SE16 3LN Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 I hope to god all ten woman are misleading the courts because the picture they are painting is shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 15 minutes ago, Victorian said: In practice you can never have a completely safe verdict when it's arrived at from witness evidence. The verdict is simply a judgement of who is being believed and who isn't. People give false and / or inaccurate evidence to the police and in court all the time. A jury member is tasked to decide if a defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If a juror decides that prosecution witness evidence is compelling enough to be believed then they'll tend to vote guilty. Seemingly independent corroboration adds a lot of weight to witness evidence but it isn't guaranteed to be truthful or accurate. People lie and some are very convincing. People recall details really poorly and some are convinced they're 100% sure. I agree if the evidence comes from a 3rd party but when the witness and the victim are one and the same person I feel that is, or should be, a different matter. I would not be happy with corroborative evidence being a decisive factor when it comes from another (alleged, at this stage) victim. To reiterate, and bearing in mind everyone is innocent until PROVED guilty, I think there needs to be something more substantive before we send someone to prison. BTW I am not saying you are wrong in law nor am I seeking to make any case on Salmond's behalf. If he is proved to be guilty he deserves to go down. If however he goes down and he is in fact innocent as charged, that cannot be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 1 minute ago, JamboAl said: I agree if the evidence comes from a 3rd party but when the witness and the victim are one and the same person I feel that is, or should be, a different matter. I would not be happy with corroborative evidence being a decisive factor when it comes from another (alleged, at this stage) victim. To reiterate, and bearing in mind everyone is innocent until PROVED guilty, I think there needs to be something more substantive before we send someone to prison. BTW I am not saying you are wrong in law nor am I seeking to make any case on Salmond's behalf. If he is proved to be guilty he deserves to go down. If however he goes down and he is in fact innocent as charged, that cannot be right. I get what you're saying but the other point is that seemingly independent corroboration is not necessarily much better than a cross-corroborated acceptance of individuals' word against a defendant. Each instance of independent corroboration is different to another. One example might be a direct, close quarters, eye-witness account to corroborate a complaint. Another might be something less concrete. A split second glimpse. A partially obscured glance. A sound heard. There is a spectrum of different types of eye(ear) witness accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deodato Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 On 07/03/2020 at 11:11, manaliveits105 said: Not just his reputation but anyone who worked closely with him That's a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Zlatanable said: But wouldn't that work the other way too? edit- #SNPBad for instance That’s pretty much what I said man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 5 hours ago, Victorian said: I get what you're saying but the other point is that seemingly independent corroboration is not necessarily much better than a cross-corroborated acceptance of individuals' word against a defendant. Each instance of independent corroboration is different to another. One example might be a direct, close quarters, eye-witness account to corroborate a complaint. Another might be something less concrete. A split second glimpse. A partially obscured glance. A sound heard. There is a spectrum of different types of eye(ear) witness accounts. I think we know all of that. I'm merely saying that evidence from a 3rd party is likely to carry more weight but substantive evidence can come in other forms as well eg a hidden camera, a tape recording etc. I may add that I do not know AS, I have never voted for or against him: I am merely amazed that anyone can be sent down simply on this basis ie only AS and the alleged victim were present in each case (unless the court learns otherwise) and so it is one person's word against another's as to whether each act was consensual. I also wonder why it took so long for the complaints to come to light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Monty Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 9 minutes ago, JamboAl said: I think we know all of that. I'm merely saying that evidence from a 3rd party is likely to carry more weight but substantive evidence can come in other forms as well eg a hidden camera, a tape recording etc. I may add that I do not know AS, I have never voted for or against him: I am merely amazed that anyone can be sent down simply on this basis ie only AS and the alleged victim were present in each case (unless the court learns otherwise) and so it is one person's word against another's as to whether each act was consensual. I also wonder why it took so long for the complaints to come to light. Do you think the same about Weinstein? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 6 hours ago, Zlatanable said: ok. It's just you phrased it solely from your, side in your comment. (I thought you meant people who believed in Scottish Independence are pure, clean and honest. And people who disagree with Scottish independence were biased, corrupt and stupid. or something like that) I also think Scotland has divided, and that division is about Scottish Independence. No I didn’t I highlighted his comment about No voters desperate to see he was guilty and Yes voters desperate for him not to be. I have never anywhere suggested, even once that indy supporters and what you say and unionists the opposite. You could say Scotland is divided about the union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 9 hours ago, Del Monty said: Do you think the same about Weinstein? Haven't followed that case very closely but what happens legally in USA is not necessarily parallel to UK law (or Scots Law). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 I absolutely despise the guy and he is poles apart to where I stand politically and we see the world very differently. That been said I hope he gets a fair trial which in this modern age is not a sure thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 My god, talking about peoples' recollections of things and the way their minds operate earlier... I'm currently dealing with a loon who is adamant there's something missing off a piece of equipment my company just repaired. Something I know for a fact does not even exist. He says it does and was present when handed to us. The diagram for it shows no such thing. Another example of the same piece of equipment has no such thing. I know why he thinks there's a missing piece but he cannot be convinced. Closed mind. Absolutely 100% convinced. He now demands we source and replace the missing component. That doesn't exist. A perfect example of why witness testimony is not necessarily really worth much. Good luck to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 11 hours ago, Zlatanable said: ok. It's just you phrased it solely from your, side in your comment. (I thought you meant people who believed in Scottish Independence are pure, clean and honest. And people who disagree with Scottish independence were biased, corrupt and stupid. or something like that) I also think Scotland has divided, and that division is about Scottish Independence. You would interpret perfectly clear, reasonable language in that way. Perhaps you should reflect on why that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 Prosecutor Alex Prentice QC asked Woman F about her earlier comment that going to police about the alleged December 2013 bedroom incident would’ve been “completely unthinkable”. He asked her why. Woman F said she didn’t want to “risk the outcome of the referendum” on Scottish independence. If the incident “got into the public domain”, she said, it could’ve been used against the government and had an impact on the vote. She said: “I felt a huge responsibility.” Woman F said she didn’t want her own “personal” position to influence the referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 Woman G said: “A lot of allowances were made for Mr Salmond due to the volatility of his nature.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 Gordon Jackson says these were things that were “thought of as nothing at the time”, which years later have become a “criminal thing”. Woman G says they were serious enough so staffing arrangements were changed so women were not allowed to work alone with Alex Salmond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Caine Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Is AS's wife attending this trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Prosecution have done a good job so far in demonstrating the patterns of behaviour and the similarities in the details of each instance and of how Salmond was viewed in terms of his character. They'll be very pleased with the testimony given. Defence have skirted around the margins in trying to discredit the claims. A bit half-arsed tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Victorian said: Prosecution have done a good job so far in demonstrating the patterns of behaviour and the similarities in the details of each instance and of how Salmond was viewed in terms of his character. They'll be very pleased with the testimony given. Defence have skirted around the margins in trying to discredit the claims. A bit half-arsed tbh. Where are you getting this information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said: Where are you getting this information? The reports and direct quotes in the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Just now, Victorian said: The reports and direct quotes in the public domain. 