Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former SNP leader Alex Salmond charged with sex crimes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Imo. Toe treading. From what I can remember he had two goes at being leader of the SNP I can't remember why he quit the first time exactly but I think he had fallen out with a lot of the party, but the second, and this is the point of view of someone living in England was down to him playing the role of "father of his country" so hard that when the result came back no, he had no choice but to throw himself under a bus.
    He stood as a Westminster mp but there seem to have been tensions between him and his successor over policies, He may have given the impression that he thought was still leader of the party and got slapped down for it and he eventually lost his seat to a Conservative. In Scotland. This was unlikely. In short he was argumentative, antagonised some people who he probably shouldn't and someone may have decided to finish him off before he resurrected his political career again.

    It's going to be interesting how this goes when it goes to court. Breach of the peace is a bit of a catch all it can be anything.
    These days indecent assault can be an arm round the shoulder while you pointed out the coffee machine. Sexual assault and attempted rape are a bit more serious. I'd like to hear a bit more about the case before making my mind up.

    I am really glad that I won't be on the jury I don't think I'd be able to move past him being a politician and therefore he must be guilty of something even if its not what he's in court for.
    "Sometimes its better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness" T Pratchett

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by the ace View Post
      It's funny, but during the independence referendum, the muck-rakers did everything but peer down his Y-fronts in an effort to find dirt, and came up with sod all..
      I never thought there would come a day I'd agree with the ace about anything. Added to that I loathe Salmond more than I loathe most. I'd say he's in my top ten of loathsome individuals.

      HOWEVER

      This stinks to high heaven. In all the years this man has been in politics, hugely high profile prior to and during the Independence Referendum. brazenly 'public', a commentator and contributor. a regular interviewee on all mainstream British (not just Scottish) media and not so much as a whiff of anything?

      From what I understand he is accused of touching breasts and bottom and 'attempted rape', based upon the allegations of two individuals? Is there more than that?

      It's all very sketchy.
      "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
      - Mad Jack Churchill.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post

        I never thought there would come a day I'd agree with the ace about anything. Added to that I loathe Salmond more than I loathe most. I'd say he's in my top ten of loathsome individuals.

        HOWEVER

        This stinks to high heaven. In all the years this man has been in politics, hugely high profile prior to and during the Independence Referendum. brazenly 'public', a commentator and contributor. a regular interviewee on all mainstream British (not just Scottish) media and not so much as a whiff of anything?
        Do not conflate 'covered up ' with 'not so much as a whiff'.


        Originally posted by Tuck's Luck View Post
        From what I understand he is accused of touching breasts and bottom and 'attempted rape', based upon the allegations of two individuals? Is there more than that?

        It's all very sketchy.
        Indeed. For example no man should ever be convicted of molesting a woman in a locked room because there are no reliable witnesses. If no man can corroborate the woman's accusation then by default it is an unsubstantiated allegation.
        What is the world coming to when a man is not protected from this monstrous regiment of women?

        Comment


        • #34
          Sarcasm aside, when it is one man and one woman in a locked room, then without physical evidence (particularly when the offence is reported months or even years after it happened) it comes down to one word against another - who do you believe?

          What do you mean by 'covered up'? Who covered them up? When were these offences supposed to have occurred? When were they first reported? Is any of this information in the public domain?
          Last edited by Tuck's Luck; 12 Feb 19, 05:05.
          "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
          - Mad Jack Churchill.

          Comment


          • #35
            From what I can ascertain the accusations were made at the beginning of last year (2018), relating to events that apparently occurred some five years previously (2013). So there was no 'cover up' as far as I can see. The accusations were made and acted upon almost immediately.

            If that's incorrect, then can someone put me straight?
            "COOMMAAAAAAANNNNDOOOO!!!!!"
            - Mad Jack Churchill.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by m kenny View Post
              . . . . no man should ever be convicted of molesting a woman in a locked room because there are no reliable witnesses. If no man can corroborate the woman's accusation then by default it is an unsubstantiated allegation.
              What is the world coming to when a man is not protected from this monstrous regiment of women?
              - emphasis mine

              Would I be correct in assuming that this is a typo?
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                - emphasis mine

                Would I be correct in assuming that this is a typo?
                No.
                Cue snowflake argument.........


                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                  No.
                  So you're saying that only a man can properly corroborate a woman's claim of sexual assault against another man.

                  Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                  Cue snowflake argument.........
                  Please explain.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post




                    Please explain.
                    No.
                    Cue more fishing................

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by m kenny View Post

                      No.
                      Cue more fishing................
                      So you're leaving this contention:

                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                      So you're saying that only a man can properly corroborate a woman's claim of sexual assault against another man.
                      uncontested.

                      "Is that your final answer?"
                      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        So you're leaving this contention:



                        uncontested.

                        "Is that your final answer?"
                        Yes.
                        Rinse and repeat..................

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by m kenny View Post

                          Yes.
                          Rinse and repeat..................
                          So you believe as Muslims in Saudi Arabia believe, that female witnesses are not competent to give testimony against male suspects. Got it.

                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            So you believe as Muslims in Saudi Arabia believe, that female witnesses are not competent to give testimony against male suspects. Got it.
                            Curses, I am undone.


                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by m kenny View Post

                              Curses, I am undone.

                              Of course, if any reasonable person were merely being facetious, then he'd have just said it plainly, so we can safely discount that possibility . . . . .
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X