You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
While innocent until proven guilty, Salmond and Sheridan are examples of how power corrupts. The Tommy I knew was one of the finest men I have ever met and stopped numerous poor folk having the few valuables they had being taking during the post poll tax days when Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee councils tried to poind people’s possessions. His advocacy for the voiceless was a force of nature and his latter self-destruction was hard to witness.
Oh and Upper Loch Rannoch fire roads?
C’mon, that was just nuts...
What has been interesting in this process is the phenomenon of the simultaneity of the newspapers' and MSM headlines, almost as if they are speaking as one.
Basically 2 things, one Salmond's guilt, and two, the civil war this has caused in the ranks of independence supporters.
We have covered the first here, but meanwhile this terrible civil war rages.
We've all taken our sides and rushed out to find the field of conflict.
Alas we have been unable to find it so we are reduced to flinging crushed Tunnocks teacakes at each other, reserving the deepfried Mars bars for the serious stuff.
Meanwhile, the SNP, expecting serious casualties, is reported to have recruited many new members since the Salmond affair started.
EDIT: I have changed the number of recruits to many. The source for the actual number cannot be verified yet, but is believed to be a lot.
athgray
...This however just proves that crowdfunders could not give a flying **** about the principle of fairness relating to sexual misconduct allegation investigations...
Then let's hope you never get subjected to the same principle of "fairness" as Salmond...
Then let’s hope you never get subjected to the same principle of “fairness” as Salmond…
The complaints procedure he is battling has not yet been deemed to be unfair, hence his legal challenge. Remember we have not yet had a legal ruling on this. Innocent until proven guilty remember. Tut tut.
Also, he is taking the Scottish Government to court, and as I have no intention of become an MSP of minister at Holyrood then his fight does not directly affect me.
Your donations could have bought a Christmas hampers for a struggling Scottish family, so well done you!
On the SNP, it is possible that the party can come out of this with some credit. For that to happen in my eyes then members need to be listening to Sturgeon and not the Salmond fan mob. This is not an issue that should split the SNP, and I can separate the party from the self serving actions of a clown with a sycophantic fan base.
athgray
...Your donations could have bought a Christmas hampers for a struggling Scottish family, so well done you!...
Amazing bit of whataboutery. So could the money you spend on your bike.
However I make those sort of donations too...
No one willing to tell us what they would do in a similair situation? Fear of being outed as a hypocrite?
Rene
No one willing to tell us what they would do in a similair situation? Fear of being outed as a hypocrite?
In possibly the first or second lines of one of my posts earlier, I said I had no complaint with his legal challenge, but I will try to put myself in his shoes to answer you question again.
IF I was the long standing leader of one of the UK's biggest political parties, and I had also been the the First Minister of my county for 7 years, and was currently working as a high profile political TV personality I would have raised a legal challenge if I deemed the complaints procedure unfair. I would also have looked at the current global climate of encouraging potential victims of sexual abuse or misconduct to come forward, and also how the political party I know and love may be affected, and chosen not to draw even more publicity towards myself. I would have seen fit to fund the legal challenge myself rather than draw swathes of hard up individuals previously ignorant of such issues to put their hard earned pennies to fight my cause.
And let's be clear on this. There will be many people flocking to this cause that are not funding the issue but rather the individual. Epicyclo even admitted as much.
I would have seen fit to fund the legal challenge myself rather than draw swathes of hard up individuals previously ignorant of such issues to put their hard earned pennies to fight my cause.
And let’s be clear on this. There will be many people flocking to this cause that are not funding the issue but rather the individual.
You are making assumptions that the people supporting him are all hard up. You are also not taking into account those who oppose him and his politics who donated as they agree with the unfairness claim. Lastly you are ignoring those who donated just to leave an abusive message about him on the crowdfunding webpage. You are using the whole incident to attack his supporters and drawing publicity to the very thing you think he himself shouldn't have drawn publicity to.
The donations are indicative of a high level of trust in the integrity of Alex Salmond.
