Nipper Salmond

[doulikefish]

5 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

Never bothered watching it. But i'll assume it was something along the lines of what they did with Jeremy Corbyn. Black and white mug shots and eerie background music every time they showed a clip of the devil himself.

They covered the trail but forgot to cover the defence case basically 

[welshbairn]

7 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

#ISupportSalmond is the second biggest trend on Twitter in the UK right now and even The Telegraph are saying the documentary was shite.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2020/08/17/trial-alex-salmond-review-kirsty-wark-gets-personal-strange/

Safe to say she's made a complete arse of an easy hatchet job.

Daily Mail slagging it too.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8637507/CHRISTOPHER-STEVENS-BBC-rake-Alex-Salmond-case-ignore-Savile.html

[welshbairn]

Leslie Evans up before the committee at 11 am.

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/

[welshbairn]

Every time this gets remotely interesting the Convener says they're not allowed to go there.  

[Detournement]

This is amazing. Slander Salmond but make it aspirational.

It's a shame they couldn't have gotten better looking actors to read the journalists lines to really set it off. Daniella Nardini, David Tennant, Rose Leslie and Laura Fraser would have been ideal.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Detournement

[Boo Khaki]

The assertion that the defence was all about 'we know he's a sleaze, but he's not a criminal' totally ignores the ridiculous number of times the defence proved that the prosecution's version of events was literally impossible, that the testimony from the accusers was inaccurate, and the fact it was established that there had been clear contrivance between the accusers well before this ever became a police matter.

Absolutely typical of the Scottish media's line of 'ach... we all know he really did it, eh?' that they've been peddling consistently since March. Garavelli's piece was particularly glaring in it's bias and blatant denial of fact, and I'm still not sure how it actually got printed without causing a legal shitstorm.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Is the math answer that Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are desperately looking for any mud they can sling at the SNP?

Fucking Alex Cole Hamilton is worried about the cost of prosecuting Salmond but not with the costs of his own little trial by committee. The SNP will put up the shutters. Salmond will remain a disgraced arsehole who admitted he had "sleepy cuddle" and who his lawyer described as a "sex pest"

By investigating Salmond's conspiracy theories the opposition parties are saying that Salmond should not have face a jury for his actions.

 

This committee is a fucking embarrassment - it is nothing more than a sordid little fishing trip.

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

47 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

The assertion that the defence was all about 'we know he's a sleaze, but he's not a criminal' totally ignores the ridiculous number of times the defence proved that the prosecution's version of events was literally impossible, that the testimony from the accusers was inaccurate, and the fact it was established that there had been clear contrivance between the accusers well before this ever became a police matter.

Absolutely typical of the Scottish media's line of 'ach... we all know he really did it, eh?' that they've been peddling consistently since March. Garavelli's piece was particularly glaring in it's bias and blatant denial of fact, and I'm still not sure how it actually got printed without causing a legal shitstorm.

Well since he admitted that many of the alleged incidents did indeed take place but his defence was that the women were up for it or a misunderstanding that seems like a reasonable opinion.

That his behaviour wasn't judged as criminal doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[Miguel Sanchez]

15 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

Never bothered watching it. But i'll assume it was something along the lines of what they did with Jeremy Corbyn. Black and white mug shots and eerie background music every time they showed a clip of the devil himself.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Miguel Sanchez

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

[Baxter Parp]

Wark's documentary pulled from iPlayer 29 days early, apparently.

Edit: In fact...

Edited August 19, 2020 by Baxter Parp

[ICTJohnboy]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

Wark's documentary pulled from iPlayer 29 days early, apparently.

 

That "documentary" should never have seen the light of day.

[strichener]

On 18/08/2020 at 17:46, DeeTillEhDeh said:

This committee is a fucking embarrassment - it is nothing more than a sordid little fishing trip.

 

Not what Nicola said previously when she committed in Parliament to provide ALL documents that were requested.

It maybe now that the bait is far too tasty and is being kept in the tackle box.

[Baxter Parp]

33 minutes ago, strichener said:

Not what Nicola said previously when she committed in Parliament to provide ALL documents that were requested.

Really? Did she say how she was going to force the civil service to hand them over?

[Boo Khaki]

On 18/08/2020 at 18:03, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Well since he admitted that many of the alleged incidents did indeed take place but his defence was that the women were up for it or a misunderstanding that seems like a reasonable opinion.

That his behaviour wasn't judged as criminal doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Absolutely correct, however, my irritation stems from the fact that our media is happy to accept courts as arbiters of fact when it means they can print attention-grabbing and sensationalist headlines about murderers, child-abusers etc, but when a court determines that a man is innocent, they are happy to repeatedly imply that they believe the outcome is somehow unjust.

