/ Seems he's not a naughty boy after all

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
TheDrunkenBakers 23 Mar 2020
Blue Straggler 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Thanks for making it clear this time!  

Report
tom_in_edinburgh 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Anyone who has been reading the mainstream media coverage will be no doubt be shocked but if you read some of the bloggers who have been in court and reporting far more of the defence case than the Westminster mouthpiece BBC and unionist newspapers it is not at all surprising.

Some of the charges were completely crazy.  I'm not sure whether the end of the case means a complete free for all in terms of what can be said so I'll be cautious for now.

Report
Archy Styrigg 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Or put it another way, nine women have been shown to be lying. Hmmmph

I don't like Salmond, for the record.

Report
MG 23 Mar 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'll certainly admit to being very surprised by this, the reporting did suggest it was fairly clear cut the other way, with some notes about doubts about witnessing being present on key dates, however.

Report
Andrew Lodge 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Also one charge not proven, in other words we know you did it but there isn't enough evidence to convict.

Report
The Lemming 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Will Alex get his job back as leader?

Report
David Riley 23 Mar 2020

Will there be a retrial in London ?

Report
Robert Durran 23 Mar 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Anyone who has been reading the mainstream media coverage will be no doubt be shocked but if you read some of the bloggers who have been in court and reporting far more of the defence case than the Westminster mouthpiece BBC.

Well I get almost all my news from the BBC and don't follow any partisan, unregulated nationalist bloggers and yet I felt the coverage was fine and felt that, on balance he probably would be acquitted.

Report
wercat 23 Mar 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

my own feeling is that in cases like this, and the accusations against the labour party that are always being stirred up - Who profits from the reptutations damaged by the accusations.

Post edited at 15:46
Report
graeme jackson 23 Mar 2020
In reply to Andrew Lodge:

> Also one charge not proven, in other words we know you did it but there isn't enough evidence to convict.


according to the BBC -

"The not proven verdict is an unusual and highly controversial feature of the Scottish legal system which in practice is exactly the same as a verdict of not guilty."

Aye Right!

Report
Rob Parsons 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I wonder what exactly is implied by the following (from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52004285):

"Speaking outside court after his acquittal, Mr Salmond said: 'As many of you will know, there is certain evidence I would have liked to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so.

" 'At some point, that information, that facts and that evidence will see the light of day.' "

Report
JLS 23 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I didn't follow the trial closely, but like others, I'm a bit surprised that the case against him turned out to be so shoogly that none of the charges could be proven. Still, even IF nothing criminal happened he certainly walks away with a reputation in tatters. Shame, even as a non-nationalist, I thought he was a good guy. Just shows tae go ye.

Post edited at 16:18
Report
Rob Parsons 23 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Or put it another way, nine women have been shown to be lying

You misunderstand how both the law and trials operate.

Report
JLS 23 Mar 2020
In reply to David Riley:

>"Will there be a retrial in London ?"

Perhaps more likely a civil trial on the not proven charge if someone really has it in for him...

Report
David Riley 23 Mar 2020
In reply to JLS:

I was only joking, and hope he's left alone.

Report
toad 23 Mar 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

That isn't how it works. It hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the same thing at all

Report
Siward 23 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> You misunderstand how both the law and trials operate.

Alas, so do most of the public. What education do they get, after all, about the underpinnings of our society? 

Report
Wanderer100 18:40 Mon
In reply to JLS:

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Theres a lot going to come out in the wash and the early signs are that there were some political shenanigans going on that set out to target Mr Salmond.  I wouldn't want to be in his crosshairs at payback time. There will be  lot of sympathy for his public humiliation and of course revenge is a very human desire. He may well come out of this stronger than ever.

Report
Eric9Points 18:54 Mon
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I guess the jury decided that while he might be a dirty little shite, he admitted that much, his actions weren't enough to be criminal or couldn't proved to be criminal.

It's a sad day for women in Scotland. Who now will come forward and accuse powerful men of sexual harassment?

