Alex Salmond show on Russia Today

[williemillersmoustache]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

That didn't happen. It was Children in Need, and they were very clear that it had nothing to do with male victims.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45137638 

ooops, fair do's. I hadn't see the denial from the charity before but I got that wrong too. So basically there wasn't anything correct in that post.

But I'm still requesting a judicial review at the court of session tomorrow. 

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, GordonS said:

He alleges that he's not been told what he's accused of. We don't know if that's true. Both the Perm Sec and Sturgeon said there were "serious inaccuracies" in his statement. This might be one of them.

It would be a bit pointless taking the procedure to judicial review if he's lying. Presumably the procedure involves not giving out any information that could identify the accuser/victim. Which would mean very little.

Edited August 24, 2018 by welshbairn

[GordonS]

Just now, williemillersmoustache said:

ooops, fair do's. I hadn't see the denial from the charity before but I got that wrong too. So basically there wasn't anything correct in that post.

But I'm still requesting a judicial review at the court of session tomorrow. 

It's a classic case in how the media works. The boss Rape Crisis Glasgow & Clyde made an off-the-cuff comment that “I got a letter in June to say the funding wasn’t being continued and I got some verbal feedback to say one of the reasons was they were concerned we weren’t doing enough for male survivors." That, rightly, made big news. But who's really interested in the "naw it wisnae"? That's boring. In fairness though, Children in Need should've made a clearer statement on the day.

[Peppino Impastato]

2 hours ago, Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier said:

So. You know what he is posting without reading. Jesus! That's amazing!

Did I make any reference to what he posted champ?  I just pointed out he's a fanny.  That's a factual statement.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I’m not surprised but somewhat disappointed with the reaction to this especially on twitter. Im a seriously big supporter of Indy, but f**k me suggesting that this is an MI5 conspiracy etc is mental behaviour, maybe just sometimes people in public life can be c***s without tin foil hat stuff. Nicola Sturgeon is to be commended with her balanced statement. What we need is for the investigations to be allowed to reach a conclusion and act like adults who don’t throw toys out the pram everytime something they don’t like happens. Is it possible Alec is a sex pest, yes, is it possible hes been subject of a malicious complaint, yes, but how anyone can reach any conclusion just now is fucking mental behaviour.

Post of the day.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Frank Quitely]

7 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Post of the day.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Here's an interesting take on it:-

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

[Jambo99]

11 minutes ago, Frank Quitely said:

Here's an interesting take on it:-

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Craig seems very certain of his opinions. "As with Alex Salmond, some of the accusations against me were hideous " 

Do you believe Craig Murray knows the facts of this situation? Or is he assuming

[lichtgilphead]

Unless I've missed something during my skim through this thread, there seems to be a perception that the judicial review will determine Eck's guilt or innocence. My understanding is that he is seeking judicial review of the Scottish Government's complaints procedure i.e. the steps they carry out to conduct their investigation. 

Accordingly, the judicial review will NOT determine whether or not he is guilty of a criminal offence or any lesser misdemeanour. All it will determine is whether the process used in the investigation was fair.

As far as I am aware,  he has not been charged with any criminal offence at this time & no report has been made to the Fiscal. Nicola's statement says that the Permanent Secretary "had completed her investigation and that she intended to make the fact of the complaints public"

Nothing is mentioned about any findings that may have been made by the PS, or of any intent to release any findings.

So, at this moment, as far as I can see, 2 accusations have been made. That's all. A full investigation should follow.

If he's guilty of a criminal offence or of breaching Holyrood standards of behaviour, the appropriate sanction should be applied. Until then, he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence that anyone else is.

[Jambo99]

7 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Unless I've missed something during my skim through this thread, there seems to be a perception that the judicial review will determine Eck's guilt or innocence. My understanding is that he is seeking judicial review of the Scottish Government's complaints procedure i.e. the steps they carry out to conduct their investigation. 

Accordingly, the judicial review will NOT determine whether or not he is guilty of a criminal offence or any lesser misdemeanour. All it will determine is whether the process used in the investigation was fair.

As far as I am aware,  he has not been charged with any criminal offence at this time & no report has been made to the Fiscal. Nicola's statement says that the Permanent Secretary "had completed her investigation and that she intended to make the fact of the complaints public"

Nothing is mentioned about any findings that may have been made by the PS, or of any intent to release any findings.

So, at this moment, as far as I can see, 2 accusations have been made. That's all. A full investigation should follow.

If he's guilty of a criminal offence or of breaching Holyrood standards of behaviour, the appropriate sanction should be applied. Until then, he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence that anyone else is.

