Alex Salmond deid.

[GordonS]

8 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

What a disrespectful thing to say about a jury who sat through weeks of evidence.

Thankfully they were the people that actually deliberated on the verdict as opposed to those who form opinion based on preconceived bias, party indoctrination and a Kirsty Wark documentary.

My mistake. Every person in Scotland is fair and unbiased - you can see as much from this website, Twitter and Facebook - and none of them hold sexist views at all. That's why the conviction rate in Scotland in criminal prosecutions is 91% while in rape prosecutions it's 51%, and that's before factoring in how difficult it is to get a rape prosecution in the first place. Obviously if you take 15 random people they'll be pure as the driven snow.

Absolutely hilarious you think I would watch anything made by Kirsty Wark. But I did talk to someone who sat through every minute of the trial and I'm very comfortable saying I think the jury were wrong.

Anyway, here's the best available research on juries in sexual assault cases. It's Not Good:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1365712720923157?__cf_chl_tk=kXHHbkzbFcAvPEyp6ju6U0VXDOx2ZgmpX5R6TJRrntw-1728890256-1.0.1.1-rrVMvj4.aQjUo_R_sd0j2JAPCHdajm8GVRNc.Qb4tso

[Binos]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

My mistake. Every person in Scotland is fair and unbiased - you can see as much from this website, Twitter and Facebook - and none of them hold sexist views at all. That's why the conviction rate in Scotland in criminal prosecutions is 91% while in rape prosecutions it's 51%, and that's before factoring in how difficult it is to get a rape prosecution in the first place. Obviously if you take 15 random people they'll be pure as the driven snow.

Absolutely hilarious you think I would watch anything made by Kirsty Wark. But I did talk to someone who sat through every minute of the trial and I'm very comfortable saying I think the jury were wrong.

Anyway, here's the best available research on juries in sexual assault cases. It's Not Good:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1365712720923157?__cf_chl_tk=kXHHbkzbFcAvPEyp6ju6U0VXDOx2ZgmpX5R6TJRrntw-1728890256-1.0.1.1-rrVMvj4.aQjUo_R_sd0j2JAPCHdajm8GVRNc.Qb4tso

So the jury was sexist

Dear lord

[GordonS]

6 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

How can a jury convict when a defendant's team have proven that one of the accusations levelled, in this case the most serious, could not possibly have been true?

If you were making a claim that the prosecution made a mess of things, then I'd be inclined to agree with you because blowing the most serious charge out of the water automatically casts doubt on the veracity of those remaining, but there is nothing at all to suggest the jury was somehow "unreliable".

I wouldn't agree with that characterisation, but in any case, there was more than one charge and they were all independent of each other. There's obviously no reason in the world why a Not Guilty on one charge would have a bearing on the other charges. 

[GordonS]

1 minute ago, Binos said:

So the jury was sexist

Dear lord

Get your head out of the sand and read the evidence about juries. It's so bad that most people working in this area want to get rid of jury trials altogether and have judges only.

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/blog/why-we-support-single-judge-trials/ 

[Lurkst]

The headline and photo seem a bit incongruous

[Boo Khaki]

26 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I wouldn't agree with that characterisation, but in any case, there was more than one charge and they were all independent of each other. There's obviously no reason in the world why a Not Guilty on one charge would have a bearing on the other charges. 

I'll concede that to you if we're talking in general terms about trials as a whole, but not in the instance where the accuser whose accusation had been proven to be demonstrably untrue was herself the ringleader in encouraging other complainants to join a whatsapp group where they could discuss their experiences, "compare notes", and encourage each other to make complaints, all of this well before the police were ever involved.

Fair enough, women have every right to do this, but I can't accept that none of them had any inkling that this would inevitably compromise their credibility as individual complainants at a criminal trial and make it an order of magnitude more difficult to secure convictions if the premise was Moorov corroboration. Show that one of the accusations can not possibly be true, and the prosecution is suddenly in a heap of trouble.

As I said, I'm comfortable with the idea that Alex Prentice was handed a turd of a case that was destined to result in acquittal, but the reasons for that acquittal lie in the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and, in my opinion, the total lack of credibility of one of the accusers. Nothing at all to do with an "unreliable" jury. If anything the acquittal demonstrates their competence and clarity, not the opposite, and I think it's a bit out of order to go implying that AS was only acquitted because of an unfit jury. There are mechanisms in place to deal with instances where that is suspected to be the case.

And FWIW, I also totally accept all the arguments made about why rape accusations have a pitifully low rate of eventual conviction.

Edited Monday at 07:55 by Boo Khaki

[Leith Green]

16 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Get your head out of the sand and read the evidence about juries. It's so bad that most people working in this area want to get rid of jury trials altogether and have judges only.

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/blog/why-we-support-single-judge-trials/ 

I have been a member of the Jury a few times, and the competence of those on a jury - sadly - does reflect society.........I was on one where some people actually said the immortal words "hes guilty, you can tell just by looking at him" in the first stint in the room.

Also had people attempting to convince others that someone should be acquitted while demonstrably not having taken note of any of the - compelling - evidence that had been presented.

It genuinely threw my confidence in the system (not the judges, lawyers, KCs etc) as it really was "the good, bad and ugly" of our society.

Judges come in for some stick, but the last case I was on a jury (sexual assault / rape) the judge spent 90 minutes giving us direction on the specifics and points of law that were in play, particularly the Not Proven acquittal.

I got a 10 year (I think?) dispensation from Jury service after that one.

 

[oneteaminglasgow]

Just to clarify, not guilty charges do not equate to morally fine behaviour. That is all I’ll be saying on the matter. 