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/news/news/statement-on-salmond-verdict/

Post edited at 19:03
Report
Eric9Points 19:48 Mon
In reply to Eric9Points:

Looking at CH4 news it looks like there's going to be blood on floor of SNP HQ. He seems to think he's been stabbed in the back by people in his own party. In a way he has of course, his behaviour, illegal or just merely revolting, was bound to eventually result in someone crying "enough". 

The SNP are starting to come apart at the seams, scandals, incompetence and vicious infighting in a fag end government that has run out of ideas and doesn't even care. The final nail in the coffin would be a coup to return a sex pest back as leader. The tragedy for Scotland is it people would still vote for them.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-will-have-his-revenge/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Report
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Looking at CH4 news it looks like there's going to be blood on floor of SNP HQ. He seems to think he's been stabbed in the back by people in his own party. In a way he has of course, his behaviour, illegal or just merely revolting, was bound to eventually result in someone crying "enough". 

This was always the strategy.  The trial itself was a 'heads I win, tails you lose' play for the unionists and British state: if Salmond lost then it is SNP bad because Salmond is a pervert, if Salmond wins it is SNP bad and attack the nine women.

The thing that needs changed is that Scottish Government civil servants have to be taken out of the UK civil service completely, they should be employees of the Scottish Government with no links whatsoever to the UK civil service or involvement of UK civil service bodies in selection or disciplinary processes.  

Right now their employment contracts state:

“Your employer is the Scottish Ministers, as agent of, and acting on behalf of, the Crown. As a Crown employee you are part of the UK Civil Service.”

Report
DaveHK 07:32 Tue
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I guess the jury decided that while he might be a dirty little shite, he admitted that much, his actions weren't enough to be criminal or couldn't proved to be criminal.

That was his tack from the start. I don't recall him ever denying all wrong doing, instead he used phrases like 'innocent of any criminality'.

Report
DaveHK 07:47 Tue
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It's a sad day for women in Scotland. Who now will come forward and accuse powerful men of sexual harassment?

I don't really understand this comment. Would you rather have seen him wrongly convicted?

I appreciate there are real issues with underreporting of this kind of crime but the way to tackle that is societal change and change to the legal system. It's the system that's the problem, not this individual verdict.

Report
Rob Parsons 09:05 Tue
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I guess the jury decided that while he might be a dirty little shite, he admitted that much, his actions weren't enough to be criminal or couldn't proved to be criminal.

As a completely general point, and has been noted here before in relation to other cases: in a trial by jury, even if the jury members think that the defendant 'probably' did what he/she is accused of, then the defendant must be found 'not guilty.'

Report
Robert Durran 09:14 Tue
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So the whole thing was an elaborate Unionist plot?

Report
Tringa 09:31 Tue
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I, like some/many others was surprised by the result but we have to accept the verdict. I and others would have not batted an eyelid if he had been found guilty.

I don't know any more about the trial than I've read online. However, it is odd given the number of accusations, that measures were put in place to prevent women working alone with him in his official residence and that he had apologised to a woman for inappropriate behaviour in the past, the prosecution was unable to secure a guilty verdict on any of the charges.

Just hope he never has anything to do with Scottish politics again.

Dave

Report
Eric9Points 09:52 Tue
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> As a completely general point, and has been noted here before in relation to other cases: in a trial by jury, even if the jury members think that the defendant 'probably' did what he/she is accused of, then the defendant must be found 'not guilty.'

Yes, the problem may well have been a lack of corroborative evidence which is always a problem with sex crimes. In Scots law corroboration is mandatory.

I'm not sure how to move forward to be honest but with the way the law is women are left vulnerable to the likes of Salmond.

That said four other women have made complaints of a similar nature to the Met. Seems he was a sex pest in London when he was an MP down there. I believe English law works differently and thus a trial may reach a different verdict.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/alex-salmond-faces-fresh-police-inquiry-after-court-victory-t3gphjlb6

Report
Tringa 12:34 Tue
In reply to Eric9Points:

Thanks for this. I wasn't aware of the need for corroboration in Scots law. As you say it leaves women vulnerable in Scotland. Looks like it needs changing in some circumstances.

Dave

Report
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So the whole thing was an elaborate Unionist plot?