He is a man who has been under intense scrutiny by the press for almost his entire political career. Although the universally hostile to independence media have spent small fortunes in trying to catch him out, yet nothing has come to light. There haven't even been rumours.
When the SNP returned 56 MPs to Westminster, it was him who laid out to all the newbies the dangers of all the honey traps, etc that would come their way and the dangers of social liaisons and inappropriate language.
In light of this it seems odd that he would transgress the behaviour rules.
So if he turns out to have done what he has been accused off, he has blown himself as a political leader in Scotland forever.
He may well be arrogant and cunning (as some here claim) but no one has accused him of being stupid.
If he had done it, I would have expected that he would have held his hand up, and issued an apology, grovelling if necessary, because he knows he would eventually have been forgiven, but if it turns out he has done it after going the crowdfunding route, then he will never be forgiven.
We can remember a grievance for centuries up here...
That was the basis on which I donated, and I'm pretty sure it was the process most followed.
You are making assumptions that the people supporting him are all hard up. You are also not taking into account those who oppose him and his politics who donated as they agree with the unfairness claim.
I never said ALL the funders were hard up, but I reckon many will be. £100k is a lot of money that could be put to good causes. I outlined why I felt he should not have crowd funded his challenge, which you clearly ignored or disagreed with. It leaves a sour taste I am afraid.
This issue should be disassociated from the wider debate around Indy.
athgray
...£100k is a lot of money that could be put to good causes...
I think the Scottish public is competent enough to decide what they think is a "good cause" and they have pitched into this one.
As they do for many "good causes", and I doubt anyone who has directed money to this crowdfunding is doing it at the expense of other donations.
According to various surveys "The Scots are the most generous nation in Britain - and even donate an average £100 per year more than wealthier Londoners." *
.
*(That was a DM headline a few years back, but there are plenty other instances you can check on).
Boardin Bob
the complaints had merit
Based almost exclusively on the details presented by the accusers?
Which "details" WOULD you expect to make up a large part of any accusation?
Would the process be improved if the entire process revolved around the accused saying "idid'ndoit"?
Having said that, if the process has _only_ taken the word of the accusers into account and ignored any other evidence then it may well be an injustice.
But I'm sure there's a lot of information that could make a complaint look plausible or implausible:
Were the complainants and the accused even in the same place at the time?
Can anyone else say that they were alone at the time?
Who was the last person to leave?
Was there relatively concurrent testimony to a third party about what happened?
If "the process" has taken these things into account, I don't have a problem with it.
As an aside, it's a little worrying that Alex's comments regarding "the process" seem to be taken as gospel here. Bear in mind that Leslie Evans comment on Alex's initial rant was that;
His statement contains significant inaccuracies which will be addressed in those court proceedings.
Its also worth considering that people seem to think that this process was specially set up for Alex.
I agree that that's a possibility, but I disagree that that necessarily makes it a bad thing.
Overall one of the best arguments in favour of this process being required is an old one recycled from the discussions we've had here about the GERS statistics.
If this is an MI5 plot, why is Nichola up to her oxters in it?
Rabbitholes everywhere, or reality everywhere. You decide.
epicyclo
I think the Scottish public is competent enough to decide what they think is a “good cause” and they have pitched into this one.
Do you mind if I keep this in my paste buffer so that I can bring it out next time you talk about the injustices of the indyref and how the "Scottish Public" were duped and taken in by obvious lies?
Who tf is "Nichola"
Nichola = Nicola
I seem to have misspelled her name and i agree that its _frighteningly_ unclear from the the context who I was referring to.
Thank you for your correction.
Seems like there has been a surge in SNP membership...
It now has more members than the Tory party has.
Wonder why?
Tories have never had many members, compared to other parties.
But members don't win elections. Seats do.
Anyone else heard the rumours that the 2 women involved are Roxanne Pallett and Coleen Nolan ?
grumpsculler
But members don’t win elections. Seats do.