[AndyM]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

My mistake. Every person in Scotland is fair and unbiased - you can see as much from this website, Twitter and Facebook - and none of them hold sexist views at all. That's why the conviction rate in Scotland in criminal prosecutions is 91% while in rape prosecutions it's 51%, and that's before factoring in how difficult it is to get a rape prosecution in the first place. Obviously if you take 15 random people they'll be pure as the driven snow.

Absolutely hilarious you think I would watch anything made by Kirsty Wark. But I did talk to someone who sat through every minute of the trial and I'm very comfortable saying I think the jury were wrong.

Anyway, here's the best available research on juries in sexual assault cases. It's Not Good:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1365712720923157?__cf_chl_tk=kXHHbkzbFcAvPEyp6ju6U0VXDOx2ZgmpX5R6TJRrntw-1728890256-1.0.1.1-rrVMvj4.aQjUo_R_sd0j2JAPCHdajm8GVRNc.Qb4tso

In the Salmond case, it would have been helpful if the prosecution's case had been less of a shambles and the witnesses had been able to provide their dates and times to tie up correctly.

Irrespective of whether he was guilty or not, the evidence presented was never going to get a conviction, and a moderately competent solicitor would have been able to drive a truck through it.  And did.

[SandyCromarty]

A man has died and people on here are arguing over a court case he was involved in?

I would have thought that his political triumphs and career would have more in keeping with the moment.

[git-intae-thum]

Indeed.

 

BBC Scotland Political Editor, Glen Campbell's eulogy:

"I can also recall bringing a senior BBC editor from the newsroom in London to see him and was astonished when he asked my colleague if he was on a colonial visit."

Classic Salmond.

 

[kennie makevin]

On 12/10/2024 at 21:14, Alert Mongoose said:

Almost in tears at the news. Not for his death tbh, but I guess it feels like an extension of the death of the dream I had of Scottish independence. 

Should his death make any difference to that aim? Probably not tbh but somehow feels that way.

Am I anti English? I've pondered that question but I still can't say for certain. I get on with lots of English people who I consider friends but I despise what I concieve of the English viewpoint and how we are tarred with it whether we agree with it or not.

TLDR - too much red wine.

 

What's 'the English viewpoint ' ? 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

I dont know if anyone managed to tune in to Call Kaye the Cuntress this morning (I didnt) but she was apparently going to discuss "Clearing Alex Salmond's name".

Might have to fire it up on iplayer later for a laugh.

[Savage Henry]

1 minute ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

I dont know if anyone managed to tune in to Call Kaye the Cuntress this morning (I didnt) but she was apparently going to discuss "Clearing Alex Salmond's name".

Might have to fire it up on iplayer later for a laugh.

The Bishop of Bath is getting fully fired into anyone who dares suggest Alex may have been a wee bit rapey.  

[welshbairn]

Salmond's most significant legacy is probably melting Donald Trump's brain over windmills.

[git-intae-thum]

19 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Salmond's most significant legacy is probably melting Donald Trump's brain over windmills.

Maybe.... it could also be argued that policies that have benefitted millions of us such as establishing free tuition, free prescriptions etc.....  the early commitment to the development of Scotlands renewal sector and the prevention of unecessary nuclear power expansion...... vehemently opposing bombing in Serbia and Libya and the illegal invasion of Iraq are up their amongst his greatest legacies.

For me though his lasting achievement will be normalising the concept of independence in the mind of younger Scots to an extent where it is now seen as inevitable.

[ScotiaNostra]

Is there any Independence politicans at moment with anywhere near the same level of strategic skills and/or experience?

[scottsdad]

15 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Maybe.... it could also be argued that policies that have benefitted millions of us such as establishing free tuition, free prescriptions etc.....  the early commitment to the development of Scotlands renewal sector and the prevention of unecessary nuclear power expansion...... vehemently opposing bombing in Serbia and Libya and the illegal invasion of Iraq are up their amongst his greatest legacies.

For me though his lasting achievement will be normalising the concept of independence in the mind of younger Scots to an extent where it is now seen as inevitable.

This point needs a bit of discussion. Free tuition isn't free, universities are paid an amount by the government per student (an amount quite a bit less than what we get from a fee-paying student from, say, England). Because the government is footing the bill they have capped student numbers also. So for Scottish universities we are losing money on undergraduates, and the chances we have to bring in undergraduates is reduced. 

The college sector has been really decimated since this policy came in. So many courses closed, courses that more often than not helped people from poorer backgrounds. 

What I am getting at is, the principle of this policy is fine. I can't argue with it as I had free tuition. But 10 or so years on it's putting a financial strain on universities, reducing the chances of students getting to uni, and reducing the chances of students getting to college.  

[HTG]

16 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Is there any Independence politicans at moment with anywhere near the same level of strategic skills and/or experience?

Stephen Flynn looks comfortably the best available. He needs to be in Holyrood, leading the SNP and starting the process of bringing disparate groups together on those areas where there is common ground - primarily that Scotland is a country and should run its own affairs. 

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

This point needs a bit of discussion. Free tuition isn't free, universities are paid an amount by the government per student (an amount quite a bit less than what we get from a fee-paying student from, say, England). Because the government is footing the bill they have capped student numbers also. So for Scottish universities we are losing money on undergraduates, and the chances we have to bring in undergraduates is reduced. 

The college sector has been really decimated since this policy came in. So many courses closed, courses that more often than not helped people from poorer backgrounds. 

What I am getting at is, the principle of this policy is fine. I can't argue with it as I had free tuition. But 10 or so years on it's putting a financial strain on universities, reducing the chances of students getting to uni, and reducing the chances of students getting to college.  

I don't get the impression that English universities are struggling any less than here.