Jump to content

The General Politics Thread v2.0 (AKA the "Labour are Cunts" thread)


David

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
12 minutes ago, David said:

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.

Glad to hear you agree that OJ Simpson was innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
9 minutes ago, David said:

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.

The other 12 charges came back with a "not guilty", though. Not being a telepath, I don't know what was in the minds of the jury, but one "not proven" coming back would suggest they did apply some judicial rigour to their assessments. I am aware, of course, that you could make the argument that, if this was a genuine conspiracy, that might have been a deliberate tactic to make it seem more plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
13 minutes ago, David said:

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." 

 

Sounds about as believable as said cleaner getting gifted a PS4 for Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, David said:

Personally you believe the women? Why though?

It’s not a he said she said / her word against his. It’s multiple complaints from multiple women regarding a man with a reputation for being inappropriate regarding personal space and throwing his power over people around. 
 

 

24 minutes ago, David said:

? What would it take for you to say that you don't believe them and that they were lying?

For all of them to be charged and convicted with the relevant offences regarding perverting the course of justice, wasting police time and malicious targeting of an individual. 
But until then, and up to a conviction, they too are all innocent until proven guilty, right? 
 

It’s such a shame that this needs to be said whenever a situation like this arises. But a not guilty verdict does not equal a false allegation. 

Edited by Keith Houchen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
19 minutes ago, David said:

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.

Do you have a source for this?

Salmond and Sturgeon weren’t political enemies before the investigation in to his behaviour so I’m not sure why you think that’s a valid line of argument.  She may have wished him to be less vocal in his demands that the Scottish Government be bolder in their approach to a second referendum but I struggle to see how Sturgeon would go straight to conspiring to have him done for multiple sexual assaults. Sturgeon is a very canny political operator, probably the best Scotland and the UK has seen since Blair, there’s no way she’s dragging the SNP’s name through  mud, putting her job and legacy on the line and potentially derailing the independence movement by trying to stitch up predecessor, a man many people still considered to be a a figure head of the SNP and wider Indy cause. 
 

I’m not going to go as far as saying I think Salmond is guilty, he was found to be innocent and deserves to be treated as such. However, by his own admission he plied younger, more junior female staff with alcohol while alone with them, engaged in “sleepy cuddles” and got in to a state of “partial undress” with them. His behaviour was enough for senior civil servants to ban women working alone with him at night. That’s enough to give me doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

The other 12 charges came back with a "not guilty", though. Not being a telepath, I don't know what was in the minds of the jury, but one "not proven" coming back would suggest they did apply some judicial rigour to their assessments. I am aware, of course, that you could make the argument that, if this was a genuine conspiracy, that might have been a deliberate tactic to make it seem more plausible.

I hate the word "conspiracy" because it conjures up an image of secret, dastardly plotting in a Masonic lair, all done by candlelight, but I do think there was a deliberate attempt to have Salmond effectively removed from the party and his character besmirched to such an extent that he would be effectively branded a pariah in political circles. 

Yeah, I know there was some "not guilty" verdicts. I'm saying I'd love to know how exactly they came to that determination though. I'd think it's an incredibly difficult verdict to reach, as you're essentially saying that you believe the accused without a shadow of a doubt, which is surely really tough in these circumstances?

A "not proven" would seem more fitting, no? 

6 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

It’s not a he said she said / her word against his. It’s multiple complaints from multiple women regarding a man with a reputation for being inappropriate regarding personal space and throwing his power over people around. 

And not one of those complaints managed to garner a guilty verdict. Surely that must tell you something? I have zero doubt that Salmond is a smug, power-hungry arsehole of a guy. Most people in front line politics, especially to the extent and pushing the cause that he is, usually are. And I have heard stories of him being the type who likes to drape arms over shoulders and hug people who maybe aren't as receptive to it as he thinks they are. He thinks he's the dogs bollocks for sure, and he has the political credentials to back it up for the most part.

But I don't think that's quite enough to brand him with a sexual assault tag. And it seems the people on the jury agree with that.

10 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

For all of them to be charged and convicted with the relevant offences regarding perverting the course of justice, wasting police time and malicious targeting of an individual. 

But until then, and up to a conviction, they too are all innocent until proven guilty, right? 

I don't ever see that happening to be honest, although I'm fairly sure that had Salmond wanted to, he could have potentially pursued that line of thinking in this case. He wasn't just acquitted, he was awarded financial compensation as well, and was certainly well-placed to pursue those who had accused him if he'd saw fit. 

