HTG Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 30 minutes ago, Detournement said: His problem is Sturgeon, Murrell and their lackeys tried to frame him for attempted rape. Craig Murray has published a letter from the Crown that there are communications where senior SNP officials say that if the police tell them what kind of evidence is required to prosecute Salmond then they will obtain it. Well that's all something and nothing. I think we need to see the exact nature of the communication rather than the short hand being used to make a point. It is beyond doubt that if the police were to make a request of any political party or public body for information held by them, then they'd be obliged to hand it over. The opposite of this is deliberate concealment of same. The way this is being presented is that the SNP, if necessary, would provide evidence whether it existed or not i.e. fabricate it. I suggest that's bollocks. Salmond may feel hard done by, I think that much is self evident. We're still in the aftermath of #metoo and institutional cover ups of the sort that Savile benefitted from. Against that sort of backdrop, I'd expect a public body or organisation to be mindful that it doesn't deliberately obstruct. All that said, there definitely seem to be flaws in the way this has been handled - Salmond winning his damages claim previously points to that. But I'll settle for seeing what comes out in the process rather than take hints of evidence fabrication as gospel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 1 minute ago, HTG said: Well that's all something and nothing. I think we need to see the exact nature of the communication rather than the short hand being used to make a point. It is beyond doubt that if the police were to make a request of any political party or public body for information held by them, then they'd be obliged to hand it over. The opposite of this is deliberate concealment of same. The way this is being presented is that the SNP, if necessary, would provide evidence whether it existed or not i.e. fabricate it. I suggest that's bollocks. Salmond may feel hard done by, I think that much is self evident. We're still in the aftermath of #metoo and institutional cover ups of the sort that Savile benefitted from. Against that sort of backdrop, I'd expect a public body or organisation to be mindful that it doesn't deliberately obstruct. All that said, there definitely seem to be flaws in the way this has been handled - Salmond winning his damages claim previously points to that. But I'll settle for seeing what comes out in the process rather than take hints of evidence fabrication as gospel. Salmond wants the communications present to the inquiry but the Lord Advocate doesn't. That is holding up his appearance. If the police want any evidence they should interview and investigate the relevant individuals themselves not ask political parties to provide it. The inference is that the message from Riddick suggests she will ensure that evidence is fabricated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 45 minutes ago, Detournement said: His problem is Sturgeon, Murrell and their lackeys tried to frame him for attempted rape. Why though? I genuinely have no idea why they'd want to do that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 17 minutes ago, Detournement said: Salmond wants the communications present to the inquiry but the Lord Advocate doesn't. That is holding up his appearance. If the police want any evidence they should interview and investigate the relevant individuals themselves not ask political parties to provide it. The inference is that the message from Riddick suggests she will ensure that evidence is fabricated. That's one way to infer it. Another is we have a million emails, WhatsApp, texts etc. If you tell us what would be relevant to any investigation we will provide it. Political parties have a duty of care to protect employees and activists. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Yea, that can either be read as "we will cooperate fully with any investigation" or "you tell us what you need to get him and we will oblige" and I still have no idea why the SNP would do the latter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Pretty sure if a police detective asked to see relevent evidence and the person being asked replied 'evidence, sure...what do you need, I can produce an eye witness, they'll say whatever you need them to say' then they'd get arrested themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 12 minutes ago, NotThePars said: Yea, that can either be read as "we will cooperate fully with any investigation" or "you tell us what you need to get him and we will oblige" and I still have no idea why the SNP would do the latter. Because they are a cabal of manhating MI5 plants, apparently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Imagine the wails of cover up if they'd showed anything less than total cooperation with the police. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erih Shtrep Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 It's very obvious there was some form of lying taking place during the dinner meeting where Alex Salmond didn't attempt to rape Woman H. 'She had been a personal friend of Ms H, the accuser who alleged attempted rape, for some years by 2014. They remain friends. She had been invited to the evening reception of Ms H’s wedding. She testified she is also a friend of Ms H’s current husband. Ms H had telephoned her to invite her to the dinner at Bute house with the (not to be named) actor on 13 June 2014. Ms H in inviting her had stated she (Ms H) was not able to be there. In fact Ms H had indeed not been at the dinner. Ms Barber had arrived that evening at around 7pm. She had been shown up to the drawing room. The actor was already there and they had chatted together, just the two of them, until about 7.15pm when Alex Salmond had joined them. The three of them had dinner together. It was friendly and conivivial. At first the actor’s career had been discussed and then Scottish independence. Nobody else was there. Asked if any private secretaries had been in and out during dinner, Ms Barber replied not to her recollection. Nobody interrupted them One bottle of wine was served during dinner. She had left after dinner around 9 and the actor had stayed on as Alex Salmond offered to show him around the Cabinet Room. Defence Counsel Shelagh McCall QC asked her if Ms H had been there? No. Did you see her at any point during the evening? No. [Ms H had claimed she was at this dinner and the attempted rape occurred afterwards. Alex Salmond had testified Ms H was not there at all. A video police interview with the actor had tended to support the idea Ms H, or another similar woman, was there and they were four at dinner.] If you'd enjoyed dinner with the FM at Bute house for certain you'd be able to say whether there was another 2 or 3 people round the dinner table with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Mixed up date and/or occasion after 4 years? Why make up something that can so easily be proved wrong or contradicted? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 1 hour ago, renton said: Pretty sure if a police detective asked to see relevent evidence and the person being asked replied 'evidence, sure...what do you need, I can produce an eye witness, they'll say whatever you need them to say' then they'd get arrested themselves. You are very naive then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, NotThePars said: Yea, that can either be read as "we will cooperate fully with any investigation" or "you tell us what you need to get him and we will oblige" and I still have no idea why the SNP would do the latter. It's not the SNP. It's the faction that control the SNP. Salmond was clearly planning to take control of the party with Cherry as his candidate whenever the next leadership contest occurs. There are apparently other messages where Murrell states he will personally pressure the police to deal with Salmond more harshly and records of Riddick being disappointed that an accuser would change their evidence. Edited January 21, 2021 by Detournement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 I flipped the ignore function for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 HB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 His problem is Sturgeon, Murrell and their lackeys tried to frame him for attempted rape. Craig Murray has published a letter from the Crown that there are communications where senior SNP officials say that if the police tell them what kind of evidence is required to prosecute Salmond then they will obtain it. What a pile of nonsense. Craig Murray wouldn't know the truth if it punched him in the puss. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erih Shtrep Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 1 hour ago, welshbairn said: Mixed up date and/or occasion after 4 years? Why make up something that can so easily be proved wrong or contradicted? Oh I believe 'The actor' and 'Woman H' that she was there at this dinner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Things starting to unravel. Sturgeon will be gone by March. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Things starting to unravel. Sturgeon will be gone by March. Perhaps you should take bets on that. It's well worth the risk if you have no intention of paying up in full if you lose @The_Kincardine can advise further re online bookmaking, I believe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 11 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: Things starting to unravel. Sturgeon will be gone by March. Biden will never be president - QAnon Sturgeon will be gone by March - StuAnon. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Perhaps you should take bets on that. It's well worth the risk if you have no intention of paying up in full if you lose @The_Kincardine can advise further re online bookmaking, I believe Goading in the Time of Pandemic right there. BTW I was listening to Open All Mics a couple of weeks back and, I think it was Jonathan Sutherland, pronounced your team's nickname as The Lishties. I was outraged on your behalf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.