Nipper Salmond

[JamieThomas]

8 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

some absolutely dreadful banter

Welcome to the thread

[BawWatchin]

48 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

I know absolutely f**k all about the law, but would having that number of charges usually mean at least a couple would likely stick? Is it usual to have that many charges and be found not guilty of them all?

Either way, incredible stuff really and will mean some absolutely dreadful banter across social media. 

Not really, especially if all of the charges are coming from accusations from one person.

[The_Kincardine]

53 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

I know absolutely f**k all about the law, but would having that number of charges usually mean at least a couple would likely stick?

I'd certainly hope not.  The mere idea is ridiculous.

"We'll charge you on several counts and hope one sticks"?  Really?

Edit:  It's not just Eck who is on trial here but the Scottish justice system and the most important thing is that the man is given a fair and impartial trial without fear or favour.

Edited January 25, 2019 by The_Kincardine

[ICTJohnboy]

4 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I'd certainly hope not.  The mere idea is ridiculous.

"We'll charge you on several counts and hope one sticks"?  Really?

Edit:  It's not just Eck who is on trial here but the Scottish justice system and the most important thing is that the man is given a fair and impartial trial without fear or favour.

 

I suspect plea bargaining will come to the fore here. He could admit guilt on the breach of the peace charge, if the crown drop all the other charges.

[Ira Gaines]

1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

I suspect plea bargaining will come to the fore here. He could admit guilt on the breach of the peace charge, if the crown drop all the other charges.

Aye. With that list of charges, this will DEFINITELY happen.

[SimonLichtie]

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

"We'll charge you on several counts and hope one sticks"?  Really?

That's usually how it works in my experience/ knowledge.

The more charges against someone, the more leverage the police have. As touched on above, it puts them in a good position plea bargaining wise and it's the common way of dealing with someone they want convicted. I've no idea in terms of the Salmond case what the script is here, but as I say that's the usual way of doing things.

The police have targets to meet the same as most workplaces do.

[Moonglum25]

 

22 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

That's usually how it works in my experience/ knowledge.

The more charges against someone, the more leverage the police have. As touched on above, it puts them in a good position plea bargaining wise and it's the common way of dealing with someone they want convicted. I've no idea in terms of the Salmond case what the script is here, but as I say that's the usual way of doing things.

The police have targets to meet the same as most workplaces do.

You are talking absolute rubbish here. The police investigate the matter and compile all of the available evidence and submit a report to the Procurators Fiscal. The PF then examines the report and determines the strength of the evidence and then decides which charges are competent and relevant.

Despite your apparent knowledge/experience you should be aware that the Police do not "Plea Bargain" it is the PF who prosecute and determine what evidence is competent and not the Police.

If you committed an offence on 6 separate occasions then it is competent to charge you with 6 separate charges.

[Granny Danger]

If Salmond is innocent then surely it is in his interest for this to go to trial.

Someone as high profile as he is needs to be exonerated, or not, in public.

I find the attempted rape charges astounding; but I’d be equally astounded by someone falsely claiming rape knowing the level of scrutiny.

I hope there is sufficient evidence for a clean guilty/not guilty verdict on all the charges.

 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

You are talking absolute rubbish here. The police investigate the matter and compile all of the available evidence and submit a report to the Procurators Fiscal. The PF then examines the report and determines the strength of the evidence and then decides which charges are competent and relevant.

 

Despite your apparent knowledge/experience you should be aware that the Police do not "Plea Bargain" it is the PF who prosecute and determine what evidence is competent and not the Police.

If you committed an offence on 6 separate occasions then it is competent to charge you with 6 separate charges.

Which means that if a person is charged they may not necessarily be prosecuted because the PF deems the evidence to not be strong enough.

 

That's not saying that will happen here - one would think with a high profile public figure the evidence would be have to be strong - but given the mixed results of Operations Yewtree, Midland etc anything could happen.

 

[Moonglum25]

11 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Which means that if a person is charged they may not necessarily be prosecuted because the PF deems the evidence to not be strong enough.

 

That's not saying that will happen here - one would think with a high profile public figure the evidence would be have to be strong - but given the mixed results of Operations Yewtree, Midland etc anything could happen.

 

There are occasions where a peron is reported to the PF and they determine that the evidence is not strong enough to ensure a conviction and will not proceed with the matter.  This is often the case in domestic assault where there is a lot of pressure in charging one of the parties and keeping one in custody but when the PF views the evidence the person is then released as the evidence is insufficient.

