Jump to content

The rise and fall of The SNP.


Zlatanable

Recommended Posts

JimmyCant
3 hours ago, Mister T said:

I take it you've not got divorced. I wish I'd been able to apply that logic. 

If this is a divorce, we’re the downtrodden abused partner kept in a marriage against their will for 300 hundred years and they are the brow beating bully keeping us in the corner and feeding us scraps.

 

Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking. We’re keeping the house and the kids and the dug and your clothes are in 2 sacks in the garden for you to collect when you fancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Space Mackerel

    646

  • manaliveits105

    482

  • jack D and coke

    477

  • Smithee

    450

luckydug
21 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

And the polling for that was from 10 days ago.

 

NS being seen as a 'world leader' as it were, seemed to me like a major part of what she was doing.

Her appearance at the anti-Brexit/pro-EU membership rally in London for instance. 

 

IMO, NS has spent time + effort building support for her as a person and leader, and for the cause, to the audience outside Scotland. And a lot of that effort was toward the UK (mainly England, as Wales and Northern Ireland have commonality of such issues about identity), and toward the the EU after the Brexit vote.

 

Which is fair enough. It is like preparing the landing ground. 

 

So the collapse in support outwith Scotland is a thing NS cannot recover from, imo. Like, that is not something NS will be able to recover. 

 

 

 

😴

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

😴

I don't understand your emoji there. Are you telling me you are wearing a little hat?

Well done you.

Edited by Zlatanable
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

If this is a divorce, we’re the downtrodden abused partner kept in a marriage against their will for 300 hundred years and they are the brow beating bully keeping us in the corner and feeding us scraps.

 

Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking. We’re keeping the house and the kids and the dug and your clothes are in 2 sacks in the garden for you to collect when you fancy.

I love the set up- 'we’re the downtrodden abused partner kept in a marriage against their will for 300 hundred years and they are the brow beating bully keeping us in the corner and feeding us scraps.'

which leads to this hilarious and unitentional pay-off -> 'Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking.' It is the 'generally speaking' that makes it amusing. 

Edited by Zlatanable
Link to post
Share on other sites
JimmyCant
14 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I am still laughing at 'generally speaking'

You’ve lost me. Maybe it’s late on a Friday night or something 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

You’ve lost me. Maybe it’s late on a Friday night or something 

I am still  laughing, I think it also might the phrase 'divorces like that', in fact your whole post is hilarious. but Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking.' is so funny.

Edited by Zlatanable
Link to post
Share on other sites
JimmyCant
17 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I am still  laughing, I think it also might the phrase 'divorces like that', in fact your whole post is hilarious. but Divorces like that turn out one way generally speaking.' is so funny.

Okay mate. I’ll bid you goodnight and leave you to your cackling inanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
7 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Probably quite good we're discussing the small print Independence. 

 

Rather than say Edinburgh Central. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

She didn’t remember or know 50 times  at the enquiry she certainly didn’t do well as her PR machine suggests.

Jess has her number though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk

I am getting sick on this “this is about the women”’chat. Is everyone just forgetting that Alex Salmond has faced the charges and none of the allegations against him were found to be true? When does the apologies start flowing his way? He was falsely accused of rape ffs. This was a court case with a majority female jury and judge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
31 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

I am getting sick on this “this is about the women”’chat. Is everyone just forgetting that Alex Salmond has faced the charges and none of the allegations against him were found to be true? When does the apologies start flowing his way? He was falsely accused of rape ffs. This was a court case with a majority female jury and judge. 

It's a fair point. I think though that Salmond's chips were well and truly pissed the minute his lawyer admitted to inappropriate advances when drunk. It changed the perception of him from an outraged innocent to a lecherous old drunk who probably is guilty of something whether it could be proven or not.

 

I'm not saying that's right of course, if found not guilty he should be treated like he's not guilty, but I feel like there isn't a lot of sympathy among what would normally be his core support because of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk
3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It's a fair point. I think though that Salmond's chips were well and truly pissed the minute his lawyer admitted to inappropriate advances when drunk. It changed the perception of him from an outraged innocent to a lecherous old drunk who probably is guilty of something whether it could be proven or not.

