SANTAN Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 11 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said: Sorry@Stormzy. Genuinely don't understand your reply? Just a shite joke! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: No - I don't know the accuser's names and nor do I want to. Two wrongs don't make a right. The principle of anonymity when it comes to sex offences is absolutely paramount no matter who you are. Jackie Baillie has shown she is prepared to throw that principle under the bus for political gain. I would challenge this. When "victims" of no crime continue to talk to the media and retain their anonymity then I think there is a solid case for such anonymity to be removed. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, strichener said: I would challenge this. When "victims" of no crime continue to talk to the media and retain their anonymity then I think there is a solid case for such anonymity to be removed. Apparently the court disagrees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, strichener said: I would challenge this. When "victims" of no crime continue to talk to the media and retain their anonymity then I think there is a solid case for such anonymity to be removed. If they're not talking about the case I see no reason why they should have to pack in their job, whoever it is you're talking about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 The idea that they shouldn't have anonymity just because he was found not guilty is ridiculous. Unless you sign up to the real crackpot shit that it was all made up and none of it ever happened then we know that something unpleasant happened to each of those women, and just because criminality couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever the standard is) that doesn't mean they suddenly become fair game. It'd be a really shameful outcome of this case if it became apparent that the continuation of Salmond's vandetta against Sturgeon was considered worth ruining those women's lives over. Never mind the precedent being set that in a set of offences that is already under-reported, under-prosecuted and under-convicted, victims were to be sent the signal that if they were to lose the court case (as they are massively odds on to do) their anonymity can be sacrificed because why - because that's what suits the interests of the powerful man who they accused? It's why some people who profess to be feminists are effectively paying lip service to their beliefs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 39 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said: The idea that they shouldn't have anonymity just because he was found not guilty is ridiculous. Unless you sign up to the real crackpot shit that it was all made up and none of it ever happened then we know that something unpleasant happened to each of those women, and just because criminality couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever the standard is) that doesn't mean they suddenly become fair game. It'd be a really shameful outcome of this case if it became apparent that the continuation of Salmond's vandetta against Sturgeon was considered worth ruining those women's lives over. Never mind the precedent being set that in a set of offences that is already under-reported, under-prosecuted and under-convicted, victims were to be sent the signal that if they were to lose the court case (as they are massively odds on to do) their anonymity can be sacrificed because why - because that's what suits the interests of the powerful man who they accused? If the extend of their involvement was limited to the court case then I would agree. It isn't. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 The yoons seem to be frothing about text messages - I doubt very much that anything of significance would be found - politicians don't tend to put into writing something they want to keep secret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 On 23/01/2021 at 13:08, strichener said: If the extend of their involvement was limited to the court case then I would agree. It isn't. What is it exactly that you're accusing these women of doing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 Tinpot Inquiry continues to be completely tinpot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 1, 2021 Share Posted February 1, 2021 They can at least ask his wife why he doesn't fancy it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-messages-handed-committee-crown-office-not-remit-3121694NewsPoliticsAlex Salmond inquiry: Messages handed to committee by Crown Office 'not in remit'The committee examining the Scottish Government’s botched handling of harassment complaints against former first minister Alex Salmond has agreed messages released to it from the Crown Office are “not relevant to the committee’s work”.Unanimous, apparently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-messages-handed-committee-crown-office-not-remit-3121694 NewsPolitics Alex Salmond inquiry: Messages handed to committee by Crown Office 'not in remit' The committee examining the Scottish Government’s botched handling of harassment complaints against former first minister Alex Salmond has agreed messages released to it from the Crown Office are “not relevant to the committee’s work”. Unanimous, apparently. Does this make Sturgeon's position more or less tenable and does she have to go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 33 minutes ago, NotThePars said: Does this make Sturgeon's position more or less tenable and does she have to go I dont think it hugely progresses Salmond's quest to make the alleged conspiracy public. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 So information that the enquiry had utilised previously unused powers to access is not relevant? Red faces and all round grumbling amongst the conspiracy theorists. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 The yoons seem to be frothing about text messages - I doubt very much that anything of significance would be found - politicians don't tend to put into writing something they want to keep secret. Bump.Called it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) Has this already been posted? Edited February 5, 2021 by Granny Danger -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 23 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Has this already been posted? Yes, I have, thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 27 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Yes, I have, thanks. Oh eck. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Has this already been posted? Starmer only -5? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 He's almost where I'd expect. He's absolutely nothing. I'm surprised he isn't smack bang in the middle though, the useless c**t. 1 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.