Possibly, but the SNP don't contest English seats and they do ok in Scotland.
epicyclo
Seems like there has been a surge in SNP membership…
It now has more members than the Tory party has.
Wonder why?
Is this the new "look how much money he's raised"?
Anyway, I'll bite.
Is it because many people in Scotland think that a sexual harassment process developed within the Scottish Government (with union involvement) under an SNP administration might be an MI5 plot?
Is it because there are many people in Scotland who will believe anything that the party tells them despite the evidence of their own eyes?
Is it because they've all read the policy in detail and have righteous concerns based on their wide experience of sexual harassment cases?
Who knows?
Turnerguy, I assume you're joking and not casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case. Otherwise you'd be an irretrievable 24 carat bellend.
epicyclo,
I know anything about scottish politics has the potential to be divisive and make people quite irate. But is there any chance at all that you might look at your comments on this thread (with the subject matter at the front of your mind) and maybe consider if you are on the side of the angels here?
There's a pretty even chance that the women bringing the complaints are supporters of the SNP and independence themselves. Would that colour your view of the allegations differently, and if so, why?
All the noise about how the press is covering these allegations, and how its all blown out of proportion, but no reflection on the reality of how this would be covered if it was David Cameron or Obama or even Nicola Sturgeon who were accused?
Earlier in the thread you even brought up "50 parliamentary pedos" as something that the press failed to highlight, despite the fact that a police investigation into those allegations was carried out (with maximum press coverage) into many people. Including an ex prime minister, and others who couldn't defend themselves due to being senile or dead (also no evidence was found, which received correspondingly less coverage).
Maybe you should
a) be secretly proud that Salmond can still generate so many headlines, and
b) reflect that justice in sexual harassment cases shouldn't be a popularity contest?
eat_the-pudding
...Is it because many people in Scotland think that a sexual harassment process developed within the Scottish Government (with union involvement) under an SNP administration might be an MI5 plot?...
1. sometimes you are right to be paranoid because they really are out to get you. British intelligence has actively interfered against the SNP throughout its history. Cameron made it clear that all the apparatus of the British state was to be brought to bear to oppose independence, so many of us think it's highly likely that they are still involved.
2. My understanding is that the complainants are not part of the Scottish government but part of the UK administration that oversees Holyrood, ie the UK Civil Service, and thus were not part of the Scottish Govt. Several months ago the head of that presented the First Minister with a protocol for dealing with complaints with MSPs, and it was approved by the FM and immediately applied to Salmond.
3. We have already established that the crowd funding is for a Judicial Review of that process, not the defence of Alex Salmond. If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
4. There has not been anything like comparable publicity about the Scottish Labour Leader's election agent who has just been found guilty of paedophilia (actual guilt versus allegation). And Is there not currently a list of sexual predators in the UK parliament that is being ignored in the press?
Our protest is against what looks like a stitch-up with a carefully crafted process designed to create bad publicity for Salmond and not to get justice for the 2 complainants. It has worked because he is now out of contention for any election in the near future. His immediate future is ruined.
Anyhow, the Judicial Review will now take place, so we can wait and see if that process was fair, and if it was, if there is actually a case to answer.
Epicyclo
Turnerguy, I assume you’re joking and not casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case. Otherwise you’d be an irretrievable 24 carat bellend.
Later on
Epicyclo
If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
Quality. Loving This!!
Still time to edit that athgray
I'd like to make it clear that the first quote attributed to me in athgray's post above is not something I said.
My understanding is that the complainants are not part of the Scottish government but part of the UK administration that oversees Holyrood, ie the UK Civil Service, and thus were not part of the Scottish Govt.
