Alex Salmond.

[Baxter Parp]

5 hours ago, NotThePars said:

If you consider yourself to be on the left and are not a Marxist-Leninist then you're either including yourself in this or are staggeringly ignorant of what you're talking about which given you're quoting Wikipedia to try and make sense of what you're discussing suggests the latter.

I'm a democratic socialist which means that I believe in the real world.  He is a libertarian socialist which means he's a fucking moron.

[NotThePars]

7 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

I'm a democratic socialist which means that I believe in the real world.  He is a libertarian socialist which means he's a fucking moron.

It's fine to acknowledge that you've just done zero reading of leftist theory in your entire life and cop to misunderstanding what the "libertarian" side of libertarian socialist referred to lol. 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by NotThePars

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, NotThePars said:

It's fine to acknowledge that you've just done zero reading of leftist theory in your entire life and cop to misunderstanding what the "libertarian" side of libertarian socialism refers to lol. 

"lol"

[The Ghost of B A R P]

On 09/02/2021 at 15:37, Bob Mahelp said:

It strikes me as a story that is being pushed hard by the Scottish media, but will almost certainly drift off into nothingness in the next few weeks. I realise that Unionists are absolutely desperate to keep it current, and that's why the papers are increasingly full of nothing headlines being fed to them like 'XXXXX accused of cover up', or 'XXXXX demands that XXXXX resign'. 

That’ll be why BBC Scotland are petrified to mention it, eh? The papers will sink the knife when they’re good and ready.

Come back to me when it’s ‘drifted into nothingness’, won’t you?

On 09/02/2021 at 16:03, Granny Danger said:

Recent opinion poll shows Salmond more unpopular in Scotland than Johnson.  That’s a hell of an achievement.

I think I’ll run ‘Granny Danger is a beast’ headlines for a couple of years, see how your ‘popularity’ holds up...

On 10/02/2021 at 10:23, Bob Mahelp said:

I've read through Salmond's submission, and it still seems to me to be no more than the rant of a bitter man. It's his opinion (not facts) and it's an opinion that is disputed by others involved in this. 

Tbh, I would liked if Salmond had appeared before the committee, but I suspect he would have used it as a chance to preach and lecture and accuse, rather than present facts.

The whole thing ultimately boils down to the semantics of 'he said', 'she said'. Unionists want this to be a smoking gun which will bring down the SNP and destroy independence.

It won't, and it won't.

Imagine being ‘bitter’, eh? Imagine people telling lies publicly about you that you can’t refute because of contempt of court orders, protecting some of the people who lied about you? Imagine shelling out tens of thousands (more) in legal fees, while the people who’re trying to do you in just pay their lawyers from the public purse? Imagine going to bed every night knowing that it’s going to take years before everything comes out?

Bitter? Damn right he is.

As for that last bit (what does the ‘semantics of he said/she said’ actually mean ffs?)... that is literally the heart of the matter: she is clearly lying and there’s a cover-up on to protect her, at every level of government, the civil service, and the legal establishment. What ‘he says’ is demonstrably, verifiably true (and he’ll eventually prove it); what ‘she says’ is not.

The sooner you accept that, the better it will be for independence.

On 10/02/2021 at 18:40, Granny Danger said:

I actually think we’ve been relatively lucky in terms of party discipline, particularly given how long we’ve been in government.

However it’s so frustrating to see supposed supporters of an independent Scotland doing everything they can to sabotage the party at the most critical point to date in the fight for Independence.

It’s probably just ego and self interest that’s driving them but there’s almost a suspicion of sleeper agents in people like Cherry.

Jesus actually fuckin wept... If that’s trolling and not sleverin madness, I take my hat off to you. The SNP is in total crisis, split in ways that will take total collapse to fix, MPs hounding each other on Twitter on a daily basis, losing members at a rate not even the Communist party of GB could compete with... and all actively caused by the, eh, leader...

Again, come back to me when the identity of the man who’s been arrested for threatening Cherry is revealed and let me know if you think he’s a ‘sleeper agent’.

On 10/02/2021 at 19:20, Baxter Parp said:

Because you've been told that there's more to this than meets the eye.  And often. There's no tangible evidence that there is, beyond nudges, winks and smears.

There is tangible evidence. The fact that you haven’t seen that tangible evidence is down to the farcical nature of the ‘committee of inquiry’ and the corrupt influence of the Lord Advocate.

Why are they so keen to suppress relevant ‘tangible evidence’?