 

I'm not saying that's right of course, if found not guilty he should be treated like he's not guilty, but I feel like there isn't a lot of sympathy among what would normally be his core support because of this.


He has been well and truly punished and well and trulydragged through the gutter for his inappropriate behaviour. You have to ask when does the punishment start to fit the crime. You also have to ask how many of these women were a wee bit scorned and made the advances in the first place to attempt to further their career.
 

Why is the women who accused him

of rape when he wasn’t even at bute on that day just getting allowed to get away with false allegations like that? Its rank rotten behaviour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


He has been well and truly punished and well and trulydragged through the gutter for his inappropriate behaviour. You have to ask when does the punishment start to fit the crime. You also have to ask how many of these women were a wee bit scorned and made the advances in the first place to attempt to further their career.
 

Why is the women who accused him

of rape when he wasn’t even at bute on that day just getting allowed to get away with false allegations like that? Its rank rotten behaviour. 

Yeah I'm not arguing, I bet he's having a really shitty time just now

Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:


He has been well and truly punished and well and trulydragged through the gutter for his inappropriate behaviour. You have to ask when does the punishment start to fit the crime. You also have to ask how many of these women were a wee bit scorned and made the advances in the first place to attempt to further their career.
 

Why is the women who accused him

of rape when he wasn’t even at bute on that day just getting allowed to get away with false allegations like that? Its rank rotten behaviour. 

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk
47 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.


🙏

 

great post agree with every word. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
53 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

I’ve not been that deep into it but that’s covered quite a bit. 
The whole thing is utterly bizarre I can’t for the life of me work out why they’ve done this..it stinks big time though and regardless of whether you like AS or not this is a crime in itself trying to fit him up on this bullshit. 
My gut feelings are it’s more to do with Peter Murrell for some reason but she’ll have to carry the can at the end of the day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enzo Chiefo
1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Great post CD. I'm not a supporter of the SNP nor Independence but I do understand that the Yes movement and the party are different entities.  Sturgeon, her husband and their cabal are rotten to the core and this whole affair stinks to high heaven. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Des Lynam
6 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.


Excellent post Doug. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

 

I managed two minutes before I was wondering where he lives and would it be worth my effort to pop round and knock his pan in. 
He’s the bloke you dread getting stuck with at a social gathering. Anyone that kicks off his diatribe with Sartre is generally a mock intellectual tosspot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Auldbenches
7 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Excellent post.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeffros Furios
8 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Another great post Duggie .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
3 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

 

Fascinating.

At the very least, it is different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

Scot Craig from Falkirk wins the voice

Weegie Lawrence wins Rue Paul’s Drag Race

its just a fix to make us feel wanted and prove we are better together 

:conspiracy:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
19 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Scot Craig from Falkirk wins the voice

Weegie Lawrence wins Rue Paul’s Drag Race

its just a fix to make us feel wanted and prove we are better together 

:conspiracy:

 

 

2 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

Fascinating.

At the very least, it is different.

I’m all for ****ing everything up☺️
He gets my vote

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Makes a lot of good points but he is hubz so he can GTF 

The only argument that ever needs made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

The only argument that ever needs made.

Oooooz ibs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JamesM48
On 20/03/2021 at 10:50, coconut doug said:

 

Not only were these false accusations but there is extensive evidence that these women were coerced by a fellow complainant to make the allegations. As you say in one case the complainant was not present at the date and time of the allegations (The woman who wasn't there) none of the other complaints were corroborated by witnesses despite them being in public places with several other peole present. None of the allegations were alleged at the time they were supposed to have taken place and nobody present saw any reaction from any of the complainants that something might have happened. At least one complainant was scorned - Salmond had knocked her back as a parliamentry candidate.

 

   One allegation that got to court was that Salmond pretended to "ping" someone's hair. He didn't actually do it even though she had it done to her many times by others as some sort of office joke.

 

   The allegation they dropped was a quip Salmond made when a female colleague was stopped at airport security and asked to take off her shoes. He said she had "killer heels". This constitutes sexual harrassment in the minds of these unscrupulous lunatics.

 

  And the woman he had a "sleepy cuddle" with accepted his apology which was made immediately and was happy to continue working with Salmond for several years after the event.