More complex than that.  Partly unionist, partly a group within the SNP itself.  SNP grew too fast when Labour collapsed and took on some careerists that weren't interested in independence just wanted to be in the party with a chance of being elected so they could pursue other agendas.   This is where some of the SNP's most spectacular policy failures have come from.   There's also an issue of senior civil servants whose loyalty is to the UK government rather than Scotland and are being protected.

The evidence about the co-ordination between complainers and one particular person soliciting others to complain is probably why the corroboration requirement was not met by having multiple complainers.   It seems that there was more evidence about who talked to who from e-mails and texts that was not allowed by the judge  - this is what Salmond was alluding to in his statement.

It's also clear that some of the charges were only there to create a long list for the press.   Things like touching someone's leg years in the past in a five minute journey in an official car when the person's husband was in the front seat, an ex-met police detective was driving and there was a fixed armrest with a phone in it between the two back seats.   

Salmond is already history with respect to Scottish politics, he's too old, and he's been out of government too long.  It wouldn't be a bad thing if he came back as a list MSP for second pro-Indy party but he's never going to be leader of the SNP or First Minister again.

Report
Robert Durran 12:54 Tue
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I'm confused. So which faction, the true nationalists or the infiltrators/unionists, is the one supporting Salmond and which was trying to shaft him?

Report
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm confused. So which faction, the true nationalists or the infiltrators/unionists, is the one supporting Salmond and which was trying to shaft him?

The unionists are sh*t stirring court cases and inquiries are good for them whichever way they go.

The infiltrators are trying to use the party as a vehicle for other things.   They've taken over discipline committees like Corbyn's mob did in Labour to try and force out anyone who's got different views on their 'hot button' non-independence issues.   Salmond is a threat to their infilitration in the same way as Blair would be a threat to Corbyn.  

The grievance behind some of this was a woman who wanted to be SNP candidate in Salmond's old constituency who thought he was going to back her but he went for someone else.

Report
Robert Durran 13:18 Tue
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The unionists are sh*t stirring court cases and inquiries are good for them whichever way they go.

But isn't there supposed to be a rift between Salmond and Sturgeon (or is that more unionist shit stirring)?

So the Evil Unionist BBC is actually correct on this occasion when they report strife within the SNP? I've seen stuff from Nationalists on FB suggesting that the strife is a unionist fabrication - you seem to disagree with this?

  

Report
Wanderer100 15:47 Tue
Robert Durran 16:36 Tue
In reply to Wanderer100:

So Salmond is one of the infiltrators and the Scottish Government is conspiring against him, yet the BBC is both the Unionist Propaganda Machine of the Westminster government and part of the conspiracy (or is it just doing the wrong thing to expose the conspiracy?).

Report
Wanderer100 16:43 Tue
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think TiE is the biggest conspiracy theorist out there. A dirty unionist or a BBC reporter or a Civil servant lurking round every corner and hiding in every shadow just waiting to pour cold water on the red hot political and independence ambitions of the SNP. 

Report
In reply to Wanderer100:

> I think TiE is the biggest conspiracy theorist out there. A dirty unionist or a BBC reporter or a Civil servant lurking round every corner and hiding in every shadow just waiting to pour cold water on the red hot political and independence ambitions of the SNP. 

I'm just assuming the UK government is using the same tactics it has always used against independence movements.  It would be naive to expect it to do anything else.

Report
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So the Evil Unionist BBC is actually correct on this occasion when they report strife within the SNP? I've seen stuff from Nationalists on FB suggesting that the strife is a unionist fabrication - you seem to disagree with this?

There's definitely strife within the SNP, to some extent that is healthy in a political party and it is inevitable that when you swallow large sections of the Labour party you get some of its problem characters.  The unionist media is definitely doing its best to exaggerate and exploit it.   

It won't do them any good because Nicola Sturgeon is obviously doing a good job and is extremely popular.

