Nipper Salmond

[Savage Henry]

The Russian government notoriously carries out assassinations around the world, including some very high profile ones in this country.
A journalist working for an organisation funded by the Russian government saying a woman will meet a day of reckoning is a statement that could reasonably interpreted as dripping with menace.

If you work for Sputnik, you aren’t a journalist. I’m not quite sure what you are, but journalist isn’t the right name for it.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

The Russian government notoriously carries out assassinations around the world, including some very high profile ones in this country.
A journalist working for an organisation funded by the Russian government saying a woman will meet a day of reckoning is a statement that could be reasonably interpreted as dripping with menace.

Absolutely agreed, they target people regardless of status or where they are, its undeniably a menacing statement.

[RH33]

Are we living at a time when woman who’ve given evidence of sexual abuse have been given a nickname?

 

[lichtgilphead]

14 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I just don't think women who accuse powerful men with of sexual assault should face these kind of consequences if they fail to get a jury to agree. That's why they're given anonymity, to stop the vast majority of men getting away with it because women are too frightened to speak up.

I would agree that any woman who is a witness in a sexual assault trial should be entitled to anonymity. 

However, it's not up to the alleged victims to "get a jury to agree". It's up to the Crown to prove that an offence or offences were committed. The Crown completely failed to prove their case. Looking at the reported evidence, the case should never have been brought in the first place!

The defence provided some pretty compelling evidence that at least one of the women was lying her head off. As long as no attempt is made to unmask her, it's perfectly legal to point this out and to point out the political consequences that may result.

[welshbairn]

It's also fair to point out that one of the charges was found not proven, allegedly the most serious one, which implies doubt in the jury's collective mind. If you're suggesting conflicting memories of an evening 6 years ago mean perjury, maybe the whole case shouldn't be put to rest but examined again in minute detail.

Edited May 15, 2020 by welshbairn

[lichtgilphead]

As I point out above, the Crown failed to prove their case with regard to each and every charge. In law, not proven is equivalent to not guilty, no matter what you are trying to insinuate.

I should also remind you that all the charges that were put to the jury were thrown out by majority decisions. Maybe you can clutch at that straw next.

Edited to add: I would welcome perjury charges being brought against at least one of the accusers. However, general experience shows that telling lies in court rarely results in perjury prosecutions

Edited May 15, 2020 by lichtgilphead

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

As I point out above, the Crown failed to prove their case with regard to each and every charge. In law, not proven is equivalent to not guilty, no matter what you are trying to insinuate.

I should also remind you that all the charges that were put to the jury were thrown out by majority decisions. Maybe you can clutch at that straw next.

Edited to add: I would welcome perjury charges being brought against at least one of the accusers. However, general experience shows that telling lies in court rarely results in perjury prosecutions

You're the one who wants to re-examine the evidence and put one of the witnesses under further scrutiny. I'd have thought it would be better to let it rest for all concerned. If you think you can prove a political conspiracy to damage the political prospects of Salmond, whatever he had left, then beaver away. But I think the witnesses should be left alone.

[Granny Danger]

21 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

H_B right on the ball as usual!

The actual allegation is that Mark Hirst has been charged with sending an "electronic communication" (he posted a video) containing  "menacing character" under the Communications Act 2003.

He said that the Alphabet Sisters were going to "reap a whirlwind" and that "there is going to be a reckoning" 

There's worse threats on Pie & Bovril every day - 12 Ruel Street's "Bring yer Maw and aw" being a classic of the genre

You’re really trying to draw a comparison between “12 Ruel Street” and this?

If I hadn’t read your subsequent posts I would have assumed that you were at it.

[Boo Khaki]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

FWIW Dani Garavelli wasn't chosen by anyone, she's freelance and she chose to sit through the entire trial, like several other journalists did.

Craig Murray is a tinfoil hat wearer who sees shady connections everywhere. He tackles the man and not the ball (or the woman in Dani's case) and I don't think any reasonable person could object to the article she wrote.

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at Murray's blog, specifically the article criticising Garavelli's . To be fair to Murray, I think he's absolutely right to point out that Gavarelli completely omits anything whatsoever from her tale of woe that suggests anything about the women's version of events might be anything other than 100% accurate.