👍 sounds like you were there😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Just now, Dawnrazor said: 👍 sounds like you were there😁 No I've just read the quoted questions and answers. I think the prosecution are well on top at this stage. Defence haven't laid a glove on the witnesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 7 hours ago, Victorian said: My god, talking about peoples' recollections of things and the way their minds operate earlier... I'm currently dealing with a loon who is adamant there's something missing off a piece of equipment my company just repaired. Something I know for a fact does not even exist. He says it does and was present when handed to us. The diagram for it shows no such thing. Another example of the same piece of equipment has no such thing. I know why he thinks there's a missing piece but he cannot be convinced. Closed mind. Absolutely 100% convinced. He now demands we source and replace the missing component. That doesn't exist. A perfect example of why witness testimony is not necessarily really worth much. Good luck to me. Salmond must be guilty then if this guy's recollection re the missing part is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 Just now, JamboAl said: Salmond must be guilty then if this guy's recollection re the missing part is wrong. That's a rather silly comment. It's an analogy that shows just how ludicrously wrong a memory can be. I'm sure that was patently obvious to most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Victorian said: That's a rather silly comment. It's an analogy that shows just how ludicrously wrong a memory can be. I'm sure that was patently obvious to most. It was obviousto me that it was meant to be an analogy but I thought almost irrelevant. I apologise if i offended you. In that instance you claim to be right and probably are as you have substantive evidence 1. The part does not exist 2. The diagram supports your case. Would you agree? Edited March 12, 2020 by JamboAl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, JamboAl said: It was obviousto me that it was meant to be an analogy but I thought almost irrelevant. I apologise if i offended you. In that instance you claim to be right and probably are as you have substantive evidence 1. The part does not exist 2. The diagram supports your case. Would you agree? It shows how utterly convinced people can be in their recollection. It is relevant. I raised it as it was a topic from earlier in the thread and the query happened today. It was a coincidence that the two occured close together. Just forget it if you think it's irrelevant. No big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 As another example, I reckon about maybe half a dozen times we have been told with complete conviction that we have returned the wrong item to people. We take careful precautions to ensure this is impossible and can prove the items do belong to people. None of that can convince those persons because they've already made up their minds on the matter. It's quite incredible when you attempt to walk people through the process of assuring them of the facts and they just shut down. Refuse to look at screens, paperwork, the item. Scary behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Victorian said: It shows how utterly convinced people can be in their recollection. It is relevant. I raised it as it was a topic from earlier in the thread and the query happened today. It was a coincidence that the two occured close together. Just forget it if you think it's irrelevant. No big deal. With respect it may have assisted in showing how memory may be questionable but surely that would apply to the "victims" as well as anyone else and more so with the time gap between the alleged incident(s) and the police approach. Your analogous case seemed to be settled by 2 decisive factors 1. The part does not exist 2. The diagram supports your case. These factors allow judgment to be made on substantive evidence rather than "you said/he said" verbal tennis with the more plausible and convincing person winning.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dawnrazor said: 👍 sounds like you were there😁 If you're a Twitterati, look up Philiip Sim of the BBC. He posts direct testimony as it happens. The Daily Record Live also posts direct. Seeing some of the stuff coming through is both fascinating and utterly appalling. I agree with Vic. Eck's briefs are relying on the 'it was just a friendly cuddle' line of defence. This is 2020 Thank God. Edited March 12, 2020 by Trapper John McIntyre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, JamboAl said: With respect it may have assisted in showing how memory may be questionable but surely that would apply to the "victims" as well as anyone else and more so with the time gap between the alleged incident(s) and the police approach. Your analogous case seemed to be settled by 2 decisive factors 1. The part does not exist 2. The diagram supports your case. These factors allow judgment to be made on substantive evidence rather than "you said/he said" verbal tennis with the more plausible and convincing person winning.. Good lord. I'm not even concerned re my example. I KNOW the outcome of that as it should be straightforward to deal with. Thar was not the point. Again... the point is about the person's recollection of the appearance of the item. Hopelessly wrong, yet utterly convinced. I agree about your point re the victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: If you're a Twitterati, look up Philiip Sim of the BBC. He posts direct testimony as it happens. The Daily Record Live also posts direct. Seeing some of the stuff coming through is both fascinating and utterly appalling. I agree with Vic. Eck's briefs are relying on the 'it was just a friendly cuddle' line of defence. This is 2021 Thank God. I'm not on Twitter but the wife is, I'll get her to look it up👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said: I'm not on Twitter but the wife is, I'll get her to look it up👍 Slight typo in the date there. Fixed it in the original post. Must be the excitement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, Victorian said: Good lord. I'm not even concerned re my example. I KNOW the outcome of that as it should be straightforward to deal with. Thar was not the point. Again... the point is about the person's recollection of the appearance of the item. Hopelessly wrong, yet utterly convinced. I agree about your point re the victims. Your point is about recollection and you agree it applies equally to the accuser, victim and 3rd parties. That in itself takes us no further forward so we need something more substantial to achieve a fair settlement. Yes/No? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 minute ago, JamboAl said: Your point is about recollection and you agree it applies equally to the accuser, victim and 3rd parties. That in itself takes us no further forward so we need something more substantial to achieve a fair settlement. Yes/No? No. The law provides the ability to convict as described much earlier in the thread. I agree that testimony from both sides can be deeply flawed but it can be enough to convict. Even if there is no independent corroboration for each victim's claim. Should that be enough to convict? I don't know but the law says it is. It's a very robust legal system and must have been very carefully considered by highly learned people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Caine Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 31 minutes ago, Trapper John McIntyre said: If you're a Twitterati, look up Philiip Sim of the BBC. He posts direct testimony as it happens. The Daily Record Live also posts direct. Seeing some of the stuff coming through is both fascinating and utterly appalling. I agree with Vic. Eck's briefs are relying on the 'it was just a friendly cuddle' line of defence. This is 2020 Thank God. They stayed up according to Salmond's team. It was just the trousers that were down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 11 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said: They stayed up according to Salmond's team. It was just the trousers that were down. The very image of a statesman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 I wouldn’t like to be judged by a jury. The one I was on changed it’s verdict completely after reviewing a piece of evidence they had already seen which was pretty inconclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Victorian said: No. The law provides the ability to convict as described much earlier in the thread. I agree that testimony from both sides can be deeply flawed but it can be enough to convict. Even if there is no independent corroboration for each victim's claim. Should that be enough to convict? I don't know but the law says it is. It's a very robust legal system and must have been very carefully considered by highly learned people. If that is the case then so be it but IMO it is unfair that anyone should be convicted on the balance of probability by a jury. Re your last sentence, I would prefer a fair system to a robust one (whatever "robust" means in context) and it is a totally flawed system if even one person loses his/her liberty and reputation by a majority of a randomly selected section of the community, no matter how highly learned the people are who have considered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawnrazor Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 https://inews.co.uk/news/alex-salmond-trial-scottish-government-officials-allegations-inappropriate-behaviour-2448309 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaliveits105 Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 Is there a woman K ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 21 hours ago, Horatio Caine said: Is AS's wife attending this trial? The lady in the middle behind his lawyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 13, 2020 Author Share Posted March 13, 2020 Woman J said Salmond “disappeared“ at one point and returned wearing “casual clothes”. She said he was wearing “light-coloured chinos” and a “sports jumper”. Woman J said she went to the toilet and when she returned to the sitting room Salmond was “lying on the floor” and working on a speech. She said: “I froze actually. I was very taken aback.” The witness said Salmond asked her to join him on the floor. She went onto the floor but left a “distance” between them. Woman J said: “There was no way I was going to lie next to him. Woman J said “out of the blue” Salmond asked her “have you seen that zombie movie?” She said she was “taken aback” as she “didn’t have a clue what he was talking about”. He didn’t name the film. She said Salmond stood and said “get up”. Woman J said Salmond “stretched his arms out towards me for a second or two and did an impression of a zombie walking towards me.” Woman J said Salmond put his hands on her shoulders. She said he kissed her cheek then “moved me again” to kiss the other cheek. The witness said: “Then he leaned in to kiss me on the lips.” She said she then broke his hold with her arms. Woman J said she was in “complete shock” and agreed she felt “frightened.” She said Salmond went into his study, acting like nothing