Wark's documentary, Garavelli's piece in the aftermath, both make no attempt at all to hide their belief that Salmond 'got away' with these offences, yet neither make any attempt to reconcile that with the fact that the events in court proved that the prosecution's version of events could not possibly have been true. Ok, I can accept the argument that says Salmond could well still have been guilty of criminal acts regardless, but I'm bemused as to how journalists can openly and brazenly question the verdict of the court without being held in some sort of contempt.  The 'opinion' might well be a reasonable one to hold, I just find it odd that 'impartial' broadcasters can sanction pieces which are written in that tone without any sort of legal comeback.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

11 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Absolutely correct, however, my irritation stems from the fact that our media is happy to accept courts as arbiters of fact when it means they can print attention-grabbing and sensationalist headlines about murderers, child-abusers etc, but when a court determines that a man is innocent, they are happy to repeatedly imply that they believe the outcome is somehow unjust.

Wark's documentary, Garavelli's piece in the aftermath, both make no attempt at all to hide their belief that Salmond 'got away' with these offences, yet neither make any attempt to reconcile that with the fact that the events in court proved that the prosecution's version of events could not possibly have been true. Ok, I can accept the argument that says Salmond could well still have been guilty of criminal acts regardless, but I'm bemused as to how journalists can openly and brazenly question the verdict of the court without being held in some sort of contempt.  The 'opinion' might well be a reasonable one to hold, I just find it odd that 'impartial' broadcasters can sanction pieces which are written in that tone without any sort of legal comeback.

The courts are available to Alex Salmond if he feels he has been slandered or liabled. The standard of proof that he committed an offence is not as high as in a criminal court though.

He might well have contacted his lawyers since the documentary has been pulled from iPlayer. Hope he got one that doesn't publicly call him a sex pest.

[welshbairn]

28 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The courts are available to Alex Salmond if he feels he has been slandered or liabled. The standard of proof that he committed an offence is not as high as in a criminal court though.

He might well have contacted his lawyers since the documentary has been pulled from iPlayer. Hope he got one that doesn't publicly call him a sex pest.

His lawyer said that in the context of a trial when his only objective was to convince the jury that Salmond wasn't guilty of criminal behaviour. I'm no fan of Salmond but taking that out of context is nearly as unfair as Wark's retrial of the case on television months after he was found not guilty.

Edited August 21, 2020 by welshbairn

[git-intae-thum]

On 18/08/2020 at 18:03, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Well since he admitted that many of the alleged incidents did indeed take place but his defence was that the women were up for it or a misunderstanding that seems like a reasonable opinion.

 

Eh ...no he didn't.

The fact that lots of devious individuals with dark motives keep saying this and weens of simple minded numpties  keep repeating it.......does not make it true.

In only one of the charges did he admit to a brief consensual cuddle. Maybe not sensible or advisable, but he is human.

The jury obviously were unvonvinced with regards to the veracity of the rest of the allegations and Salmond categorically denied the incidents took place.

 

 

[strichener]

11 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Really? Did she say how she was going to force the civil service to hand them over?

Ah, I get it the Government couldn't interfere with an independent body?  That went well for you the last time you deployed such nonsense.  incidentally it is the Scottish Government that has refused to hand over the papers, not the civil service.

Perhaps a little reading of the debate in January 2019 would enlighten you to the position that Nicola took at that time and see hypocrisy in action.  Debate link

Quote

On the inquiries that I have spoken about and the work of the information commissioner, which the Scottish Government is co-operating fully with, it is fair to say that the decision-making processes involved in this matter may turn out to be the most scrutinised of any decision-making processes in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is right and proper. However, it strikes me that people cannot call for inquiries and then refuse to respect the work of those inquiries. I will respect the work of those inquiries; the question is, will others across the chamber

Most scrutinised?  With vast swathes of documents inaccessible to the committee.

Quote

Now that those inquiries have been called for—and now that I, my Government and my party have agreed to support the establishment of those inquiries and co-operate fully with them—it is incumbent on all of us to respect those processes. That is what I will do. The question for Jackson Carlaw is this: is he really interested in getting to the heart of these matters or does he simply want to continue to make party political points about them?

Co-operate fully?  Well that sure isn't happening.  Just in case you thought that this was in anyway open to interpretation:

Quote

To Jackson Carlaw and the chamber I say that I will answer any question to the fullest extent possible and that my Government will co-operate fully with all and any inquiries. Other members in the chamber now need to recognise that, having asked for these investigations, they are obliged to respect them.

There is no other way to look at this than the Scottish Government have decided that the promised full co-operation is not in their interests now.  Shame on them.

[Detournement]

Sturgeon handles every crisis with the same strategy. Act horrified and announce only an independent inquiry can deal with this. Delay inquiry for as long as possible. When inquiry happens make it as narrow as possible.