But, as I said above to Carbomb, it's incredibly difficult to prove something like that outright. Which is why I think the "not proven" was the right verdict to be honest.

Although, as I also said, the SNP and those who "conspired" against him got what they wanted, because everyone remembers the allegations but very few will remember the charges not sticking. The current state the SNP is in, and the rumblings of criminal charges for the hierarchy of the party may help him shine a light on the situation and perhaps make something of a comeback, but I think the damage is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
3 minutes ago, David said:

He wasn't just acquitted, he was awarded financial compensation as well

He had his legals fees reimbursed for the Scottish Government’s flawed internal inquiry, which was on procedural grounds, not the court trial. I think that’s quite an important distinction to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David said:

And not one of those complaints managed to garner a guilty verdict. Surely that must tell you something?

It does. That conviction rates for rape and sexual assaults are incredibly low because bar an admission, it’s so hard to obtain proof. And the reason for low convictions have fuck all to do with false allegations. 

 

5 minutes ago, David said:

I don't ever see that happening to be honest

But if there was any shred of proof, they’d be found guilty, right? 
 

As I said, I can believe people conspired to weaponise the assaults for their own political gain. I don’t believe the assaults were invented to bring him down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, stumobir said:

Do you have a source for this?

Salmond and Sturgeon weren’t political enemies before the investigation in to his behaviour so I’m not sure why you think that’s a valid line of argument.  She may have wished him to be less vocal in his demands that the Scottish Government be bolder in their approach to a second referendum but I struggle to see how Sturgeon would go straight to conspiring to have him done for multiple sexual assaults. Sturgeon is a very canny political operator, probably the best Scotland and the UK has seen since Blair, there’s no way she’s dragging the SNP’s name through  mud, putting her job and legacy on the line and potentially derailing the independence movement by trying to stitch up predecessor, a man many people still considered to be a a figure head of the SNP and wider Indy cause. 
 

I’m not going to go as far as saying I think Salmond is guilty, he was found to be innocent and deserves to be treated as such. However, by his own admission he plied younger, more junior female staff with alcohol while alone with them, engaged in “sleepy cuddles” and got in to a state of “partial undress” with them. His behaviour was enough for senior civil servants to ban women working alone with him at night. That’s enough to give me doubt. 

There's dozens of reports of the hierarchy of the SNP looking to exert influence over the police and so forth to get rid of Salmond. And you're correct, they weren't enemies, although I don't think Salmond knew quite the shadow he threw over his "apprentice" and how having him cast out from the party would help to eliminate the spotlight that he still commanded.

If there's one thing we know about Nicola Sturgeon it's that she likes to be front & centre when the spotlight is at its brightest. Why share that with Salmond?

And on his behaviour? Absolutely. As I say, he does strike me as the old uncle who is too friendly with younger women at parties, especially after a dram or two. I'm certainly not saying he's a model citizen, but I am saying none of what I've heard is enough to cast him as a sexual predator or someone to be tagged with the crime of sexual assault. 

My argument isn't that Salmond is the man to lead Scotland again, as some of his few supporters still believe, it was more about the fact that the SNP have exuded a "better than you" attitude for years now, smugly believing themselves better than the nasty Westminster parties and above all that political scandal, when it truth, they were just better at hiding it, and had a more fervent fanbase who were told that any criticism of the party or its hierarchy was simply playing into the hands of the Tories and damaging the independence cause.

It will likely prove their undoing, as they've operated in a bubble up here, believing they can do whatever they like. The support of the majority will always be there for them regardless of the shit job they do, because not voting for them is basically admitting that you're not patriotic and don't believe in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

As I said, I can believe people conspired to weaponise the assaults for their own political gain. I don’t believe the assaults were invented to bring him down. 

I think that those who knew how he was around certain people believed that they could use that behaviour to throw doubt over his character and effectively remove him from serious frontline politics. Like I say, he wasn't a model gentleman by any stretch. Even he admits that he's a sleazy prick, especially when he's had a few drams. 

If a jury were to somehow find him guilty of sexual assault then all the better, right? But as I said, they got what they needed from the case existing in the first place, but that kind of stink isn't something that comes out in the wash regardless of the verdict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David said:

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 think this is probably a good time for me to politely bow out from the debate. 
 

You’ve demonstrated in this thread that you genuinely don’t have either a filter or a reverse gear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...