had happened. Woman J said Salmond said they would work on paperwork in his study. The witness said she wanted to leave but “I didn’t feel I could”. In the study, she said she commented that it was cold. She said Salmond responded she “shouldn’t have bare legs”. The witness said she replied she was wearing tights. She said Salmond said: “‘Oh yes’ and put his hand on my leg”. She said she felt “shocked”. Woman J said Salmond told her he was going to bed. She told the court she had needed to continue working. She said Salmond suggested she could “stay over”. The witness said: “I thought there was no way in hell I was staying over. “I just said thanks but I’ll need to get myself home.” She said Salmond left the room. She finished her work and left Bute House. Woman J said she felt “quite emotional” about what had happened. The next day she woke up and felt like she’d had a “nightmare”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tynieman Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 Christ, the details coming out certainly don’t look great for Salmond. if it turns out to be true, it really goes to show that you really don’t know someone’s true character until you’re behind closed doors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Caine Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 36 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: The lady in the middle behind his lawyer The lady on the left is his sister. The caption says the lady behind is a `supporter`. Mrs S must be at least in her eighties and possibly older. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 Just remember that apparently nobody knew. That will be a huge issue after the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said: The lady on the left is his sister. The caption says the lady behind is a `supporter`. Mrs S must be at least in her eighties and possibly older. Fair enough. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 There is no way Sturgeon wasn’t aware of his behaviour over the years if all these allegations are true. Rumours and gossip would be rife I’d imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 The context is one where men got away with what is alleged here. A witness said it was only when Weinstein/ the #MeToo campaign came in that she felt she could report it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 13, 2020 Author Share Posted March 13, 2020 Woman D has told how “at times” when she was walking with Salmond he would “place his hand on her bottom”. She said it made her feel “extremely uncomfortable”. She said it was a “fairly regular occurrence”. Woman D said Salmond had touched her hair, neck and face. Mr Prentice asked if she just put up with it. The witness replied: “Yes, I suppose so. He was the leader of the country.” Woman D told the court how Salmond had stroked her arm on one occasion. She said there was an occasion when he was “playing with my hair, tugging on it”. Other times he would touch or stroke her hair. Mr Prentice asked if she ever “swiped” his hand away. She replied: “He was the first minister. It would be almost unimaginable, I think, to do that.” Woman D said she “dozed off” on one occasion during a work event. She said: “I woke up to Mr Salmond stroking my cheek.” The witness said she “jumped” as she got “quite a fright”. She said Salmond said, ‘I didn’t mean to startle you.’ Woman D said Salmond “reached over to touch my face” while they were in a lift. She said a man who was with them “batted his hand away”. The witness said the man “said something along the lines of, ‘what do you think you’re doing?’” Woman D said: “I was utterly aghast and shocked.” Gordon Jackson QC, acting for Salmond, asked Woman D if she remembered showing the then first minister pictures of herself in a “somewhat skimpy bikini”. She added: “What I can recall is the former first minister asking to see pictures of a holiday. “It was particularly difficult to say no to the leader of the country.” She acknowledged she had shown Salmond pictures. A man has told the court how he was in a lift with Woman D and Salmond. He said: “The former first minister reached out to stroke (Woman D’s) hair and face and I reached out and brushed his hand away.” Mr Prentice asked why he did that. He replied: “It was an instinctive reaction. It happened very quickly. The former first minister reached out and (Woman D) shrank back. “I said words to the effect of ‘stop that, behave yourself’.” t’s an early finish today, but Alex Prentice says he’s making good progress with his case - not losing any time by adjourning court until Monday. Expect Crown to finish up early (ish) next week, then the defence get their turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapper John McIntyre Posted March 13, 2020 Author Share Posted March 13, 2020 I wonder if we'll arrive at the Woodward and Bernstein moment next week. 'That puts us inside the White House...' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted March 13, 2020 Share Posted March 13, 2020 It’s hardly Weinstein is it ffs It’s not sounding great for Salmond but surely you don’t go to jail for touching someones cheek or placing your hand on their bottom ffs. Is this actually for real? He done a zombie walk honestly hahahahahahaha What an absolute weirdo you are tripper. 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.