Fair enough, she's set out to write a sympathetic article right from the start, but she writes as if the court case was somehow a farce, that the jury were presented with overwhelming evidence pointing to Salmond's guilt and corroborating the complainant's testimony rather than the opposite, and that the witnesses backed up the women when in fact they universally contradicted them.

It's anything but an objective piece, and I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to point that out.

To be clear, I should say that when I say Gavarelli "writes as if the court case was somehow a farce", what I mean by that is that she's gone all-out to imply that there's somehow been an obvious and grave miscarriage of justice, when in fact, it's clear to any impartial observer that the only thing farcical about the trial was that it actually got to trial in the first place, considering how lamentable the prosecution case was. 

I don't think Murray deserves any criticism for pointing out the naked hypocrisy and deliberate disregard for truth and fact in a journalistic article, especially when it's been written by a purported 'serious' journalist and printed in a national newspaper. It's a propaganda piece, pure and simple. Completely unconcerned with 'news', 'fact', or 'truth'.

Another example of 'Well we all know Eck is guilty really, right?' style writing that l'm sure would provoke far more in terms of a reaction from the authorities if it was written about a completely innocent pro-Union figure.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Out of curiosity, I've just had a look at Murray's blog, specifically the article criticising Garavelli's . To be fair to Murray, I think he's absolutely right to point out that Gavarelli completely omits anything whatsoever from her tale of woe that suggests anything about the women's version of events might be anything other than 100% accurate.

 

That's not a remotely fair characterisation of Garavelli's article, and your post goes downhill from there.

[Boo Khaki]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

That's not a remotely fair characterisation of Garavelli's article, and your post goes downhill from there.

Fwiw, having read up on Murray I agree with your overall assessment of him. He strikes me as someone who displays some signs of delusional illness. However, if you are of the opinion that the Gavarelli article is in any way remotely objective, then I can only assume we are reading two completely different pieces.

[alta-pete]

Just so as I’m getting it right on the theory that Eck was fitted up by some establishment - who are the establishment here? The ‘soft’ SNP (the Scottish Government?) or some sort of Westminster dark force? 

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, MixuFixit said:

civil service who have made Sturgeon's lot go native or something

Well, all the civil servants in the Scottish Government are employed by the Crown.  So...

[NotThePars]

15 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

I'm a civil servant, do you think that makes one iota of difference to my poltiics? Jesus this is as bad as Bawwatchin saying Salmond would be convicted because most of the jury were women.

I don't know about you but they wouldn't employ me until I swore a blood oath to Crown and Country. Presided over by this boy of course...

 

[trainspotter]

32 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

I don't know about you but they wouldn't employ me until I swore a blood oath to Crown and Country.

They've toned it down a fair bit since I joined then. I just nodded at all the right times.

[Baxter Parp]

26 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

I'm a civil servant, do you think that makes one iota of difference to my poltiics? Jesus this is as bad as Bawwatchin saying Salmond would be convicted because most of the jury were women.

Did you just break the Official Secrets Act!?!? Betty's going to have your testes.

[strichener]

21 hours ago, welshbairn said:

You're the one who wants to re-examine the evidence and put one of the witnesses under further scrutiny. I'd have thought it would be better to let it rest for all concerned. If you think you can prove a political conspiracy to damage the political prospects of Salmond, whatever he had left, then beaver away. But I think the witnesses should be left alone.

Not if they committed perjury and then doubled down with their post trial open letter.

I cannot understand why anyone would happily ignore the fact that a man was under threat on imprisonment due to these alleged offences.  If any of the witnesses were lying then they should be expecting the same consequences, not "let it go rest".

Edited May 16, 2020 by strichener

[GordonS]

8 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Well, all the civil servants in the Scottish Government are employed by the Crown.  So...

Alex Salmond was a civil servant. He worked for the Scottish Office. So...

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

Alex Salmond was a civil servant. He worked for the Scottish Office. So...

When was this?

[GordonS]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

Not if the committed perjury and then doubled down with their post trial open letter.

I cannot understand why anyone would happily ignore the fact that a man was under threat on imprisonment due to these alleged offences.  If any of the witnesses were lying then they should be expecting the same consequences, not "let it go rest".

There's not a shred of evidence to believe that any of the witnesses lied.