Jump to content

The Trial of Alex Salmond


Trapper John McIntyre

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I always laugh when folk come up with bent copper stories. I’ve known many police officers over the years and have two in our near family. Far from being motivated to be corrupt, after a few years they lose interest in outcomes because they’re basically farting against thunder. All the ones I know couldn’t give a toss about fitting someone up for the hell of it. Too much hassle. Too much to lose and frankly they rarely come across people worth the effort either way. Just ordinary guys doing a job, sometimes very well, sometimes not so well. I’ve never met one I thought was dodgy and would give a wide berth to.  I’m glad they are around for the most part. If some pond life have had a bad experience with them frankly my dear I don’t give a damn

Not bent, biased. I had no dog in the fight, I told what I saw, she well. Bt hey, police are all saints. Saville and Rotherham will testify to that. 

I'm glad they're here, but they're human. I grew up in a town where the top cop on the beat, didn't arrest boys who played for his fitbaw team. 😃

Edited by ri Alban
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Trapper John McIntyre

    108

  • Space Mackerel

    75

  • Justin Z

    63

  • Beast Boy

    55

jambos are go!
1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

I didn’t mean the person was actually a Hollywood actor ffs :lol: 

I meant you grandstanded it like it was a game changer, an earth shattering witness when it was complete bolloks. Hearsay. 
I’m trying not to gloat but it’s hard not to laugh at the state some of you get yourselves into over the SNP and independence. 
Wanted a man convicted purely because you don’t like his politics, absolutely tragic. 

Totally inaccurate interpretation of my posts. I was talking about me not gloating not you. I have never remotely suggested anyone ever should be convicted because of their political views. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone

Can't believe Trapper hasn't reappeared, how utterly pathetic. 

 

JackLadd, Manaliveits105 and Gorgiewave making some right ***** of themselves as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood
48 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Can't believe Trapper hasn't reappeared, how utterly pathetic. 

 

JackLadd, Manaliveits105 and Gorgiewave making some right ***** of themselves as well. 

:spoton:

Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105
16 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

This is a bit of a toxic thread, isn't it. 

but not as toxic as the swingers national party :cornette_dog:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was sad to see some wanting a prosecution and thus by extension,  wanting women to have been sexually assaulted just to take down a high profile nationalist figure. 

 

Also sad that some folk all over this thread throughout the trial,  seem to lack the cajones to front up when the result hasn't gone their way.

 

The irony is that this decision will actually be more likely to cause major issues in the SNP with Salmond set to sue the Government and statements from Salmond acolytes like Joanna Cherry and the Wings Over Scotland knobhead, suggesting some dark arts at the very highest level of the SNP, including the FM in trying to get Salmond sent down.

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

I don't think anyone wanted women to be sexually assaulted. 

Hmm. So no one wanted him to be guilty? Not the take I took from some posts on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/03/2020 at 16:53, graygo said:

 

A jury decided that 9 women lied in court so that's what happened. It kind of renders your points redundant.

Exactly he’s been found not guilty / not proven so that’s that . He is legally innocent . I know that many unionists are seething at that verdict ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/03/2020 at 17:06, JackLadd said:

 

The jury were either sympathisers, morons or both is my takeaway. I knew fine well they would let him walk, posted as much on Friday. The not guilty verdicts are a disgrace though. 9 woman branded liars because of cult of personality.

You ever been on a jury ? I have . I was on a serous case a few years back . The thing I remember clearly from the judge summing up was that is jurors had to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused , no “ maybes “ or “ possibilities” to return a verdict of guilty . Beyond all reasonable doubt . The accused in my case was found not guilty too . I resent you saying the jury were “ morons “ or similar .  Believe me juries go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and take the matter seriously . 

Edited by JamesM48
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, weehammy said:

...and ‘not proven’ on one.

Which is of course one of the two acquittals available in Scotland, wouldn't want anyone suggesting it wasn't an acquittal.

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

So was this whole thing a deep state operation?

I kinda wish Alex Salmond could just show his evidence now. 

Soon enough. The world is sick ATM, so let's get it well, first.

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

Why are you saying 'he’s been found not guilty / not proven' about all this ?

He was found not guilty on 12 charges. 

 

Why are you saying 'not proven'?

 

Apology ?  ! Not proven on one of the charges 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
12 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

You ever been on a jury ? I have . I was on a serous case a few years back . The thing I remember clearly from the judge summing up was that is jurors had to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused , no “ maybes “ or “ possibilities” to return a verdict of guilty . Beyond all reasonable doubt . The accused in my case was found not guilty too . I resent you saying the jury were “ morons “ or similar .  Believe me juries go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and take the matter seriously . 

 

Exactly this.