Report
In reply to Wanderer100:

> I think TiE is the biggest conspiracy theorist out there. A dirty unionist or a BBC reporter or a Civil servant lurking round every corner and hiding in every shadow just waiting to pour cold water on the red hot political and independence ambitions of the SNP. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/23/alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial

"One of those texts included one sent by Leslie Evans, as permanent secretary the Scottish government’s top civil servant, to another official after they lost the judicial review, which read: “We may have lost the battle, but we will win the war.”"

Report
r0x0r.wolfo 01:15 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The thing that needs changed is that Scottish Government civil servants have to be taken out of the UK civil service completely, they should be employees of the Scottish Government with no links whatsoever to the UK civil service or involvement of UK civil service bodies in selection or disciplinary processes.  

> Right now their employment contracts state:

> “Your employer is the Scottish Ministers, as agent of, and acting on behalf of, the Crown. As a Crown employee you are part of the UK Civil Service.”

So this line, most likely forgotten about, buried in a contract somewhere, turns all Scottish Government workers into secret unionist spies ready to make up rape allegations at a moment's notice... for the Queen?

Now we've got that straight, could you help me with the following:

Where did Corvid-19 come from?

Who committed the 9/11 attrocities?

Did man really walk on the moon?

Asking for a friend. 

Report
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> So this line, most likely forgotten about, buried in a contract somewhere, turns all Scottish Government workers into secret unionist spies ready to make up rape allegations at a moment's notice... for the Queen?

Do you reckon Johnson would let the Scottish Government write the short list for him to choose the most senior civil servant in the UK government?  Do you think he'd let it have any influence in disciplinary procedures if he wanted to fire that person.  Or offer the person a promotion to a better paid job in Scotland.

Of course he wouldn't.  He has people kicked out the building by armed cops for the merest sign of loyalty to a currently out of favour cabinet minister.

Report
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Jeez, you should listen to yourself. One eyed or what.

Report
rogerwebb 11:06 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The permanent secretary to the Scottish Government is appointed on the recommendation of the First Minister as is the Lord Advocate. 

Report
Robert Durran 12:29 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It won't do them any good because Nicola Sturgeon is obviously doing a good job and is extremely popular.

I agree with that. She is by far the most impressive politician around just now and I wish she was UK Prime Minister. However this is (or should be,along with SNP internal, irrelevant to the Independence question - this is entirely about whether Scotland should be an independent country electing a government of its choice and should be absolutely nothing to do with today's political personalities. 

Report
In reply to rogerwebb:

> The permanent secretary to the Scottish Government is appointed on the recommendation of the First Minister as is the Lord Advocate. 

She's appointed from a short list drawn up by a UK government civil service commission.   Her employment contract makes clear she is part of UK civil service and if she stays in the good graces of the head of the UK civil service she can be protected or promoted to a position in London.

The devolution settlement was designed by Labour to thwart independence.  They said as much at the time.  Things like this are no accident.

Report
In reply to Eric9Points:

> That said four other women have made complaints of a similar nature to the Met. Seems he was a sex pest in London when he was an MP down there. I believe English law works differently and thus a trial may reach a different verdict.

They've already tried to get him twice and lost twice, the first time with £500k costs against them.  Now they want to try him in London where he is universally hated.   This is a f*cking conspiracy.  

Report
Robert Durran 13:33 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> This is a f*cking conspiracy. 

Well, either that or he is a sex pest. 

Report
rogerwebb 13:37 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And the Lord Advocate?

I wasn't at the trial but I seriously doubt a complex plot although that does not rule out an over enthusiastic individual. 

I doubt the plot, or certainly a UK government one because 

a) too many participants

b) the conduct was not denied in all cases just whether or not it was a crime

c) There are far more reliable ways of fitting someone up with far fewer witnesses

d) Timing, why now?

e) the UK government has no influence over copfs or the Scottish judiciary 

f) the quality of the participants in the trial 

It is  unreasonable to assume that because of the verdict the complainers were not honest. In these cases sometimes everyone is sincere but there have been serious failures of communication. 

There are cases where all allegations are fabricated, I have dealt with a few. They tend to fall apart fast once a trial begins. 

