Alex Salmond - acquitted of all 14 charges

[rabbitsnose]

Just now

if you have a Times subscription, this is good:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-salmond-saga-is-nowhere-near-complete-jng5l7668

Lol at Craig Murray being cited as some kind of independent, objective purveyor of facts. says squeezer....why is that laughable? He went to court every day and reported truthfully what he heard. He also knows a lot more than he is saying....

He said/She said is obviously going to be hard to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' because unless someone's a total wally, they're not going to do this stuff in front of a crowd!

I think one of the main sticking points was that some of the claims said the assault had indeed been done in front of a crowd... none of whom seem to have seen anything untoward, even though they were watching.

XDown thank you for that link

Im another in the disappointed but not surprised camp. The prosecution didn’t make the case they needed to make.

If that sleekit wee nyaff told me the sky was blue, I’d step outside to check, but sadly, the jury can only decide on what was put before them, and it wasn’t enough (nothing to do with the cps, by the way, Scotland has the procurator fiscal/ crown office in that role)

Any decent party would never have him back for the behaviour that left him open to these accusations, even if you think it’s “just” not safe in taxis/drunken uncle low level stuff, and not the sustained pattern of sexual harassment towards staff and colleagues that I think it clearly is. This low standard of behaviour, along with many other reasons that make him unfit for public office should mean he is not welcome back.

I have. He seems to be another rabid separatist so I'm not particularly inclined to be interested in what he says about anything.

Because he is a separatist? That seems like a strange reason to dismiss someone's voice.

Craig Murray is a conspiracy theorist who supports Assange and Putin, doesn't think the Russians were involved in the Salisbury poisonings and is widely-regarded as an anti-Semite.

That he's also a Salmond-supporting separatist is neither surprising nor any reason to believe his reporting of events or that "he knows a lot more than he's saying".

Salmond’s behaviour fell well below acceptable standard but was short of criminal and the prosecution failed to provide any actual evidence.

It’s a very peculiar case and the identity of some of the complainants is quite interesting.

It's disappointing that in a thread in the feminist section a lot of the responses are mired in anti-SNP rhetoric. Both sides in court were mainly SNP.
As for the post saying the alleged events happened in private - most of them didn't- hence why witnesses were called.
Does anyone know why the actor was given anonymity when the other witnesses were named?

It's my personal opinion that Murray is mentally unwell, but I'd have been inclined to totally dismiss his reporting of events if his reporting of events hadn't turned out to be entirely accurate and factual, far more so than the half-truths and mis-portrayals reported by the mainstream media sources.

Also, it's clear that Murray is simply referring to what Salmond himself alluded to yesterday, in that they both believe that there was evidence ruled inadmissible that fundamentally changes the perception that this was simply about alleged sexual offences. Time will no doubt tell.

squeaver
"Craig Murray is a conspiracy theorist who supports Assange and Putin"

He is an ex UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, was removed from his job because he revealed human rights abuses by the Uzbek governement and correctly reported that the CIA used torture in Uzbekistan to obtain information. The information which was obtained by means of torture was late found to be false.
Craig Murray doesn't support Putin, he questions stories being fed to us by the MSM, which I do as well, particularly the Salisbury/Skripal farce.

If the prosecution didn’t make the case they needed to make, it must be because they are not allowed to lie and must rely on actual evidence. If the actual evidence submitted has deep flaws and/or is inadmissible, the prosecution will fail. You cannot make up evidence to suit what you want to achieve.

I don't have any time for Craig Murray but everyone with any connection to the SNP, the media or the courts knows more than they're saying because they're not allowed to name the people involved. It's not a cryptic comment. It's a statement of fact.

If they are saying that Salmond’s vile (and in some cases self admitted) behaviour was not criminal, does that mean all men in Scotland are entitled to grope or kiss women with impunity? That women here are allowed no dignity, boundaries, bodily integrity or personal space?
Because if so, I think more of us need to learn martial arts. A swift kick box to the groin may have to replace the formal complaint and reliance on the law.

I believe his behaviour amounted to criminal assault, however the burden of proof is so high that it was impossible to prove.

In reality, the chances of convictions for any of any kind of sexual assault is very, very low. I think the stats were something like 5% for rape cases.

So yes, most men can sexually assault and grope without facing any legal consequences.

Poorly prepared prosecutions fail.
It does not mean that the defendant was not a sleazeball.
It does not mean that the women were all liars.
It just means that the lawyers did not do their job properly
and were hamstrung by the failures of the civil servants beforehand.

that wings over scotland piece is interesting reading

By interesting do you mean nauseating?

What the fuck is wings over scotland...i was expecting a reasoned article

I think all of that is true ListeningQuietly

What the fuck is wings over scotland?

They were one of a number of Nat outlets in the 2014 Referndum who described anyone who did not want independence as 'Quislings and Traitors.'

The prosecution would have had enough evidence to initially meet the "evidential test" and that it "would be in the public interest" the evidence of ten women fell apart ? Really, it's beyond belief.

This is a quote from Craig Murray.

"But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed "

Make of that what you will....

I'm a bit shocked at the emotional reactions on the FMR board. This is where I have learnt so much about thinking and looking at the evidence.

But here we have people being automatically believed because they are women and others being dismissed because they are in favour of an independent Scotland.

The ones involved with promoting reform of the GRA are the ones behind this case, though that should not be an element involved in the guilt or innocence of Salmond.

I reserve any judgement on this til we see the results of an enquiry.

It's disappointing that in a thread in the feminist section a lot of the responses are mired in anti-SNP rhetoric. Both sides in court were mainly SNP

I loathe the SNP. I don't care which camp they are in -they are all deranged and deluded. Anything which discredits any one in their silly little, chip on the shoulder party is fine by me.

The whole separatist idea is so ludicrous I don't see any need for me to waste time on being objective about it. It's only a hop, skip and a jump from flat earth.

Coyo but a lot are like Dido . This case for them isn't about women or the courts. It's about an opportunity to deride and smear the SNP.

Likewise the TRAs are all over this on Twitter because they don't want Nicola and her cohort to lose control of the party. The sheer gall of them tweeting their faux support for women when they have bullied women off Twitter and defended transwoman threatening and assaulting women. ..Now, though they suddenly care about women and sexual assault. 🤔 Unless, of course, the person doing the assaulting is trans in which case those pesky women should shut up and put out.