 

  Women being sexually harrassed is a serious thing but these accusers have done this cause massive damage as well as continuing to smear an innocent man and the justice system in general. They took 3 of these women to court against their will. They had absolutely no case against Salmond so how did this get to court. I can only imagine that any men involved would be unwilling to question the witch hunt for fear being accused of trivialising women's rights, sexual aggression in the workplace as well as being considered generally mysoginistic in a heavily female orientated power structure. Maybe they thought they might be tarred with the same brush as Salmond. The police said they had no evidence but how forceful could even they be in the context of metoo and the possibilty of being accused of not taking women's fears seriously. For me one major issue is how did this rubbish get to court. They had nothing. Who made the decision to take it there and who pressurised them into doing so. 

 

One of those involved in framing Salmond has now has broken cover to make another allegation. This time an assault. A witness to the event (female) has given an affidavit to say that Salmond and his accuser bumped into each other very slightly on a staircase. They are desperate to keep this Salmond bully/sex pest narrative alive.

 

   The identities of all these women are known to anybody who could be bothered to do a little research based on the info in the papers. Strangely the FM doesn't know who they all are and doesn't remember being told the identities of some of them either despite three separate witnesses claiming they were there when she was told. She did apparently know about sexual harrassment claims against the Westminster chief whip from around the same time (this story wasn't leaked to the papers) and is aware of a backlog of bullying complaints which cannot be progressed because they do not have a robust procedure for dealing with such events. How strange that the FM initiated a retrospective complaints procedure against former ministers one day before she claims she was informed of the allegations against Salmond but after she was informed of the allegations according to independent witnesses. Why is there no urgency to deal with their complaints backlog now?

 

  Those who think she is a tenable leader and an asset to the Indy movement need to get up to speed quickly. Why are the press telling us she performed so well at the hearing when she told us dozens of times she couldn't remember things? Not insignificant things but information like when were you first aware of the accusations. The press know that Sturgeon is a liability and they would rather perpetuate this cronyist corruption than see a refreshed Indy movement.

Outstanding post 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
Posted (edited)

Do any of you actually reckon that The SNP are not about to be obliterated?

(yeah, we get some people in Scotland want Scotland to be independent.  I have seen Scottish Nationalists obliterate democracy in Scotland)

 

Edited by Zlatanable
Link to post
Share on other sites
BudgeUp
7 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

Do any of you actually reckon that The SNP are not about to be obliterated?

There's a hard-core  of independence supporters that far outweigh individual support for any of the other parties.

 

So no, they won't be obliterated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
3 minutes ago, BudgeUp said:

There's a hard-core  of independence supporters that far outweigh individual support for any of the other parties.

 

So no, they won't be obliterated.

Nicola Sturgeon as an individual and as a leader, and the SNP as some sort of perfection,  is being obliterated. Because finally people are actually looking at them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BudgeUp
Just now, Zlatanable said:

Nicola Sturgeon as an individual and as a leader, and the SNP as some sort of perfection,  is being obliterated. Because finally people are actually looking at them. 

Expectation and hope are often different to the reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
1 minute ago, BudgeUp said:

Expectation and hope are often different to the reality.

that actually could be a title to a story of Scottish Politics since 2011. 

It would have to have many chapters

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

Do any of you actually reckon that The SNP are not about to be obliterated?

(yeah, we get some people in Scotland want Scotland to be independent.  I have seen Scottish Nationalists obliterate democracy in Scotland)

 

Nope. I see Sturgeons tenure coming to an end but many Scots will continue voting SNP because they want Independence, no matter who leads the party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Nope. I see Sturgeons tenure coming to an end but many Scots will continue voting SNP because they want Independence, no matter who leads the party. 

For sure, millions of people in Scotland will vote SNP. 

But the SNP are finished. They are legitimately being obliterated out loud, and quite rightly too. 

The utter ugliness of what has occurred, is on the SNP and the people that vote SNP, and is current. 

 

Scottish Independence was always a fantasy, imo. 

Edited by Zlatanable
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zlatanable said:

For sure, millions of people in Scotland will vote SNP. 

But the SNP are finished. They are legitimately being obliterated out loud, and quite rightly too. 