Although there is only one civil service in the UK (it is Her Majesty's Civil Service, not the UK Civil Service), the Scottish part of that works at the direction of the Scottish Government. <span style="font-size: 12.8px;">In both Scotland and Wales, the civil service serves and is directed by the devolved administration. </span><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">You think St Andrew's House sit there working for the UK Toaries and wonder why nobody in Holyrood has ever bothered to complain about that?</span>
The Scottish Goverment certainly seems to think that the civil service is part of government, but what would they know? https://beta.gov.scot/about/how-government-is-run/civil-service/ Sturgeon has defended the work of the civil service, yet Salmond supporters still try to pretend it was something foisted upon the SNP and nothing to do with any SNP politician.
I realise that there may be some people in the civil service that didn't vote SNP, but this argument is a pretty poor one (because it is bollocks).
There has not been anything like comparable publicity about the Scottish Labour Leader’s election agent who has just been found guilty of paedophilia
Of course there hasn't been. He isn't a household name. He was not an elected official, he is not an outspoken political leader and he is not that newsworthy. Does this really need explaining?
epicyclo,
Even with a generous reading, you really do seem to have a complete lack of sympathy for the complainants in this case.
This quote;
If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
Says a lot about you.
You don't say "if he did it he deserves everything he gets". But "if he did it to untrustworthy people he deserves everything he gets"!?
The pretty clear implication is that it would be OK if he "touched up or put the hard word" (wtf!?) on "more trustworthy" people? Or that their "trustworthiness" is relevant to the facts.
You are fractally wrong here. Factually wrong (as explained by grumpysculler) and morally repugnant (as shown by your words above).
I said earlier;
There’s a pretty even chance that the women bringing the complaints are supporters of the SNP and independence themselves. Would that colour your view of the allegations differently, and if so, why?
I hoped that would make you realise that you are bringing politics into a part of this discussion where it does not belong.
But you dove straight in, no hesitation.
These women can't be victims complaining about harassment.
Their motives have to be suspect.
Their politics has to be the wrong kind.
Their commitment (or lack of commitment) to your nationalism is the overriding deciding factor.
Wow. Must be rough living inside your head.
Is it a bit like the cartoon below? from here
I know you won't like the comparison, but I assure you that is completely deliberate on my part.
and if the shoe fits...... 🙂
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women ?
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women
D'oh! It's because a secret society of deep sate operatives under the direction of Davos globalists are using the liberal media to fuel a UK government witch hunt to impose female dominance and rule to undermine the strong male YES contingent and prevent Scottish Independence.
Obvious conspiracy is obvious.
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women ?
According to the Daily Ranger, at least one of the complainants had breasts. Now, I know that in todays cross-gender society that's not as clear as it once was but it maybe gives us a clue.
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women ?
What difference does it make? If someone feels they have been harrassed, their gender is pretty much irrelevant.
What difference does it make? That is why I am asking - why do people assume in these cases? Everybody is entitled to a safe workplace, and it is interesting that everybody leaps straight to pre-conceived gender roles. The Daily Rangers wouldn't know a fact if it punched them in the face.
What difference does it make? If someone feels they have been harrassed, their gender is pretty much irrelevant.
I don't think Hels is suggesting that the sex of the victims matters at all, rather it is intresting that we all assume they are women.
Well. As far as we know Salmond is heterosexual. If he is sexually harassing people it isn’t a great leap to assume the people he is doing it to are the opposite sex. I haven’t heard a definite confirmation that they are human either but I am going to take a wild guess that they are.
Well it's been over a week now and no word from the police?
"as far as we know" yep thats some outstanding fact mongering.
rene59
Well it’s been over a week now and no word from the police?
Which is relevant because?
Although, if we're making lists:
Thing which didn't happen this week.
Salmond has failed to comment on the latest allegations about the nerve agent poisonings in the UK and his position working for Putin on Russia Today.
Things which did happen this week.
Tommy Sheridan has joined Salmond on the rouble-go-round with a chat show on the Kremlin mouthpiece Sputnik UK.
Even SNP Westminster leader, (blowhard ex-banker and man who tormented Charles Kennedy in the last months of his life) Ian Blackford has labelled Russia Today (where Salmond works) a “vehicle of the Russian state” and said he didn’t believe anyone should broadcast on it.
