Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted Tuesday at 19:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:24 1 hour ago, TONTROOPER said: I'd give serious consideration to deleting that post if I were you. I don't think the deceased is in a position to take legal action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted Tuesday at 19:54 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:54 13 hours ago, git-intae-thum said: I obviously meant to include the opposition to the Nato bombing of Syria. This doesn't detract from your point, I'm just being pedantic; the proposed 2013 Syria intervention wouldn't have been Nato (largely due to Germany not wanting involved). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRATHGLASS2 Posted Tuesday at 20:13 Share Posted Tuesday at 20:13 1 hour ago, GordonS said: It could be taken that way but I'm assuming you don't mean that he was good at that independence stuff so you don't care if he sexually assaulted several women. The use of the word "if" as opposed to "that" suggests you are not absolutely certain that he did sexually assault several women but it does read like an insinuation. Especially as you previously are on record stating that the jury got it wrong and, on the basis of someone who sat in on each day of the trial, are convinced the man was guilty. Furthermore, you mentioned the criminal charges related to women "independent" of each other. Time will tell in relation to the last point but possibly, just possibly, the Scottish Government's inclination towards jury less trials has been predicated on what happened in the Salmond trial! "but looked to me like he got away with a series of sexual assaults thanks to a typically unreliable jury, as often happens in such cases". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted Tuesday at 20:59 Share Posted Tuesday at 20:59 It's no surprise your Andrew Neil's your Tories etc are lining up to gush about him despite their disagreement on certain issues (one big one obviously) Salmond was one of the lads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Tuesday at 21:30 Share Posted Tuesday at 21:30 1 hour ago, STRATHGLASS2 said: The use of the word "if" as opposed to "that" suggests you are not absolutely certain that he did sexually assault several women but it does read like an insinuation. Especially as you previously are on record stating that the jury got it wrong and, on the basis of someone who sat in on each day of the trial, are convinced the man was guilty. Furthermore, you mentioned the criminal charges related to women "independent" of each other. Time will tell in relation to the last point but possibly, just possibly, the Scottish Government's inclination towards jury less trials has been predicated on what happened in the Salmond trial! "but looked to me like he got away with a series of sexual assaults thanks to a typically unreliable jury, as often happens in such cases". Welcome to the forum, newcomer! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted Tuesday at 22:08 Share Posted Tuesday at 22:08 4 hours ago, GordonS said: It could be taken that way but I'm assuming you don't mean that he was good at that independence stuff so you don't care if he sexually assaulted several women. Who did this? What sentence were they given? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONTROOPER Posted Tuesday at 22:43 Share Posted Tuesday at 22:43 3 hours ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said: I don't think the deceased is in a position to take legal action. His family are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted Tuesday at 22:52 Share Posted Tuesday at 22:52 8 minutes ago, TONTROOPER said: His family are. Quote Publishing a statement can be communicating the statement “by any means to a person in a manner that the person can access and understand it” and is completed when “the recipient has seen or heard it”. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted Tuesday at 22:59 Share Posted Tuesday at 22:59 Whether or not you think Eck sexually assaulted anyone, I'm not seeing how it could be actionable to ask someone if agreeing with his politics would override that. If the idea is that his family will sue anyone mentioning the existence of the accusations and trial, footage of him doing so himself ought to put that to bed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted Wednesday at 07:55 Share Posted Wednesday at 07:55 10 hours ago, scottsdad said: Welcome to the forum, newcomer! Is that Big Bobo back already? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Diamond For Me Posted Wednesday at 08:02 Share Posted Wednesday at 08:02 (edited) 20 hours ago, BFTD said: Edit: also, there's been an awful lot of "I don't agree with his politics, but I've always had a lot of time for him" from his political opponents in the past decade. That's a cast-iron sign that someone has become more of a liability than an asset, like when Stuart Campbell stopped being an evil cybernat troll to Unionists and became a rigorous journalist with impeccable sourcing, and how Ken Clarke gained a grudging acceptance from Labour voters once his party started veering rightwards and he became deeply unfashionable. That's part of it - you always get the ones like Jim Sillars who can be relied up on to say something critical so that opponents can say "Look! Even this person thinks they are fools!". Part of it is also that when someone is just past it and no longer a threat you can afford to be (or at least to