Hi

Do you think you can rewrite that, with less passive voice?

I know I can. 

[John Lambies Doos]

He will be proved innocent

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, Jambo99 said:

Hi

Do you think you can rewrite that, with less passive voice?

I know I can. 

ECK IS A GILTY BEEST. HE ISS FAT AND HAS A OLD WIFE LOL1690 GSTQ WATP

Is that better?

[Jambo99]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

ECK IS A GILTY BEEST. HE ISS FAT AND HAS A OLD WIFE LOL1690 GSTQ WATP

Is that better?

you could have just said you didn't understand

[Ad Lib]

5 hours ago, welshbairn said:

As a lawyer I'd have thought you would know that making assumptions before the fact based on trends is foolhardy.

I did nothing of the sort. I explained why presumptions would be reasonable.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

I did nothing of the sort. I explained why presumptions would be reasonable.

You approve of racial profiling?

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Frank Quitely said:

Here's an interesting take on it:-

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Interesting.  But a bit rambling and self serving.

52 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Unless I've missed something during my skim through this thread, there seems to be a perception that the judicial review will determine Eck's guilt or innocence. My understanding is that he is seeking judicial review of the Scottish Government's complaints procedure i.e. the steps they carry out to conduct their investigation. 

Accordingly, the judicial review will NOT determine whether or not he is guilty of a criminal offence or any lesser misdemeanour. All it will determine is whether the process used in the investigation was fair.

As far as I am aware,  he has not been charged with any criminal offence at this time & no report has been made to the Fiscal. Nicola's statement says that the Permanent Secretary "had completed her investigation and that she intended to make the fact of the complaints public"

Nothing is mentioned about any findings that may have been made by the PS, or of any intent to release any findings.

So, at this moment, as far as I can see, 2 accusations have been made. That's all. A full investigation should follow.

If he's guilty of a criminal offence or of breaching Holyrood standards of behaviour, the appropriate sanction should be applied. Until then, he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence that anyone else is.

Salmon is quite right to follow that course of action if he things the procedure is flawed and unjust.  It will be a bit of a skelp in the teeth to Nicola Sturgeon if the procedure is found to be ‘faulty’.

 

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Salmon is quite right to follow that course of action if he things the procedure is flawed and unjust.  It will be a bit of a skelp in the teeth to Nicola Sturgeon if the procedure is found to be ‘faulty’.

Pure speculation on my behalf, but I would suggest that Salmond would like history to show him to be the one that brought the accusations into the public domain.

If it all goes tits up for him, he can then play the "I hid nothing. I referred myself to the commissioner/ombudsman/whoever at the first possible opportunity" card that has been played so often by Con/Lab/Libdem politicians who have been caught out in various peccadilloes pver the years. 

If the allegations cannot be proved. the approach may cost him some legal fees, but will buy him invaluable publicity as an honest man.

Accordingly, the best possible result for the SNP is that the Scot Gov procedures signed off by Sturgeon are shown to be fair & equitable, and that the investigation shows that the allegations against Salmond are baseless. No slap in the teeth for Nic, and Eck's reputation enhanced 

Obviously, any other result will be less favourable...

[Tony Ferrino]

This Salmond anti semitic shite is pure bollocks.

[Sunrise]

[Jambo99]

1 hour ago, Tony Ferrino said:

This Salmond anti semitic shite is pure bollocks.

Why not try and take serious accusations seriously.

Oh yeah, you are part of a cult. 

[Jambo99]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Interesting.  But a bit rambling and self serving.

Salmon is quite right to follow that course of action if he things the procedure is flawed and unjust.  It will be a bit of a skelp in the teeth to Nicola Sturgeon if the procedure is found to be ‘faulty’.

 

 

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

Pure speculation on my behalf, but I would suggest that Salmond would like history to show him to be the one that brought the accusations into the public domain.

If it all goes tits up for him, he can then play the "I hid nothing. I referred myself to the commissioner/ombudsman/whoever at the first possible opportunity" card that has been played so often by Con/Lab/Libdem politicians who have been caught out in various peccadilloes pver the years. 

If the allegations cannot be proved. the approach may cost him some legal fees, but will buy him invaluable publicity as an honest man.

Accordingly, the best possible result for the SNP is that the Scot Gov procedures signed off by Sturgeon are shown to be fair & equitable, and that the investigation shows that the allegations against Salmond are baseless. No slap in the teeth for Nic, and Eck's reputation enhanced 

Obviously, any other result will be less favourable...

I notice neither of you are concerned about the women.

Like , in any way whatsoever.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Jambo99