Its all conspiracies, all the way down I tells ye! 🙂
Which is relevant because?
You don't think it is? Weird.
Well it’s been over a week now and no word from the police?
I'd expect formal police enquiries to take longer.
It's been almost a year since Monica Lennon alleged she was groped by a senior member of the Labour Party and that's not resulted in any prosecution either.
eat_the_pudding
Even with a generous reading, you really do seem to have a complete lack of sympathy for the complainants in this case....
You are talking about the actual case, I am talking about the process of the internal investigation, and I am voicing the misgivings of many people in the independence movement about that.
I know you are frothing to see Salmond tarred and feathered, and hell mend fairness, but as I said
Anyhow, the Judicial Review will now take place, so we can wait and see if that process was fair, and if it was, if there is actually a case to answer.
So instead of putting words in my mouth, let's wait and see.
BTW if you are so concerned about Charles Kennedy then you should be taking a close look at the actions of his own party and the way they treated him. They were supposedly his friends.
epicyclo,
You genuinely seem to be having an issue with the complainants.
For the avoidance of doubt, do you agree with what I said earlier.
That casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case makes you an irretrievable 24 carat bellend?
Yes or No? (you should be familiar with at least one of those words)
Please note that I'm answering "YOU" not "many people in the independence movement". Please stop trying to separate yourself from your own comments.
Your comment was;
If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
And it still sounds dodgy as **** to me, because theres no way that that can be read in English that does not imply that the complainants are untrustworthy in some way because of their assumed (by you) political allegiance.
Also please stop putting words in my mouth. I dislike Salmond intensely, and on many levels, but I'd like to see justice in this case, not a show trial.
Can you really say the same when you are assuming such bad faith on the part of the complainants from the start?
If nothing else, its becoming more obvious by the second why the complainants waited until Salmond was less powerful to bring forward their complaints.
Just catching up now. Not often I will say this, but in not paying due care ant attention when scanning posts I attributed a quote to epicyclo that was not his. I apologise for this epicyclo.
eat_the-pudding
...And it still sounds dodgy as **** to me, because theres no way that that can be read in English that does not imply that the complainants are untrustworthy in some way because of their assumed (by you) political allegiance...
Or perhaps instead of trying to put the most negative connotation on my words, you could pause and think about what I was saying.
So, I'll try in plain English.
A process of private trial where you do not have the right of defence is dodgy. And that is what the crowdfunding is about.
If its conclusions are supported, then, and only then will the complaint be tried in a proper court. That's when guilt or otherwise will be decided.
Right from the start I have said that if he has done this, then he deserves what he gets.
athgray
...I apologise for this epicyclo.
That's ok, I realised you wouldn't do that deliberately, but some folk don't read the whole thread, so I just wanted to clarify it.
"Even SNP Westminster leader, (blowhard ex-banker and man who tormented Charles Kennedy in the last months of his life) Ian Blackford"
Well come on Eat the pudding, back that statement up with facts.
I do not know all that went on during that campaign but I was involved on a daily basis leafletting and knocking on doors for Ian Blackford and I saw nothing that matches your description.
We ordinary activists were subjected to a systematic campaign of slurs and innuendos from the British press though.
Dragging this up from the depths, but in answer to epicyclo.
Even with a positive reading your quoted words are what they are. If you want to withdraw them thats fine. Do you?
BTW You still haven't agreed with my statement earlier:
For the avoidance of doubt, do you agree with what I said earlier.
That casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case makes you an irretrievable 24 carat bellend?
Any comment? Yes or No will do. 🙂
gordimhor
He was an investment banker (see his wikipedia page), apparently thats snpbad when you're english, but snpgood if you're scottish?
As to the rest, everyone was letting it lie until he decided to rewrite history a few months ago which led to these articles:
Scotsman Times Sunday Post libdems etc. etc.
If it had all been a bit of banter during the campaign I doubt it would be resonating so much so many years later.
Blackford himself probably considers it something to be ashamed of. Otherwise why go on the record trying to rewrite it?