It is also worth remembering that apart from the identity of the cast there is little unusual in the case or the verdict. There is a general presumption that if the crown case taken at it's highest is sufficient to convict (that is before the defence is heard) then the matter will proceed to trial. This often leads to weak cases proceeding sometimes they prove sometimes not. Witnesses are frustratingly apt to suddenly give a different story. 

Post edited at 13:39
Report
r0x0r.wolfo 13:41 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If it's all a big conspiracy then why has it failed to convict Alex Salmond? Incompetence? Apparently they are able to keep dozens even hundreds of people quiet about the whole thing but they are unable to control the result?

The multiple cases point more closely to inappropriate (if not criminal) behaviour than multiple failed attempts at a stitch up. Surely it would have been better for a conspiracy to go after him whilst he was first minister or to try pin something to Nicola Sturgeon instead.

Post edited at 13:51
Report
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well, either that or he is a sex pest. 

They've already had two chances to prove that with large teams of people and huge expense. 

Report
Robert Durran 15:43 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They've already had two chances to prove that with large teams of people and huge expense. 

They failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, yes. Maybe the cases in London leave less doubt.

Report
In reply to rogerwebb:

> And the Lord Advocate?

I have no idea how the Lord Advocate is appointed.

> I wasn't at the trial but I seriously doubt a complex plot although that does not rule out an over enthusiastic individual. 

Or an over enthusiastic individual opportunistically aided by UK government and unionist media?

> I doubt the plot, or certainly a UK government one because 

> a) too many participants

> b) the conduct was not denied in all cases just whether or not it was a crime

Quite a few of the charges were denied.  There were witnesses who said they were there and saw nothing and the crown didn't even bother to cross examine.   Some of the charges you wonder why they were ever brought.  Small things like touching a leg or bottom, many years in the past and in a crowded setting in the immediate proximity of husband/wife where there were witnesses saying it didn't happen.

> c) There are far more reliable ways of fitting someone up with far fewer witnesses

Probably.  But it is safer to nudge events from the background than get your hands dirty creating your own plot.   The unionists win either way, they get to talk about it for a year and then if Salmond loses he's a sex pest, if he wins then dirt can be thrown at other senior SNP figures.    

> d) Timing, why now?

Because there was momentum towards indyref2 at the time they kicked it off and because of Brexit they thought they might lose.   Same reason they spent millions on political advertising.  The Tories didn't attempt to hide they were spending money to thwart independence.

> e) the UK government has no influence over copfs or the Scottish judiciary 

Of course they do.   They are the ones with the serious money and power of patronage.

> f) the quality of the participants in the trial 

No idea what this means.  The identities of the complainers are unknown to me.

> It is  unreasonable to assume that because of the verdict the complainers were not honest. In these cases sometimes everyone is sincere but there have been serious failures of communication. 

The WhatsApp group and apparent encouragement by one person of others to file charges is the thing of most concern.  Also the question of who leaked to the press and started the investigation off.  And who are the people outside of the complainers who's identities are being shielded.

> There are cases where all allegations are fabricated, I have dealt with a few. They tend to fall apart fast once a trial begins. 

This one fell apart pretty fast too.  

Report
Eric9Points 15:53 Wed
In reply to Robert Durran:

> They failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, yes. Maybe the cases in London leave less doubt.

Corroborative evidence is not required for a conviction in England as I understand it.

...and of course the evidence may be stronger.

Report
rogerwebb 16:13 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I have no idea how the Lord Advocate is appointed.

The Lord Advocate is appointed on the recommendation of the First Minister of Scotland. In the current case Nicola Sturgeon

> Or an over enthusiastic individual opportunistically aided by UK government and unionist media?

Possibly but whilst the media is a given the active participation of the UK Government would have been hard to conceal from the Prosecution who would have canned the case

> Quite a few of the charges were denied.  There were witnesses who said they were there and saw nothing and the crown didn't even bother to cross examine.   Some of the charges you wonder why they were ever brought.  Small things like touching a leg or bottom, many years in the past and in a crowded setting in the immediate proximity of husband/wife where there were witnesses saying it didn't happen.

Sufficient were admitted to remove doubt that in those cases something happened. It is entirely common for the crown to include charges that will not prove on their own. They are there for evidential purposes to establish a patter of behaviour. Have a look at any historical sexual abuse cases and you will see the same pattern.

> Probably.  But it is safer to nudge events from the background than get your hands dirty creating your own plot.   The unionists win either way, they get to talk about it for a year and then if Salmond loses he's a sex pest, if he wins then dirt can be thrown at other senior SNP figures.    

I doubt the plot, I don't doubt the attempt to bandwagon.

> Because there was momentum towards indyref2 at the time they kicked it off and because of Brexit they thought they might lose.   Same reason they spent millions on political advertising.  The Tories didn't attempt to hide they were spending money to thwart independence.

Before an election or, given the dates of the charges before the referendum would have been better.

> Of course they do.   They are the ones with the serious money and power of patronage.

No they don't. They have no power of patronage over the Scottish Legal system.

> No idea what this means.  The identities of the complainers are unknown to me.

I mean the identities of the prosecution and the defence. People who reek of integrity. Alex Prentice QC is about as senior as you can get, Gordon Jackson is as senior as you can get (and a former Labour MSP) being the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Shelagh McCall QC is chair of Justice and is arguably the go to Advocate for sex crimes.

> The WhatsApp group and apparent encouragement by one person of others to file charges is the thing of most concern.  Also the question of who leaked to the press and started the investigation off.  And who are the people outside of the complainers who's identities are being shielded.

Absolutely, but that does not make the individual complainers liars. It is quite possible for people to be offended by behaviour that others don't consider a crime.

> This one fell apart pretty fast too.  

No it didn't, really it didn't. A case that falls apart doesn't extend beyond the crown case.

That defence evidence was heard means that at the close of the Crown case there was a sufficiency of evidence to convict, make no mistake Gordon Jackson would have noticed if there wasn't. What then changed was that the defence evidence rebutted much of the crown evidence to a point where the Jury were not satisfied that the crown case was sufficient to convict.

To be clear, good enough for the Jury, good enough for me.

Post edited at 16:23
Report
In reply to rogerwebb:

I don't disagree with most of what you say.

The main thing I'd take issue with is that the UK government do have power of patronage.   They can help senior cops get a better job in another UK force.  They can choose a judge for a lucrative public inquiry job or influence a seat on UK supreme court.  They can hand out honours.

Report
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Corroborative evidence is not required for a conviction in England as I understand it.

> ...and of course the evidence may be stronger.

Whatever it is, it has been dredged up from years ago because Salmond hasn't been a Westminster MP for ages.

It will be in the press for a year with a list of charges getting printed at every possible opportunity like they did for this case.  Salmond's name out there getting treated like he was guilty and the complainers kept anonymous.  Then a trial with lower standards of evidence in front of an English jury that has been trained by the English media to hate Salmond's guts.

He's got about as much chance of justice from the English as William Wallace.  

Report
rogerwebb 16:52 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I don't disagree with most of what you say.

> The main thing I'd take issue with is that the UK government do have power of patronage.   They can help senior cops get a better job in another UK force.  They can choose a judge for a lucrative public inquiry job or influence a seat on UK supreme court.  They can hand out honours.

The police maybe, but I doubt it in any event they would rapidly fall foul of Copfs.  For Public enquiries in Scotland that's the Scottish government with the patronage, for the Supreme court I think you have insufficient faith in Scottish Judges. There is no reason to believe that they would be any less resistant to pressure than Lady Hale.

There would appear to be things to come out but I don't think the UK Government will be in the firing line. Why would they bother to get involved when they can just watch the fight?

Report
mondite 16:56 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Then a trial with lower standards of evidence in front of an English jury that has been trained by the English media to hate Salmond's guts.

I hate to feed your martyrdom complex but it isnt exactly hard to find people who barely know who the PM is let along the former leader of the SNP.

Post edited at 16:56
Report
Archy Styrigg 17:18 Wed
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>   This is a f*cking conspiracy.  

OK, you win, it is!

I know about as much as what goes on in the corridors of power as you do. F*ck All!

I just don't read the rems and reams of drivel posted on the internet as being .................... 'The Truth'

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.