Salmond v Sturgeon round 4. What next?

[Cismyfatarse]

New thread.

Off topic but I'm totally guffawing at Humza's reply to gorgeous George's quite frankly racist tweet to him.

" I suspect the voters of Scotland will show you the cat flap again come 6th May."

😂😂😂

Panorama tonight on BBC. Sturgeon v Salmond the inside story.

@noego

Panorama tonight on BBC. Sturgeon v Salmond the inside story.

is that the one produced by Sturgeon's friend?

I think it is @waxonfeckoff, so not expecting an unbiased version

@Graffitiqueen

Off topic but I'm totally guffawing at Humza's reply to gorgeous George's quite frankly racist tweet to him.

" I suspect the voters of Scotland will show you the cat flap again come 6th May."

😂😂😂

😆 😹

Miaow

I apologise for reminding everyone of that disturbing incident!! 🐈‍⬛

Guido Fawkes are also being pressured by crown office to expunge Salmond's statements. They say the Spectator may have to bow down, but they won't (think they are off shore?). It's all very sinister and definite Streisand effect. Here is the Guido article: order-order.com/2021/03/18/we-wont-comply-with-sturgeons-crown-office-censors-because-when-truth-is-silenced-the-silence-is-a-lie/?fbclid=IwAR3BfCvV77x5D8r4_GZAN4OJ-UYD4bGSWNikqQyQ2xivew2cLg3Ie2LMqIY

As it's still in the public domain can you share the but you think it is here @shadowy ?

Agree with PPs the woman's statement via RCS is bonkers. It reads like a fairly hastily written alibi for LL. I don't believe or trust it for a moment. My speculation is : They must have had to avoid it coming from a current complainer - maybe legal reasons? @lex ? So they came up with the idea of a nearly complainer. But then had to avoid her being specific about who she was potentially complaining about, or the alibi would be pointless. Though this of course makes the contacting LL as a friend v weird. The fishing part is the oddest bit, but maybe had to be included to explain why she almost came forward but didn't in the end. If it had been her own volition why would she have backed off. Finally, why would the 'nearly complainer' assume it's this paltry liaison the text re 'liz interference, v bad' refers to. RCS would have needed to corroborate with the author of the text that it was this particular interference they were referring to. I wonder if they did that! In a nutshell it's another cover up of the cover up and not one they even expect anyone who's remotely paying attention to believe. Massively arrogant and cynical. All a bit Barnard Castle.

@sessell

As it's still in the public domain can you share the but you think it is here *@shadowy* ?

What is it you are looking for sessell?

Sorry @statistically not @shadowy ! Can you share the bit you're thinking of, while it's still in the public domain.

Tried to quote your post @statistically but it hasn't copied twice. The MN app is a bit ropey, I usually use the desktop.

@sessell

As it's still in the public domain can you share the but you think it is here *@shadowy* ?

The Spectator was initially required to redact a section about who Geoff Aberdein met with, and the date of the meeting.

Their article today sounds like they’ve been asked to remove more of it,

It's occurred to me that all the flexing that the crown office is doing just now is about the Hamilton enquiry. Because if all the key details/names/dates that have been spelled out are no longer accessible or cannot be referenced, it's going to be impossible for the media to discuss the outcome and it's merits. I think this is all about the Hamilton enquiry being able to exonerate Sturgeon.

The info I mentioned about the texts requested by the committee was about who they specified as wanting to see messages from - with RCS response implying the messages requested by the committee were possibly complainants. It's the risk of jigsaw identification & it's been made more likely by RCS with their interventions. And I'm sure I read that Salmond's statement was then considered a risk of jigsaw identification as a result of others actions.

Everything about this whole thing stinks of corruption. I've not watched FMQs but the SNP MSPs were all clapping NS's responses to FMQs. They're all whipped into going along with this charade & it seems here's no scenario that'll see any of them question sturgeon's actions or words.

For a full and Frank explanation of Salmond’s allegations you can always go to Craig Murray’s blog (for now at least) - look for the ones described as his “affidavits”

There is a heavily redacted section that there was a quid pro quo, a deal that if one of the women made a false allegation then Peter Murrell would intervene to assist another person’s career.

I think that is what is covered in the messages Salmond tried to use in his criminal trial but was blocked from doing so by the lawyers.

I would like to see David Davis read that one out in Westminster. The house of cards would fall.

I see the Spectator seems to have complied with the redaction request - not that we can’t all just read the archived page.

Oh no just kidding that was the original redaction, not a new one, ignore me.

I think they are going to comply, don't know if they have yet

I don’t think they have yet. There’s one redaction that was there from
the start, then the redaction to 26 that came later, but I can’t see another one.

Yeah I see the redaction in 18 and 26 at the moment. It was actually 18 which I was thinking of as being the necessary redaction, hadn't realised it had already been done. That one (I think) was needed due to jigsaw ID but I am less sure on the validity of that argument for the other redaction unless I'm missing something

I can guess what else is coming but it's supposition until they do it.

I would like to see David Davis read that one out in Westminster. The house of cards would fall.

wonder why he didn't if it's there? Wouldn't be because it's in fact just as much bollocks as the last 'bombshell' evidence that came forward. I'm sure not.

Sturgeon misled inquiry

mobile.twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1372625451160571907

[quote ATieLikeRichardGere]Sturgeon misled inquiry

mobile.twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1372625451160571907[/quote]
Wow. Was not expecting the conclusion tonight! Was expecting them to absolve her.

Not even finished reading but

"by 5 votes to 4"

Oh I wonder how it split