You might not accept my evidence, in the form of press reports, but they did seem to stop Blackfords rewrite in its tracks.
Which was nice.
ETP I do not expect that you will accept my account as evidence.
I have no problem with Ian Blackford being described as a banker . He was one.
The liberals also claimed that he was parachuted in to the constituency when in fact he had lived on Skye for some time.
However Ian should not have gone into their office on the occasion described. I wasn't there
I don't accept the newspaper articles as evidence, two of them are essentially the same article written by Brian Wilson.
I personally witnessed appalling behaviour towards SNP supporters by libdem staff who would be well advised to look to their own behaviour before criticising others
Looks like he was right about the process:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
Statement from Leslie Evans
Unfortunately, the interactions with the complainants in advance of the complaints being made meant that the process was flawed, however impartially and fairly the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation.
My bold.
Bear in mind that SG have not accepted that the process is unfair, only that it was not followed correctly in this case.
Thats a long way from what Salmonds crowdfunded accusations of an unfair and unlawful process.
Anyway, now that his distraction tactics are spent maybe we can wait for the outcome of the actual investigation.
Mr Salmond's case focused entirely on the fairness of the government's procedures and will have no bearing on a separate police inquiry into the allegations, which is still ongoing.
Yep, the government screwed up and so the previous investigation is binned. I don't think the mistake really aligns with his previously reported arguments around involving him, mediation, etc. Embarassing and wasteful nonetheless and you would think special attention would be paid around this sort of investigation.
The government have said that they will consider re-opening it (and hopefully getting the process right), but can't do anything until the police investigation has finished.
Doesn't really seem like a lot has materially changed as a result of this verdict, although I'm sure some will try to present it otherwise. The actual process, which Salmond was trying to subject to a judicial review, still stands and hasn't been overturned. Same for the allegations and associated police investigation.
Arrested this morning, in court this afternoon.
I wonder (assuming his guilt is proven) how this will then effect little Jimmy Krankie?
First he was arrested this morning and due in court this afternoon, now it's he was arrested and charged last night and now unknown when he is due in court.
Quality journalism.
With the pressure for another referendum increasing, I was wondering when that was going to happen.
The SNP have reputedly been airbrushing him out of their history on their web pages which may have been a sign.
At least now we'll get the actual facts.
Even disliking her politics I'd like to think that shes wasn't stupid enough to get dragged into this (as a woman in politics who genuinely seems to give a damn about the complainants) but she has had a lot of un-minuted* meetings with him which are already making some waves.
*Not keeping notes to avoid FOI requests and public scrutiny is a long term SNP habit that was always going to bite back. I confess I'll be having schadenfreude to the max if this is the event that highlights it enough to attract the attention it deserves.
Not much else to be said now its all sub judice.
Scottish Twitter is lit tho' 🙂
Blimey, the interweb is glowing red-hot with the glee of the Unionists.
However:
as a woman in politics who genuinely seems to give a damn about the complainants
Really? Nicola "meMeMYlastinglegacy" Sturgeon?
rich_s
I don't like her politics (muh independence), her priorities (muh independence) and the way shes only ever obliquely straightforward about the nature of Scotlands finances (and avoids defending her own GERS figures from attacks by her own supporters) (see: muh independence).
But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to wanting sexual harassment dealt with properly. Shes certainly displayed a better attitude than scottish indy twitter where the "MI5 plot" mongers are out in force.
I don't think any of it is an MI5 plot, that's just silly.
However, the usual suspects will use this whole scenario for their own agenda, I mean, imagine there were paedos and perverts in Westminster eh? Now that would really get a proper investigation, wouldn't it?....
Twitter tends to attract the loons form both sides, so is best avoided.
nobeer,
The "paedos and perverts in westminster" DID get investigated at massive expense and with many lurid headlines. It cost a lot of money went on for a long time, tarnished the reputations and memories of a lot of innocent people and turned out to be based on the lies of one man. linky
The people bringing up both subjects (Alex and operation Midland) in the same sentence do tend to be loons though.