The utter ugliness of what has occurred, is on the SNP and the people that vote SNP, and is current. 

That's a complete contradiction. The SNP will get millions of votes but they're finished, aye? :tlj:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

That's a complete contradiction. The SNP will get millions of votes but they're finished, aye? :tlj:

 

if I speak my mind, Nationalist people in Scotland are lacking in reality. 

It is easy to vote a miraculously perfectly beautiful reality, that the perfect goddess Nicola Sturgeon annunciates. 

But the reality of Scotland is ugly and brutish. The actual Scotland pre Utopia is where we all live. 

 

I Think we ought to start with and honest agreement of who and where we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

if I speak my mind, Nationalist people in Scotland are lacking in reality. 

It is easy to vote a miraculously perfectly beautiful reality, that the perfect goddess Nicola Sturgeon annunciates. 

But the reality of Scotland is ugly and brutish. The actual Scotland pre Utopia is where we all live. 

 

I Think we ought to start with and honest agreement of who and where we are.

I think you need to lay off the crack for a bit. You clearly don't live in any form of reality other than the one you've created. :sadrobbo:

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk

For long enough the Labour Party were in the position the SNP are in. They had a hard core support of anti Tory voters who, even because of their failings, voted Labour to keep them out. However you can only betray and take your hard core support for granted long enough. Already splinter Indy parties forming and the greens may eat into the SNP’s support. They have shown they are vulnerable and the wolves are circling. 
 

No SNP majority this time but they will  still be the biggest party and I reckon a Indy majority. Who knows though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
9 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

Do any of you actually reckon that The SNP are not about to be obliterated?

(yeah, we get some people in Scotland want Scotland to be independent.  I have seen Scottish Nationalists obliterate democracy in Scotland)

 

Today's poll from the Glasgow herald

 

 

I'm in the 'not about to be obliterated camp'

 

Constituency
SNP has 27-point lead!
Labour 20% (-2)
Con 21% (-1)
SNP 48% (+2)

Regional
SNP 42% (-)
Labour 17% (-2)
Con 22% (-1)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
luckydug
31 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

Today's poll from the Glasgow herald

 

 

I'm in the 'not about to be obliterated camp'

 

Constituency
SNP has 27-point lead!
Labour 20% (-2)
Con 21% (-1)
SNP 48% (+2)

Regional
SNP 42% (-)
Labour 17% (-2)
Con 22% (-1)

 

 

Zlat ? 😂😂😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
steve123

Salmond is apparently making and announcement on Wednesday, would be interesting if he was standing for election as a MSP again 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterion
On 20/03/2021 at 16:52, Des Lynam said:

 

 

 

This is amazing... if someone had said "Watch this video, it's a trailer for Armando Ianucci's latest political satire" then I'd have believed it. 

 

The guy makes a few good points (despite the dig at Hearts), the end shot of the city with the words popping up is tremendous. 

 

I don't think i'll laugh quite as much at anything else today. :rofl:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlimOzturk
1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

 

 

This is amazing... if someone had said "Watch this video, it's a trailer for Armando Ianucci's latest political satire" then I'd have believed it. 

 

The guy makes a few good points (despite the dig at Hearts), the end shot of the city with the words popping up is tremendous. 

 

I don't think i'll laugh quite as much at anything else today. :rofl:

 

 


Genuinely amazing video. Guy seems like a character tbh. Would be refreshing to have a politician who isn’t PC and speaks about real issues again. He won’t get my vote I doubt but will wait and see I suppose. Apparently Salmond is announcing his comeback on Wednesday 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tazio said:

That’s what happens when you only win one out of the last nine matches. Is that really the type of record Aberdeen want in a new manager? 

 

7 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Does Nicola get to bring in games as it's her last week? 🤔 

You think so? I don't

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterion
2 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:


Genuinely amazing video. Guy seems like a character tbh. Would be refreshing to have a politician who isn’t PC and speaks about real issues again. He won’t get my vote I doubt but will wait and see I suppose. 

It's the music sound track that makes it seem like it's something more than a political campaign starter. 

 

Genuinely I believe if that was trailer for a TV show i'd watch it... he's like Bob Servant but enlightened.

 

 

 

Link to post
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.




×
×
  • Create New...