The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Mikey1874]

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.

[sadj]

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

[ri Alban]

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

[ri Alban]

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

[Don Dan]

@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. 
 

[Don Dan]

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. 

[ri Alban]

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.

[Mikey1874]

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. 

[Mikey1874]

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. 

[ri Alban]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

Salmond hasn't said that. 

Sorry, I thought someone posted he said old complaints should not be investigated. Apologies. 

[Don Dan]

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. 

[ri Alban]

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. 👍

[Don Dan]

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. 

[Mikey1874]

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. 

[Mikey1874]

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.

[North Road]

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?

[Mikey1874]

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? 

[Mikey1874]

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

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, North Road said:

the key thing not who divulged the name?

 
Thats is correct. 

[ri Alban]

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. 

[Mikey1874]

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. 

[Don Dan]

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. 

[ri Alban]

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? 

[ri Alban]

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. 

[Mikey1874]

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. 

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Says who? 

Lord Pentland. 

[Don Dan]

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 

[I P Knightley]

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. 

[Pans Jambo]

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

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

[Don Dan]

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

[Pans Jambo]

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.

[Don Dan]

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

[Don Dan]

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 

[Unknown user]

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

[Don Dan]

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.

[Mikey1874]

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. 

[Don Dan]

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. 

[Unknown user]

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.

[Lord Montpelier]

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.

[Governor Tarkin]

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.

[JackLadd]

So Sturgeon is sitting on the documentary evidence that proves she broke the ministerial code yet her cult claim victory.

[132goals1958]

7 minutes ago, jonnothejambo said:

He's buggered off...

 

Worried he  will miss the start of the game tonight

[John Findlay]

8 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said:

 

Away to Jenny Ha's for a pint.

Are the pubs now open?

[sadj]

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. 

[JackLadd]

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. 

[John Findlay]

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

[ri Alban]

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. 

[AlphonseCapone]

Bigger hype and let down than most hearts games. Talk about overselling yourself. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by AlphonseCapone

[Don Dan]

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.