appear to be) reasonable and magnanimous by saying how much you respect them. Salmond latterly fell into both categories, I think: reliably critical of the SNP and not a meaningful threat to anything else. He could be indulged safely. Edited Wednesday at 13:52 by A Diamond For Me 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 08:30 Share Posted Wednesday at 08:30 On the subject of Salmond's court case, I've read several times that he was acquitted of all charges. However, I've also read that the verdict for one of the sexual assault charges was 'Not Proven'. Two questions: Firstly, Is that the case? I know that it's controversial that such an option has ever existed in Scotland, but is it the case that Salmond was not found 'Not Guilty' on one of the charges? Secondly, would it render the statement that he was acquitted of everything inaccurate? Is the distinction between the verdicts significant, or does 'Not Proven' equate to 'Not Guilty' anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted Wednesday at 08:54 Share Posted Wednesday at 08:54 22 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: On the subject of Salmond's court case, I've read several times that he was acquitted of all charges. However, I've also read that the verdict for one of the sexual assault charges was 'Not Proven'. Two questions: Firstly, Is that the case? I know that it's controversial that such an option has ever existed in Scotland, but is it the case that Salmond was not found 'Not Guilty' on one of the charges? Secondly, would it render the statement that he was acquitted of everything inaccurate? Is the distinction between the verdicts significant, or does 'Not Proven' equate to 'Not Guilty' anyway? Not guilty and not proven are both acquittals. This is basic stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 09:08 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:08 13 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Not guilty and not proven are both acquittals. This is basic stuff. Sorry for lacking your expertise, it not manners. What's the distinction then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted Wednesday at 09:26 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:26 19 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Sorry for lacking your expertise, it not manners. What's the distinction then? Not Proven means "we know you did it but there isn't quite enough evidence for a conviction". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted Wednesday at 09:31 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:31 3 minutes ago, scottsdad said: Not Proven means "we know you did it but there isn't quite enough evidence for a conviction". It doesn't really. The task of Scottish juries is to find a prosecution case "proven" or "not proven". There's really no reason for that verdict to persist because it's an acquittal every bit as much as "not guilty", only the statement "not guilty" infers it's a judgement on the individual, whereas "not proven" is a judgement of the prosecution argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 09:31 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:31 1 minute ago, scottsdad said: Not Proven means "we know you did it but there isn't quite enough evidence for a conviction". That's kind of what I thought, which is why I questioned the line that he was acquitted of everything. It does amount to an acquittal though, so the line is perfectly accurate, if potentially a tad misleading. Would it still be accurate to say he was 'cleared' of all the offences? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted Wednesday at 09:33 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:33 Just now, Monkey Tennis said: That's kind of what I thought, which is why I questioned the line that he was acquitted of everything. It does amount to an acquittal though, so the line is perfectly accurate, if potentially a tad misleading. Would it still be accurate to say he was 'cleared' of all the offences? Yes. It's also a bit strange that certain media outlets are still claiming he was "in the process of trying to clear his name" when he passed away. The malfeasance case is not about Alex Salmond, it's about what other people are alleged to have done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennie makevin Posted Wednesday at 09:44 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:44 On 14/10/2024 at 16:21, Alert Mongoose said: Brexit, no to immigaration, colonialism, greed is good/capitalism will serve everyone etc. I'm not claiming every English person thinks like that but, from what I can see, they all seem to be majority viewpoints. If you're not claiming every English person thinks in exactly the same way then don't use nonsense phrases like 'The English viewpoint'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted Wednesday at 09:45 Share Posted Wednesday at 09:45 1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said: It doesn't really. The task of Scottish juries is to find a prosecution case "proven" or "not proven". There's really no reason for that verdict to persist because it's an acquittal every bit as much as "not guilty", only the statement "not guilty" infers it's a judgement on the individual, whereas "not proven" is a judgement of the prosecution argument. 10 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: Yes. Thanks. What is the distinction then, and why does it exist? I know that it might not forever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.