt by refusing to answer?

Edited by lichtgilphead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

Salmond will require to take the oath. That oath states that he will tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

The prosecution witnesses in his criminal trial have their identities protected by a court order. If he answers any question relating to any actions taken by any of these witnesses and that answer could be considered to aid identification of that witness (including jigsaw investigation), he may commit a criminal act.

To give an extreme example, what can he do if the inquiry directly asks him "who is witness Z?" Should he commit contempt by answering the question truthfully, or should he commit contempt by refusing to answer?

Bollocks.  The question would be ruled out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

Bollocks.  The question would be ruled out of order.

Agreed. That question would be ruled unfair. That's why I gave it as an extreme example.

However, if someone knew or suspected the identities of any of the witnesses, it would not be difficult to frame a question that would be impossible to answer fully without getting into jigsaw identification territory. That's one reason why I gave such an extreme example. I could easily have asked a far more pertinent question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...