Alex Salmond.

[Jamie_B]

26 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

And Salmond flushes any serious breach of the Ministerial Code down the toilet.

No evidence that Nicola Sturgeon knew anything about specific allegations before the meeting on the 29th of March. And no evidence of what was actually discussed on the 29th of March.

The big issue is that all his evidence about the March 29 meeting is hearsay. He wasn’t there, he doesn’t know the content of it. He says himself he wasn’t given a debrief of what was said between that and the April 2 meeting. Aberdein is the guy to ask about what exactly he told Sturgeon. Has he been asked to do that?

[Billy Jean King]

There is being inappropriate and there is rape, What he admitted to was being inappropriate. Both are wrong but they are also miles apart. 
I am not trying to defend Salmond, but looking at the whole situation without picking a side, He was accused, found not guilty, accused again and found not proven by a jury, so an innocent man in the eyes of the law. People can insinuate all they like, he was not convicted. 
Why someone would want to ruin Salmonds life is harder to work out, I don't know the details but I am more than sure they are known in the wider political arena to the point that they are splitting the SNP support. 
My point to the original post was that it is not an ego driven spat, if someone falsely accused me of a despicable crime, I'd come out swinging.  

I accept all that, I was merely pointing out that he used as a defence an admission of behaviour which could easily be interpreted as being a "pervert" which is the word you used.

The picture he is painting is that umpteen women were coerced into accusing him of such crimes and to take their accusations to the most high profile trial in recent memory is highly unbelievable. He's accusing everyone from junior civil servants to the most senior politicians in the land plus the judiciary and the police of all being willing participants and the only motivation he is providing was an attempt to head off a defeat in the judicial review.

It's basically a regurgitation of his defence in court.

[tirso]

Didn't realise the investigation started in Nov2018 but Sturgeon claims she didn't know until four months later?  She's told if it's a current minister but not told for four months about a former FM? That's not credible to me.  Not sure how you "evidence" that but it makes no sense.

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

The big issue is that all his evidence about the March 29 meeting is hearsay. He wasn’t there, he doesn’t know the content of it. He says himself he wasn’t given a debrief of what was said between that and the April 2 meeting. Aberdein is the guy to ask about what exactly he told Sturgeon. Has he been asked to do that?

Murdo Fraser already fucked that.

The Committee has his evidence.

[Billy Jean King]

The big issue is that all his evidence about the March 29 meeting is hearsay. He wasn’t there, he doesn’t know the content of it. He says himself he wasn’t given a debrief of what was said between that and the April 2 meeting. Aberdein is the guy to ask about what exactly he told Sturgeon. Has he been asked to do that?

Salmond said to Fraser he has given his version of events to the committee in a submission.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Salmond is flailing here on the police investigation point.

His suggestion that the SNP should be force to sit on their hands as soon as an investigation begins is a unbelievable position.

For example should institutions alleged as having historic child abusers on their staff stop investigating who were the effected parrties as soon as the police take an interest. We are talking about an investigation opening, not even an arrest made.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Jim McLean's Ghost

[tirso]

6 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Salmond is flailing here on the police investigation point.

His suggestion that the SNP should be force to sit on their hands as soon as an investigation begins is a unbelievable position.

For example should institutions alleged as having historic child abusers on their staff stop investigating who were the effected parrties as soon as the police take an interest. We are talking about an investigation opening, not even an arrest made.

Really?  I think it's absolutely correct to leave the Police to do the investigating once they are investigating...

I'm sure Sturgeon will come out fighting on some of these points but to suggest Salmond is flailing here is nonsense to anyone watching.

[John Lambies Doos]

I see bookies odds have shortened this afternoon on a SNP majority. People realising that all this is a non event

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, tirso said:

Really?  I think it's absolutely correct to leave the Police to do the investigating once they are investigating...

I'm sure Sturgeon will come out fighting on some of these points but to suggest Salmond is flailing here is nonsense to anyone watching.

Why should the police opening an investigation impede someone investigating matters they could be responsible for?

And would that apply to targets of an investigation. Should Alex Salmond have been legally barred from finding his own exculpatory evidence as soon as the police get involved?

 

 

[tirso]

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Why should the police opening an investigation impede someone investigating matters they could be responsible for?

And would that apply to targets of an investigation. Should Alex Salmond have been legally barred from finding his own exculpatory evidence as soon as the police get involved?

 

 

Because they could contaminate evidence.  It is standard for Police take over and they would have been told that.  It's obviously different for the accused which was not raised by me.  Quite clear cut this.

[RossBFaeDundee]

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that this has led to absolutely nothing.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Salmond doesn't understand that people wanting you to be found guilty of crimes they think you have committed is not a conspiracy.

Can you imagine the reaction of they had not gone to court?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I almost feel sorry for yoons and tinfoil hatters. They were SO looking forward to this [emoji23]

[Caledonian1]

4 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

I almost feel sorry for yoons and tinfoil hatters. They were SO looking forward to this

Hey....what about the BBC.....they were looking forward to this more than anyone

[Billy Jean King]

Because they could contaminate evidence.  It is standard for Police take over and they would have been told that.  It's obviously different for the accused which was not raised by me.  Quite clear cut this.

That's for the police to decide and if they thought there had been any tampering or hindrance of an investigation they would have intervened accordingly.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Is some c**t no deid yet?

[tirso]

It's not really all tinfoil hat though is it?  There are some serious credibility gaps in the FMs side of events.  That's important to me anyway..

I also think all of this started with a complaint, lets' be real here.  That's not made up.  This isn't turmpian bravado from Salmond here, there's documentation and series of events worth considering.  

All this "does the public care" stuff?  possibly accurate but it's a tired and weak argument.

[tirso]

8 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

19 minutes ago, tirso said:

Because they could contaminate evidence.  It is standard for Police take over and they would have been told that.  It's obviously different for the accused which was not raised by me.  Quite clear cut this.

That's for the police to decide and if they thought there had been any tampering or hindrance of an investigation they would have intervened accordingly.

Absolutely, by taking over the investigation they're intervening in that exact way.  That's the point.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

It's not really all tinfoil hat though is it?  There are some serious credibility gaps in the FMs side of events.  That's important to me anyway..
I also think all of this started with a complaint, lets' be real here.  That's not made up.  This isn't turmpian bravado from Salmond here, there's documentation and series of events worth considering.  
All this "does the public care" stuff?  possibly accurate but it's a tired and weak argument.

Rocks and hard place come to mind.

Any attempt to downplay a complaint would have been met with equal hysterical reaction from the opposition politicians.

Even Salmond does not think there was a conspiracy involving Sturgeon.

[Billy Jean King]

It's not really all tinfoil hat though is it?  There are some serious credibility gaps in the FMs side of events.  That's important to me anyway..
I also think all of this started with a complaint, lets' be real here.  That's not made up.  This isn't turmpian bravado from Salmond here, there's documentation and series of events worth considering.  
All this "does the public care" stuff?  possibly accurate but it's a tired and weak argument.

It all going to be "he said, she said" at the end of this both will have provided "evidence " that their version of events is correct.