In this case the evidence has been reviewed by the Crown and they have determined that the charges are competent and they feel that they have a good chance of securing a conviction. I would assume that there are at least 2 separate complainers and some people may wish to familiarise themselves with the Moorov Doctrine to see how the case may proceed.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Moonglum25

[ICTChris]

10 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

13 hours ago, ICTChris said:

He’s a far more serious figure than either of those. He’s the longest serving First Minister, has been a leading figure in British and Scottish politics since 1990.

I think he’s probably the most senior British politician who has been charged with a criminal offence in my lifetime.

You are obviously too young to remember Jeremy Thorpe and the incitement to murder of Norman Scott.

I am, that was before I was born.

I'd say that Alex Salmond, has been a  more senior politician than Thorpe.  

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

 
You are talking absolute rubbish here. The police investigate the matter and compile all of the available evidence and submit a report to the Procurators Fiscal. The PF then examines the report and determines the strength of the evidence and then decides which charges are competent and relevant.

Despite your apparent knowledge/experience you should be aware that the Police do not "Plea Bargain" it is the PF who prosecute and determine what evidence is competent and not the Police.
If you committed an offence on 6 separate occasions then it is competent to charge you with 6 separate charges.

Spot on.
Hypothetically speaking if i was a prosecutor relying on a moorov doctrine prosecution i’d expect multiple charges because that’s how it works. If for example two people accused 1 person of rape then both are separate charges.

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

If Salmond is innocent then surely it is in his interest for this to go to trial.

Someone as high profile as he is needs to be exonerated, or not, in public.

I find the attempted rape charges astounding; but I’d be equally astounded by someone falsely claiming rape knowing the level of scrutiny.

I hope there is sufficient evidence for a clean guilty/not guilty verdict on all the charges.

 

 

More likely to be insufficient evidence, as is very often the case in rape/attempted rape charges.

[Granny Danger]

Just now, ICTJohnboy said:

 

More likely to be insufficient evidence, as is very often the case in rape/attempted rape charges.

Going back to earlier posts; given how high profile this is I would expect the PF to have some fairly clear and damning evidence before going ahead.

I don’t buy into the political conspiracy stuff but if the case collapses quickly due to the lack of evidence that claim will become more widespread.

 

[Ya Bezzer!]

15 hours ago, NotThePars said:

In the month where Louis CK has made a return to comedy taking the piss out of what he was accused of doing, I'm not sure a lack of conviction around sexual misconduct really ends your career.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Louis CK was never charged with anything.  The 'scandal' was around sexual inappropriateness as all the women admitted he had only done so after receiving consent.   He certainly wasn't charged with rape.

Also Louis CK's  come back produced a lot of negative press across the media.  Lots of people out there are out to get him and will never forgive him.  Given the relatively minor accusations against him and the fact that he's a stand up comedian he'll probably be able to make a partial come back, if he keeps his head low.

Completely different situation for a politician which much more serious charges against him.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Moonglum25 said:

There are occasions where a peron is reported to the PF and they determine that the evidence is not strong enough to ensure a conviction and will not proceed with the matter.  This is often the case in domestic assault where there is a lot of pressure in charging one of the parties and keeping one in custody but when the PF views the evidence the person is then released as the evidence is insufficient.

In this case the evidence has been reviewed by the Crown and they have determined that the charges are competent and they feel that they have a good chance of securing a conviction. I would assume that there are at least 2 separate complainers and some people may wish to familiarise themselves with the Moorov Doctrine to see how the case may proceed.

We've just seen a high profile case in England which had to be dismissed due to there being "no evidence to be presented".

How can this happen, going by the above ??

[drs]

2 hours ago, SimonLichtie said:

That's usually how it works in my experience/ knowledge.

The more charges against someone, the more leverage the police have. As touched on above, it puts them in a good position plea bargaining wise and it's the common way of dealing with someone they want convicted. I've no idea in terms of the Salmond case what the script is here, but as I say that's the usual way of doing things.

The police have targets to meet the same as most workplaces do.

Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to post on P&B and Remove All Doubt

[Benjamin_Nevis]

The absolute #scenes if this ends up as a "Not Proven" verdict.

[John Lambies Doos]

Going back to earlier posts; given how high profile this is I would expect the PF to have some fairly clear and damning evidence before going ahead.
I don’t buy into the political conspiracy stuff but if the case collapses quickly due to the lack of evidence that claim will become more widespread.
 

Then Salmond will be innocent.

[Colkitto]

Sometimes there are a lot of charges in the hope a deal is done to avoid a trial. I would imagine for the corroborative evidence to stick the stories would have to be similar if multiple victims.