I wonder (assuming his guilt is proven) how this will then effect little Jimmy Krankie?
Jimmy Krankie is a fictional character created by entertainer Janette Tough, isn't he? What's he got to do with Salmond's arrest?
First he was arrested this morning and due in court this afternoon, now it’s he was arrested and charged last night and now unknown when he is due in court.
Quality journalism.
Seems it was quality as he is in court now.
Jimmy Krankie is a fictional character created by entertainer Janette Tough, isn’t he? What’s he got to do with Salmond’s arrest?
Possibly a jibe at Ms Sturgeon.
Jibe? It's the Union Gammoners attempt at being funny, but it's no mysoginistic, or sexist, cos Jimmy Crankie is played by a female, right?.
Don't dare comment on Ms Davidson right enough, that's not on.
Tbf, I'm sure she takes it as a compliment, as she's really the only party leader in Scotland that gets stick, a sign of just how completely inept and irrelevant the rest of them are, Patrick Harvie the one possible exception.
Hardly any charges...
Guardian link.. Alex Salmond charged with sexual assault and attempted rape
Personally I'm waiting for the crowdfund klaxon.
nobeer, you seem to be under the impression that rudeness and gammon exist on only one side in Scotland.
Should'a gone to specsavers
If that charge sheet tells us anything it's that he's clearly better at sexual assualt than rape.
I can see the battle lines are drawn on this, which is ridiculous in itself. If he did these things **** him, if he didn't, he'll get off in court. Dunno what it has to do with unionism or independence myself.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, I think it's safe to say Salmond is yesterday's man as far as effectiveness in the forthcoming independence campaign.
"battle lines"
I don't really see this thread full of people on either side claiming hes innocent or guilty. Personally, just now, I find the whole thing really sad.
Hes a divisive politician, in legal trouble. Its gonna get comments, but the truth of the allegations isn't the meat of this thread (as I see it). Its peoples reaction to the situation (plot! crowdfund!) reaction to the accusations (do we believe complainants or just make sure they get a fair hearing or assume political interference and shennanigans) thats whats interesting.
Personally, I don't like Salmond and the SNP (if anyone was wondering), but its definitely sadness and what the complainants are about to go through thats on my mind at the moment.
nobeer, you seem to be under the impression that rudeness and gammon exist on only one side in Scotland.
Nope, as I said earlier there are loons on both sides, possibly even more on the nationalist side, but the angry British Oompah merchants only tub thump the unionist agenda I'm afraid. I'm a Rangers fan, I'm well aware what a Unionist gammon looks like when it's singing next to me.
but its definitely sadness and what the complainants are about to go through thats on my mind at the moment.
Aye, right ye are.
epicyclo,
refreshing to see your absolute priorities on display there.
I wonder (assuming his guilt is proven) how this will then effect little Jimmy Krankie?
Steadyy, steady, holdd, hold ... 😀
eat_the-pudding
epicyclo,
refreshing to see your absolute priorities on display there.
Come off it. The whole purpose of this thread is schadenfreude, not concern for the complainants.
Exactly.
she’s really the only party leader in Scotland that gets stick
That's not quite true though is it?
the impression that rudeness and gammon exist on only one side in Scotland.
Naw, it's banter and haggis oan the ither.
However, the usual suspects will use this whole scenario for their own agenda
That would be said loonies you referred to before. Read the comments section of The Ferret if you want some proper tartan blinkers and misogynistic shite (or not, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't).
Canny beat a bit of Gary Tank Commander! I'm assuming that's an insult levelled at Davidson? I've genuinely never heard it, but I don't do ****ter.
I hear the Labour dude on FMQ last week, Richard something? my god he was cringworthy, truly awful. So bad that wee Kezia must be a shout for a comeback, if that's the best they have....
Blimey! I've not really been following this whole thing, but 14 charges against him, including 2 of attempted rape?!