23 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The only charge that is against Nicola Sturgeon is that a meeting mey have been mis-categorized as party business when it was govt business. And the evidence is that she didn't tell her husband about it. Which amounts to nothing in respects to why the judge found for Salmond, which is what the whole inquiry is meant to be about.

That’s just not true. The whole ‘govt business/party business’ is secondary, revealing only that both Sturgeon and Murrell have lied about other matters. The public might not care or understand about party business being discussed at Holyrood or Bute House or govt business being discussed at home... but they will when they eventually find out why Sturgeon lied about the meeting of 29th March: 1. Because it’s the thread that gets pulled to show she’s consistently lied about when she first knew about the allegations... let’s see in the end how far back that goes, eh? 2. Because it will then become clear that one of the complainers was at the fuckin meeting!

That’s why they conceded the Judicial review before Lloyd (Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff) could be required to give evidence under oath. That’s why the inquiry (eh, lolz) won’t compel Lloyd to give evidence to them. That’s why the inquiry won’t question Aberdein or publish his evidence.

The inquiry is not about ‘why the judge found for Salmond’... it’s about how and why the SG botched the complaints process. Why wouldn’t they speak to everyone who was involved?

Answer: it isn’t an inquiry, it’s a cover-up.

11 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Salmond was accused of crimes by a large number of women.....the PF decided there was enough evidence to prosecute. He was found not guilty of the crimes, but in the course of the trial was outed as a creepy sleazeball who abused his powers.As an SNP member, I'm ashamed of him.

 

No, he wasn’t. He was accused of inappropriate behaviour at work (by his former ‘employer’) after a concerted effort to encourage complaints. When the internal process collapsed (because it was ‘unlawful’ and ‘tainted by apparent bias’), Leslie Evans referred matters direct to the Crown Agent (not the police), having written into the policy that they could do that without the consent of the complainers. COPFS, headed by the Lord Advocate (a member of Sturgeon’s cabinet ffs), is entirely corrupt. The majority of the allegations should never have resulted in criminal proceedings (and the one that might have justified that turned out to be entirely false).

As an SNP member, I’m ashamed of your determination to join in with the smear campaign and of your apparent comfort with corruption at the heart of the SNP and SG.

59 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

This.

Fed of Salmond and his proxies drip-dripping stuff to the media without it being challenged - if he is so confident of his position then meet the committee - if not then he needs to stfu.

Why don’t you just stfu, seeing as you’ve got absolutely nothing to say (and seeing as that’s what you did last time when offered the chance to put your money where your mouth is)?

I thought the Granny man had won the zoomer of the week/year/decade prize for his comment about ‘party discipline’, but your idea that Salmond and his proxies are ‘drip-dripping’ stuff is on a whole different level of stupid...

Literally THE WHOLE FUCKIN POINT is that Salmond has been legally prevented form stating his position, before, during, and after the trial.

Time to choose, brainy boy: either Salmond has decided to make the biggest c**t of himself in the history of Scotland, Europe, the world (cos ‘ego’, ‘revenge’, ‘he’s bitter’)... or the process of government in Scotland has been corrupted at every level.

We’ll know soon enough, eh?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

nice meltdown

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

There is tangible evidence. The fact that you haven’t seen that tangible evidence is down to the farcical nature of the ‘committee of inquiry’ and the corrupt influence of the Lord Advocate.

How do you know that there is tangible evidence if it's been suppressed by such a corrupt conspiracy?

[Chewing Taffies]

5 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I think I’ll run ‘Granny Danger is a beast’ headlines for a couple of years, see how your ‘popularity’ holds up..

I don't think his popularity ratings can fall much further in here tbh

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

This latest will they/won't they nonsense about committee hearings should not be entertained at all. Salmond can choose to appear or not and Sturgeon should appear as scheduled next week, then the committee can publish its findings and let people judge from that. 

It shouldn’t be entertained, but all indications are that it will...

The supposedly ‘independent’ member of the committee, Andy Wightman, was straight onto twitter today with his own ‘interpretation’ of Lady Dorrian’s ruling, which he believes ‘changes nothing’... even before she’s published her written reasoning.

The inquiry is more likely to collapse than publish anything at all... I’d certainly put money on it collapsing before Sturgeon appears (but I’ve underestimated the thickness of her skin before, so who knows...).

[The Ghost of B A R P]

5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

nice meltdown

No answers. Thanks.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

How do you know that there is tangible evidence if it's been suppressed by such a corrupt conspiracy?

