Snorvey wrote:I can't stand Alec Salmond...but I hate Nicola Sturgeon even more
I remember seeing Jimmy Krankie take on Widow Twankey at the Pavilion a long time ago
- about time they faced off again
-sd
Thanks to Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77, for Donating to support the site
Snorvey wrote:I can't stand Alec Salmond...but I hate Nicola Sturgeon even more
Snorvey wrote:Alec will be raging.
Nimrod103 wrote:Am I alone in finding this case baffling? Is there a back story which perhaps Scots are aware of, but us English are completely in the dark about?
SUrely, in the interests of natural justice it needs the women who made the claims against Salmon which were not believed by the court, to be named, and all the relevant information to be put in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up.
scotia wrote:Nimrod103 wrote:Am I alone in finding this case baffling? Is there a back story which perhaps Scots are aware of, but us English are completely in the dark about?
SUrely, in the interests of natural justice it needs the women who made the claims against Salmon which were not believed by the court, to be named, and all the relevant information to be put in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up.
The Trial of Alex Salmond was widely reported (at least in Scotland). E.G Kirsty Wark presented "The Trial of Alex Salmond" on BBC 2.
Alex Salmond was cleared on all counts. One of the verdicts was "Not Proven" (which is an acquittal). Derogatory remarks concerning Alex Salmond by his defence lawyer which were overheard on a train, led to him (the defence lawyer) quitting as the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/03/alex-salmond-lawyer-gordon-jackson-quits-head-scottish-legal-body
A man has been jailed for six months for tweeting the names of women who gave evidence against former first minister Alex Salmond at his trial. It was issued by judge Lady Dorrian, who presided over Mr Salmond's trial, and prohibited the identification of the complainers who gave evidence at the trial.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56170459
Nimrod103 wrote: I was wondering whether there were a lot of things which are known on the streets of Edinburgh, which don't get reported nationally.
scotia wrote:One of the verdicts was "Not Proven" (which is an acquittal).
Mike4 wrote:scotia wrote:One of the verdicts was "Not Proven" (which is an acquittal).
In our "civics' lessons at skool we were taught much the same.
But our teacher went on to explain the informal meaning of "Not Proven" is "we think you dunnit but the evidence doesn't support our opinion".
servodude wrote:Mike4 wrote:scotia wrote:One of the verdicts was "Not Proven" (which is an acquittal).
In our "civics' lessons at skool we were taught much the same.
But our teacher went on to explain the informal meaning of "Not Proven" is "we think you dunnit but the evidence doesn't support our opinion".
Indeed.
The "bastard verdict" is "technically" an acquittal but it leaves a bit of a bad smell
- sd
Nimrod103 wrote:So we will never know the names of those whose unbelievable allegations were the basis of the case against Salmond.
scotia wrote:Nimrod103 wrote:So we will never know the names of those whose unbelievable allegations were the basis of the case against Salmond.
That's a strange statement. Do you think his defence lawyer (caught talking on the train) thought they were unbelievable? The burden of proof for a conviction in criminal law is onerous - beyond reasonable doubt - which is difficult to prove when the actions are behind closed doors. A majority of the jury found that standard of proof was not reached. A minority did. That does not make the allegations unbelievable.
And I can assure you, I have no need to know the names of the complainers - they appeared in open court, and their scrutiny was widely reported (at least in Scotland).
scotia wrote:Nimrod103 wrote:So we will never know the names of those whose unbelievable allegations were the basis of the case against Salmond.
That's a strange statement. Do you think his defence lawyer (caught talking on the train) thought they were unbelievable? The burden of proof for a conviction in criminal law is onerous - beyond reasonable doubt - which is difficult to prove when the actions are behind closed doors. A majority of the jury found that standard of proof was not reached. A minority did. That does not make the allegations unbelievable.
And I can assure you, I have no need to know the names of the complainers - they appeared in open court, and their scrutiny was widely reported (at least in Scotland).
servodude wrote:The "bastard verdict" is "technically" an acquittal but it leaves a bit of a bad smell
Nimrod103 wrote:I have a feeling that Sturgeon may still get off the hook. I suspect she will try to brazen it all out, with the help of SNP biased media and SNP loaded committees.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests