Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, ri Alban said: What is it he thinks NS has done to him? At work, so haven't seen anything. I don't think he's allowed to say. All his evidence on that has been censored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, ri Alban said: What is it he thinks NS has done to him? At work, so haven't seen anything. Certainly so far its been bluster , assumptions , historic cases shouldn't be used against people and cases shouldn’t be taken forward if its not 💯 a guilty verdict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: I don't think he's allowed to say. All his evidence on that has been censored. What's the point then. So he has no proof and it's just revenge he's after. I take it he says what he thinks without proof he'll be back in court. Edited February 26, 2021 by ri Alban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, sadj said: Certainly so far its been bluster , assumptions , historic cases shouldn't be used against people and cases shouldn’t be taken forward if its not 💯 a guilty verdict Why not historic? We don't have a statutory time limit over here, or do we? He's a lucky man, he's not someone's bitch. He should retire quietly. And that's from someone who thought he could do no wrong. Edited February 26, 2021 by ri Alban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 @sadj Just quickly there appears to be 4-5 points that the SG and the FM will have to answer to. So far. One being the Policy and another being the passing of a complainants name and the Crown Office intervening and demanding redaction of evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: Why not historic? We don't have a statutory time limit over here, or do we? The SG in working on that legislation now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 4 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: The SG in working on that legislation now. Someone should ask him if certain people on the yewtree list should be charged or not. What a stupid thing to think, that you shouldn't be investigated because it was years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 8 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: @sadj Just quickly there appears to be 4-5 points that the SG and the FM will have to answer to. So far. One being the Policy and another being the passing of a complainants name and the Crown Office intervening and demanding redaction of evidence. Sturgeon has denied the name was shared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Someone should ask him if certain people on the yewtree list should be charged or not. What a stupid thing to think, that you shouldn't be investigated because it was years ago. Salmond hasn't said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Just now, Mikey1874 said: Salmond hasn't said that. Sorry, I thought someone posted he said old complaints should not be investigated. Apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: Someone should ask him if certain people on the yewtree list should be charged or not. What a stupid thing to think, that you shouldn't be investigated because it was years ago. I’ll stand correct but I don’t he’s saying that historical events shouldn’t be investigated. Not withstanding that there is a criminal route to go down if you felt you had been wronged as we’ve seen very publicly in recent years mainly driven by the Me Too movement and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Just now, Boy Daniel said: I’ll stand correct but I don’t he’s saying that historical events shouldn’t be investigated. Not withstanding that there is a criminal route to go down if you felt you had been wronged as we’ve seen very publicly in recent years mainly driven by the Me Too movement and rightly so. OK, thanks. I stand corrected, too. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: Sturgeon has denied the name was shared. That’s one of the things that will have to be proved. Salmond claims 3 known people and himself were all given the name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Just now, ri Alban said: Sorry, I thought someone posted he said old complaints should not be investigated. Apologies. His complaint is the Scottish Government drew up a new procedure quickly without consultation. He said they should have sought to amend the existing policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Just now, Boy Daniel said: That’s one of the things that will have to be proved. Salmond claims 3 known people and himself were all given the name. Will have to go to court to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Road Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: That’s one of the things that will have to be proved. Salmond claims 3 known people and himself were all given the name. I’m struggling to keep up with all of this, but is the key thing not who divulged the name? They can both be telling the truth, NS might not know the name was shared or by who, and AS could have been told by someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Salmond has argued this afternoon there is nothing in the evidence that has been redacted or withheld that identifies the women who complained. So what is the reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, North Road said: I’m struggling to keep up with all of this, but is the key thing not who divulged the name? They can both be telling the truth, NS might not know the name was shared or by who, and AS could have been told by someone? The key argument is certain people deliberately tried to get Salmond convicted of sexual harassment through the new harassment procedure and / or at court. He isn't saying that but its implied. Edited February 26, 2021 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, North Road said: the key thing not who divulged the name? Thats is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 8 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: His complaint is the Scottish Government drew up a new procedure quickly without consultation. He said they should have sought to amend the existing policy. Why would they have consult anyone, especially As who was no longer FM or an MP/MSP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: Why would they have consult anyone, especially As who was no longer FM or an MP/MSP. You always consult people on new policies, laws etc. Unless you are North Korea. The original policy was drawn up with the trade unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: Why would they have consult anyone, especially As who was no longer FM or an MP/MSP. The initial policy went through rigorous consultations with the unions, was debated in Parliament and others. The new policy consulted no one, it wasn’t debated in Parliament and was subsequently found to be unlawful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said: *You always consult people on new policies, laws etc. *Unless you are North Korea. The original policy was drawn up with the trade unions. Says who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said: The initial policy went through rigorous consultations with the unions, was debated in Parliament and others. The new policy consulted no one, it wasn’t debated in Parliament and was subsequently found to be unlawful. OK. But it doesn't make it Malicious or anti As. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: Says who? Anyone who wants a good outcome and the best policies. And the consent of the people affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Says who? Lord Pentland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, ri Alban said: OK. But it doesn't make it Malicious or anti As. That is part of AS argument. The complaints were made in January and this policy was rushed through in February and used against AS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 21 minutes ago, ri Alban said: Sorry, I thought someone posted he said old complaints should not be investigated. Apologies. I think what he was saying was that there was a policy introduced in (let's say) 2019 and that he couldn't be judged against that policy for behaviour that took place in 2017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, JackLadd said: in denial Sturgeonista won't save the lying midden. She doesn't need "saved". This will blow over and folk like you will cry yourself to sleep. After 4pm and I am still waiting on the devastating "evidence" to be delivered. There is none! Edited February 26, 2021 by Pans Jambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 hour ago, Smithee said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said: She doesn't need "saved". This will blow over and folk like you will cry yourself to sleep. After 4pm and I am still waiting on the devastating "evidence" to be delivered. There is none! The SG have lots of questions to answer not least why they are reluctant to hand over documents and some cases have to be forced to hand over documents. Edited February 26, 2021 by Boy Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Just now, Boy Daniel said: The SG have lots of questions to answer not least why they are reluctant to hand over documents and so cases have to be forced to hand over documents. So is Nicola Sturgeon "The Scottish Government" then? Someone should just say they left them on the bus/deleted them/cant find them etc. Seems to work down south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said: She doesn't need "saved". This will blow over and folk like you will cry yourself to sleep. After 4pm and I am still waiting on the devastating "evidence" to be delivered. There is none! Thay also have to answer why the plowed on with the case against Salmond after being told by their counsel they would lose it. The resulting costs were run into millions the costs awarded to Salmond were on the higher side of the scale. Edited February 26, 2021 by Boy Daniel Plowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said: So is Nicola Sturgeon "The Scottish Government" then? Someone should just say they left them on the bus/deleted them/cant find them etc. Seems to work down south. Some would argue she is as ultimately she is the FM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: Some would argue she is as ultimately she is the FM Maybe they would, they'd be wrong though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, Smithee said: Maybe they would, they'd be wrong though Not really. It seems to be what she goes. That’s my take on it. You think it’s wrong I don’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said: I'm hearing a lot of what AS thinks has happened and what should have happened but does he have any evidence of what he says has happened? To be honest it sounds like a guy bumping his gums down the pub. There might still be more to come though. Its unclear. Some is circumstantial. Like the Murrell texts. And the Permanent Secretary speaking to complainers. But there's a load of evidence the Government is refusing to publish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said: I'm hearing a lot of what AS thinks has happened and what should have happened but does he have any evidence of what he says has happened? To be honest it sounds like a guy bumping his gums down the pub. There might still be more to come though. He’s not allowed to use it courtesy of the Crown Office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: Not really. It seems to be what she goes. That’s my take on it. You think it’s wrong I don’t. It is wrong, 100%. Boris Johnson isn't the UK government, Nicola Sturgeon isn't the Scottish government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Montpelier Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Listened on and off - if the politicians on the committee are representative of Holyrood then the bar is set at a very low level . There seems to be a lot of evidence alluded to but cant be discussed, not a great state of affairs in a democratic country, doesn't give the layman confidence in our governing bodies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Governor Tarkin Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 18 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said: Someone should just say they left them on the bus/deleted them/cant find them etc. Seems to work down south. This has got absolutely nothing to do with what goes on down south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 So Sturgeon is sitting on the documentary evidence that proves she broke the ministerial code yet her cult claim victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
132goals1958 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 7 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said: He's buggered off... Worried he will miss the start of the game tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 8 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said: Away to Jenny Ha's for a pint. Are the pubs now open? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 9 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said: Thay also have to answer why the plowed on with the case against Salmond after being told by their counsel they would PROBABLY lose it. The resulting costs were run into millions the costs awarded to Salmond were on the higher side of the scale. Im not so sure about that. Policy. - Yes ask questions but it also going by AS’s own comments was ineffectual at doing its job and needed replaced. Mediation to a former politician or doing the case informally shouldn’t ever be an option. Mediation should be required when its people working closely only. If there is no direct contact them it shouldn’t be part of it. If we only went ahead with cases of 💯 guilty verdicts then we wouldn’t try anyone. Its kind of the basis of our justice system. We don’t know the legal advice given exactly or reasoning behind it do we? (I dont know the answer to that) 11 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said: I'm hearing a lot of what AS thinks has happened and what should have happened but does he have any evidence of what he says has happened? To be honest it sounds like a guy bumping his gums down the pub. There might still be more to come though. Agree with the second paragraph. Its not nearly what it was made out to be yet. A lot of circumstantial stuff and hearsay or AS’s opinion , lacking substance so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackLadd Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, Lord Montpelier said: Listened on and off - if the politicians on the committee are representative of Holyrood then the bar is set at a very low level . There seems to be a lot of evidence alluded to but cant be discussed, not a great state of affairs in a democratic country, doesn't give the layman confidence in our governing bodies. Keeping her dirty laundry from scrutiny to save her own neck isn't democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said: I wasn't being entirely serious John😀🍺 Oh and it's 8 fekking Scottish Cups😄 Neither was I. My phone won'tlet me change it. Trust me ive tried. Edited February 26, 2021 by John Findlay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said: This has got absolutely nothing to do with what goes on down south. True. But it's being manipulated from down south. Through Davidson and Baillie, by Johnson and Starmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) Bigger hype and let down than most hearts games. Talk about overselling yourself. Edited February 26, 2021 by AlphonseCapone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 3 minutes ago, sadj said: If we only went ahead with cases of 💯 guilty verdicts then we wouldn’t try anyone. Its kind of the basis of our justice system. We don’t know the legal advice given exactly or reasoning behind it do we? (I dont know the answer to that) You are right we don’t know the reasoning. However the SG counsel apologised 3 times to the court that they had to bring this case to court. The only good thing about this is it exposed the policy are being unlawful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.