Because Aberdein testified, under oath, at the criminal trial. People were in the room. They heard his testimony. It was accepted by both judge and jury.

If that testimony is published by the inquiry and he is called as a witness, I’ll retreat.

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Because Aberdein testified, under oath, at the criminal trial. People were in the room. They heard his testimony. It was accepted by both judge and jury.

If that testimony is published by the inquiry and he is called as a witness, I’ll retreat.

So the farcical nature of the inquiry and the corrupt Lord Advocate haven't suppressed the evidence at all then.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

8 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

So the farcical nature of the inquiry and the corrupt Lord Advocate haven't suppressed the evidence at all then.

Eh... they’ve suppressed it being published or used in any other context than the criminal trial...

Do you think the inquiry should be able to access all relevant evidence in order to make a judgement?

Why was Sturgeon shouting the odds yesterday about ‘compelling’ Salmond to appear... but no mention at all about ‘compelling’ her own Chief of Staff?

As I said, if Salmond, Sturgeon, Aberdein, and Lloyd all speak to the committee, with no legal restriction other than identifying complainers, I’ll retreat.

[Edited to add: they could throw in WhatsApp messages between Murrell and Susan Ruddick... guess what? They won’t...]

Edited February 11, 2021 by The Ghost of B A R P

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Eh... they’ve suppressed it being published or used in any other context than the criminal trial...

Do you think they haven't read it? It was submitted three months ago.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Do you think they haven't read it? It was submitted three months ago.

They may or may not have read it... but they can’t take it into account or refer to it in their findings.

If they have read it, why haven’t they called Aberdein?

Do you think they’ve read the WhatsApp messages? Do you think they want to?

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

They may or may not have read it... but they can’t take it into account or refer to it in their findings.

So what is it tangible evidence of?

2 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

If they have read it, why haven’t they called Aberdein?

Because his evidence was in breach of a court order?

2 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Do you think they’ve read the WhatsApp messages? Do you think they want to?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19059637.salmond-inquiry-committee-wont-publish-whatsapp-messages-handed-crown/

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

So what is it tangible evidence of?

That Sturgeon knew about the allegations on 29th March at the latest... not when she repeatedly told Parliament she became aware.

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

Because his evidence was in breach of a court order?

As interpreted by - guess who? - the Lord Advocate... an interpretation described this morning by an actual High Court judge as ‘absurd’.

Not like the inquiry are seeking ‘legal advice’ that tells them exactly what they want to hear, eh?

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19059637.salmond-inquiry-committee-wont-publish-whatsapp-messages-handed-crown/

Wrong WhatsApp messages... these ones were released in the latest desperate attempt to frame this in terms of ongoing distress to the ‘victims’ (there were no victims, because there were no crimes)... the cynical game Sturgeon has been playing all along, because Alex Salmond = Harvey Weinstein obvs...

[Baxter Parp]

4 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

That Sturgeon knew about the allegations on 29th March at the latest... not when she repeatedly told Parliament she became aware.

The world will say "so f**k?"

4 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

As interpreted by - guess who? - the Lord Advocate... an interpretation described this morning by an actual High Court judge as ‘absurd’.

So the Lord Advocate is protecting who and why?

6 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Wrong WhatsApp messages..

Who says?

[Dawson Park Boy]

40 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

It shouldn’t be entertained, but all indications are that it will...

The supposedly ‘independent’ member of the committee, Andy Wightman, was straight onto twitter today with his own ‘interpretation’ of Lady Dorrian’s ruling, which he believes ‘changes nothing’... even before she’s published her written reasoning.

The inquiry is more likely to collapse than publish anything at all... I’d certainly put money on it collapsing before Sturgeon appears (but I’ve underestimated the thickness of her skin before, so who knows...).

Thanks for your forensic dissection of this matter.

You have put it far better than I ever could and  I salute you for your honesty as an independence supporter.

This transcends party politics and goes to the heart of the kind of country we want Scotland to be.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

The world will say "so f**k?"

Then we are fucked. We’ll deserve - and get - nothing.

You’re not the slightest bit interested in at least the possibility (I’m being kind) that Sturgeon has been lying her arse off for over two years? That the civil service and COPFS can be mobilised to conceal that?

That this can be weaponised against her (and therefore the independence movement) when it best suits the Union?

5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

So the Lord Advocate is protecting who and why?

Himself and Sturgeon, obviously.

5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Who says?

Ask Peter Murrell...

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Jesus. This is worse than Strichener's tedious pish.