David Posted March 9 Author Share Posted March 9 21 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: Are you saying the SNP, or more particularly the two at the top, have such power and control over the Scottish judiciary and members of juries? And that the untold stress that the couple MrK mentioned went through was because she made up the assault and the pressure she was put under from the party to continue the lie? I'm saying that they have a hell of a lot of power, and while that obviously didn't extend to the jury members (thankfully), it does extend to Murrell, the SNP CEO, admitting that he sent messages claiming it was a “good time to be pressurising” police while another, referring to a separate complaint about Salmond to the Met Police which was later dropped, said “the more fronts he is having to firefight on the better for all complainers”. I'm only going on the various confirmed pieces of information that I've had access to, along with everyone else. And it was proven and admitted to that there was a concerted effort to use their not inconsiderable influence to affect the case against someone they considered a political enemy. As far as comments from MrK, without sounding like an arse, I'm not going to read too much into what they said. With all due respect, they're just someone on the internet. How do I know that their story is legit? I could easily say "My wife knows a cleaner who works at the SNP headquarters in Edinburgh and she overheard one of the complainants laughing about how they were stitching Salmond up." I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me if I said that, as I have no way of verifying it. 20 hours ago, RedRooster said: But she potentially alienates many others. If you give a shit about equal marriage, abortion rights or trans rights, how could you possibly vote for a party she leads? Younger voters are more likely to vote in favour of independence, but is hazard a guess and say they’re also much less likely to vote for someone who holds the views that Kate Forbes does. Because, as we've been told numerous times, when you vote for independence you don't vote for the SNP. I'm not talking about her winning those voters who are on the fence or undecided about independence over to the SNP, I'm talking about her being more appealing to those voters when it comes to independence. Basically, they're more likely to listen to her than someone like Mhairi Black, for example. The people that Mhairi Black can convince to vote for independence are already convinced. They don't need won over. The more conservative and slightly older demographic needs convincing if independence is ever to have a real shot. 19 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: It implies that the evidence wasn’t strong enough, which ties in with what David said about political motivation behind the case and pressure to prosecute from on high. I’ve no issue with that belief as I can believe it myself. I can believe the initial reaction from his opponents would’ve been “Yes! Let’s nail the fucker with this” and not “Those poor women, we must support them through this horrible time” My issue is the assertion that if there was a tiny scintilla of truth, he’d had been found guilty, ergo they were false allegations. Personally I believe the women. I also believe there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction therefore there shouldn’t have been a conviction. I could also believe his opponents knew this and used the assaults as political capital and cared more about using it against Salmond than getting justice for the assaulted. Personally you believe the women? Why though? What would it take for you to say that you don't believe them and that they were lying? If all charges being thrown out against Salmond doesn't do it, then probably nothing ever will. 19 hours ago, Carbomb said: Also, from what I understand (from what David said), on one of the counts of sexual assault, the verdict was "not proven", not "not guilty". I wonder how a "not guilty" verdict would ever be reached in a case like this? Unless there was a smoking gun such as video showing the accusers admitting they were lying, or one of them "coming clean" I don't see how it could happen. In my opinion, when an accusation is made against someone it's on the authorities and those involved to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove their innocence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.