I sat through 8 days of listening to some horrific child abuse charges and culminating with one charge child rape. We all knew that the guy was guilty but all the evidence was circumstantial, at best. Most jurors were unanimous that he HAD done it but the proof just wasn't there.

He ended up by sticking himself in by taking the stand where he should've shut his mouth, one slip of the tongue sent him down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

You ever been on a jury ? I have . I was on a serous case a few years back . The thing I remember clearly from the judge summing up was that is jurors had to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused , no “ maybes “ or “ possibilities” to return a verdict of guilty . Beyond all reasonable doubt . The accused in my case was found not guilty too . I resent you saying the jury were “ morons “ or similar .  Believe me juries go through the evidence with a fine tooth comb and take the matter seriously . 

This is why we have "not proven" and "not guilty" in this Country. Which is as fair as it gets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

This is why we have "not proven" and "not guilty" in this Country. Which is as fair as it gets. 

 

Mon the Scots law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
manaliveits105

Not proven on an attempted rape charge so  he is obviously now da man to lead the country to independence or work under cherry 

budge up Nicky - Alex on the warpath 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

This is why we have "not proven" and "not guilty" in this Country. Which is as fair as it gets. 

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

Ah. So it's OK to sexually assault someone as long as they did it ages ago?

 

"Ach, you auld scamp. The evidence clearly and undeniably shows you raped a shit ton of women/kids/puppies. Lucky for you it was in the 70s though. Off you go, ya wee devil! And stop raping things!" 

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

Ah. So it's OK to sexually assault someone as long as they did it ages ago?

 

"Ach, you auld scamp. The evidence clearly and undeniably shows you raped a shit ton of women/kids/puppies. Lucky for you it was in the 70s though. Off you go, ya wee devil! And stop raping things!" 

 

 

Oh ffs no, it is NEVER ok to sexually assault someone.  Jesus christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Oh ffs no, it is NEVER ok to sexually assault someone.  Jesus christ.

But its okay to let sex beasts get away with it if it happened in the 70s?

 

"Sorry about you getting raped, old sport, awful state of affairs. And we'd really like to see the person who raped you get punished, honestly we do. It's just that it happened in the 70s, which is, you know, quite far back. Yes, yes, we know there's a mountain of evidence, witness statements, forensics and so forth but, well, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do. Here's a phone number for some counselling."

Edited by Normthebarman
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

No it isn’t. 

 

It means that it couldn't be proven.

 

How many people are sitting in American prisons with 100 year sentences that are completely innocent because in the eyes of the US system, you are guilty or not guilty?

 

Guilty here means "beyond reasonable doubt". 

 

You cannot send someone to prison on circumstantial evidence. If someone is absolutely guilty there will be enough evidence to convict. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
19 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

It is horrendous.  "Not proven" will forever leave a cloud of suspicion and you will always be on trial.  It means 'we know you are guilty but we just can't prove it'.  There are so many changes i'd make to Scots law.  My main one is to have a strict statue of limitation in place.  None of this 'He fondled me on the back of a bus on a spring day back in '74 '.

 

**** off, why would you want that? If someone raped someone 70 years ago then they should absolutely be able to be tried for it if there is subsequently enough to take it to trial. Under your proposed solution, all those cases that were subsequently solved thanks to break throughs in forensic science might not have been able to be closed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

But its okay to let sex beasts get away with it if it happened in the 70s?

 

"Sorry about you getting raped, old sport, awful state of affairs. And we'd really like to see the person who raped you get punished, honestly we do. It's just that it happened in the 70s, which is, you know, quite far back. Yes, yes, we know there's a mountain of evidence, witness statements, forensics and so forth but, well, unfortunately, there's nothing we can do. Here's a phone number for some counselling."

 

 

You don't get it do you? With each year the trial will become more and more distorted.  Eye witnesses die, forget things, people die, evidence can degrade etc etc.  The likelihood of a fair trial after decades are slim to none.  It also forces the victim to act sooner thus making it more likely for justice and no other victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

**** off, why would you want that? If someone raped someone 70 years ago then they should absolutely be able to be tried for it if there is subsequently enough to take it to trial. Under your proposed solution, all those cases that were subsequently solved thanks to break throughs in forensic science might not have been able to be closed. 

 

 

Read up on it AC.  Read up on cases regarding it in the States etc.

 

I have.  The benefits are overwhelming.

Edited by i8hibsh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I want to try this rape case but 5 of the key witnesses are dead and the DNA evidence has degraded so no profile can be found and the building it allegedly happened in is now a football stadium.

 

:fonzie:

Edited by i8hibsh
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, i8hibsh said:

Yeah, I want to try this rape case but 5 of the key witnesses are dead and the DNA evidence has degraded so no profile can be found

 

:fonzie:

 

So if no evidence how on earth would it get to court?

 

Hardly a gleaming example of why there should be a statute of limitations...

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

 

So if no evidence how on earth would it get to court?

 

Hardly a gleaming example of why there should be a statute of limitations...

 

 

Woooosh

 

It would get to court if it was tried near the time of the fact as all the eye witnesses would have it fresh in their minds, they would be alive and physical evidence would be fresh. Or alleged fact even.

Edited by i8hibsh
Link to post
Share on other sites

After 50 years and you have nothing really in regards to eye witness testimony, physical evidence or indeed anything how on earth could anyone justify a sentencing based on it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Woooosh

 

It would get to court if it was tried near the time of the fact as all the eye witnesses would have it fresh in their minds, they would be alive and physical evidence would be fresh. Or alleged fact.

 

Yeah, I get that, but what has that to do with statutes of limitation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, i8hibsh said:

After 50 years and you have nothing really in regards to eye witness testimony, physical evidence or indeed anything how on earth could anyone justify a sentencing based on it? 

 

I think you find it hard to get a conviction, doesn't mean there should be a statute of limitation.  There may be cases where there are witnesses, evidence etc  Why shouldn't they be brought to trial?

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

 

Yeah, I get that, but what has that to do with statutes of limitation?

 

 

It gives an expiry date.  It says speak up now or no justice shall never be seen.  Why the **** do 100 women come out only once a predator has been ousted.  That just makes it look like a withchunt.  If you speek up straight away you can prevent another person being victimised.

 

It is fair for both parties - the accused and the accuser.

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

 

I think you find it hard to get a conviction, doesn't mean there should be a statute of limitation.  There may be cases where there are witnesses, evidence etc  Why shouldn't they be brought to trial?

 

 

As I said, after each passing year a case gets more hazy and distorted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

You don't get it do you? With each year the trial will become more and more distorted.  Eye witnesses die, forget things, people die, evidence can degrade etc etc.  The likelihood of a fair trial after decades are slim to none.  It also forces the victim to act sooner thus making it more likely for justice and no other victims.

I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Of course there's historic trials where evidence is flimsy. In those cases, the vast majority of the time people aren't convicted or the trial doesn't go ahead. What you're proposing means even if the evidence is overwhelming that a crime occurred, there's no prosecution because it happened 40-50 years ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i8 giving a masterclass in my new axiom for life: "If my view is the polar opposite from i8hibsh, there's a really very decent chance I'm doing the right thing".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, i8hibsh said:

I only want this for sexual crime by the way.  

 

And why, oh why, could that be? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Justin Z said:

i8 giving a masterclass in my new axiom for life: "If my view is the polar opposite from i8hibsh, there's a really very decent chance I'm doing the right thing".

 

 

Orange man bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

I only want this for sexual crime by the way.  

Eh? So someone allegedly chores a sweetie from Woolies in the 70s, we should prosecute them? But touch up a lassie and it's nah, we're all good? 

Edited by Normthebarman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m guessing that someone in Edinburgh is about to bring a case about the serial disappearance of knickers from clothes-lines back in the 1980s.

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

Eh? So someone allegedly chores a sweetie from Woolies in the 70s, prosecute them? But touch up a lassie? Nah, we're all good? 

 

 

:jj_facepalm:

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

I’m guessing that someone in Edinburgh is about to bring a case about the serial disappearance of knickers from clothes-lines back in the 1980s.

 

Possibly inappropriate behaviour around schoolies in uniforms on several buses throughout the city as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, i8hibsh said:

 

 

:jj_facepalm:

Did you or did you not just say you would only want a statute of limitations on sex crimes? 

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

I’m guessing that someone in Edinburgh is about to bring a case about the serial disappearance of knickers from clothes-lines back in the 1980s.


I can see it now. “Nicked Nick the Knicker Nicker in poor Nick in the Nick”

Link to post
Share on other sites
Angry Haggis
5 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

After 50 years and you have nothing really in regards to eye witness testimony, physical evidence or indeed anything how on earth could anyone justify a sentencing based on it? 

 

Circumstantial evidence? Recent example springs to mind Suzanne Pilley murder case? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Angry Haggis said:

Circumstantial evidence? Recent example springs to mind Suzanne Pilley murder case? 

 

Good point. Rape/murder though and it's too bad, statute of limitations ran out. shrug.001.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Good point. Rape/murder though and it's too bad, statute of limitations ran out. shrug.001.gif

No, no, no. You just don't get it, do you? The murderer part can get prosecuted. It's just the rapey part that we can't prosecute. 

Edited by Normthebarman
Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
28 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Read up on it AC.  Read up on cases regarding it in the States etc.

 

I have.  The benefits are overwhelming.

 

I've read about the opposite in the states, where evidence comes to light and they can't do anything. 

 

Remember, a case should only go to trial if there is enough evidence.

 

Do you want a limit on all crimes or specific ones? 

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...