Indeed, it’s the media whipping it up.

Aye Sarah Smith I’m looking at you

she lost her patience under hostile questioning at the covid briefing

She’s one of the most skilled politicians of her generation. This was a lapse?

Yes I am sure. Her temper lets her down on occasion. there is a reason she is known as “wee nippy” by some. she certainly is a nippy sweetie

Ah. The jury got it wrong too. I forgot to add that earlier.

And the judge looking at the ScotGov procedure.

Oh come on , you don’t really believe that the no guilty verdict means that his conduct was beyond reproach . If there was any kind of conspiracy or if even sturgeon just wanted him gone the only reason that could happen was because of his own inability to behave properly around women. No one’s coming out of this with any credit but people shouldn’t forget what started all this .

One of the verdicts was “not proven”

Because it was not found to meet the criminal standard of proof does not mean his behaviour was acceptable. He was rightly acquitted because he said / she said is not enough to convict “beyond reasonable doubt”

If I had done on works time what he has admitted to I would have been rightly sacked.

To me Salmond simply does not understand that behaviour like his is not acceptable in the 21st century

@tjagain, you forget you work in the NHS, where decency and standards are still a thing.

One of the verdicts was “not proven”

And the other 13 charges / 8 complainants?

If I had done on works time what he has admitted to I would have been rightly sacked.

How could you be sacked by an employer you no longer work for?

So one is ok then is it? The man is an odious toad!

Scotroutes – I do still work for them ( just)

The point is that if I had done what salmond has admitted then I would rightly have been sacked. Just making the point that you do not have to be found guilty in a criminal court for you behaviour to have been wrong

the other complaints he was found not guilty as the criminal standard of proof was not met.

Do you really think that his behaviour that he admitted to was acceptable? thats setting aside the contested allegations but just judging his behaviour on what he admitted he had done?

I think the point that scotroutes is making, is that at the time of the admission he no longer “worked” for the snp

One of the verdicts was “not proven”

there is no legal distinction between not proven and not guilty. As the judge will have explained to the jury they have the same outcome and legal meaning.

the other complaints he was found not guilty as the criminal standard of proof was not met.

You are aware that there were defence witnesses refuting the allegations? This wasn’t all he said / she said stuff.

Salmond’s just pxxsed off at Sturgeon for not repaying the favour he did for her keeping her skeletons in the closet for the last 20 odd years. Unfortunately for him political and social attitudes have changed in that regard. There may well have been procedural faults during all this but ultimately it comes down to an old dinosaur’s ego and inability to move with the times.

I get the sense that the Convener and Deputy Convener do not like each other!

her skeletons in the closet for the last 20 odd years

What’s this?

Scotroutes – do you think Salmonds admitted behaviour is acceptable?

there is no legal distinction between not proven and not guilty. As the judge will have explained to the jury they have the same outcome and legal meaning.

Except the standard text on Scottish criminal procedure states that juries should not be told anything about the meaning of “not proven” (as per Renton and Brown: Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland, 6th edn (1996) para 18-79.41.) and mock jury trials examining this exact thing show that 70% of jurors thing that “not proven” should be the verdict given in cases where they think the accused is guilty but there isn’t enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

“Not proven” may well be the same as “not guilty” in the legal sense but a from the jury’s viewpoint a “not proven” verdict is likely to mean that 70% of them thought he was guilty.

Purely based on the amount of airtime that the BBC are devoting to this – every channel, every bulletin and appears they’re being fed ‘talking points’ from ‘Whitehall sources’ to try and undermine the SNP. If only they applied the same amount of vigour to grilling Tory ministers, but 1.2 million dead, spiralling national debt, failed track and trace and stuffing public money into the pockets of your chums doesn’t merit the same degree of scrutiny.

I have to say the openness with which Holyrood has approached this is a refreshing contrast to Westminster and I believe that ( hope that?) Holyrood comes out of this stronger.

there clearly are significant issues that this has highlighted. the blurred lines between SNP internal matters and Scottish government matters, the dual role of James Wolfe, the investigating officer having prior contact in breach of the procedure and the altogether too cosy relationships in the scottish establishment.

What’s this?

Closet should be enough of a clue.

Old Satan was on fine form during his questioning. Tore them up for arse paper.
I can’t stick him but you cannot deny his talents. Slimy ****.

Deeply disappointing he’s not seeing the inside of a jail cell for his disgusting conduct.

What conduct that required jailing ?

Wee jimmy looks like she might crumble. She seemed to me to be a bit struggling to tie her stories together.
And to suggest she “had only an uneasy feeling” about possible allegations is utter bullshit. She knew every minutiae of what was being said and by whom. It would be stupid to believe otherwise.

I have no doubt she is going to show Salmond up

Might have to wait on that a bit longer.

1.2 million dead

really? in the UK?

swavis
Full Member

100% this. It’s getting ridiculous now. Has slippery Salmond made a deal with the Tories/media or something? It absolutely stinks!

Nah, it just so happens that they have shared agendas. SNP BAAAAD means that Salmond GOOOOOD now. It doesn’t have to be any more complex or any more conspiracey-ish than that. SNP have given them a bit of an opportunity and of course they’re going to take it.

it’s 0.125 million dead.

Closet should be enough of a clue.

Classy 🙄

Ah the joys, some definite Daily Mail devotees on here eh !

“Not proven” may well be the same as “not guilty” in the legal sense but a from the jury’s viewpoint a “not proven” verdict is likely to mean that 70% of them thought he was guilty.

No Scottish juries make decisions by simple majority so if 70% said guilty it should/would have been guilty.

The Jury Manual provides judges with suggested words to use, e.g.
“You must return a verdict on each charge separately. And, where there are more than one accused on a charge you must return a separate verdict on each accused on that charge.
“There are three verdicts you can return on any charge: Guilty, not guilty, or not proven.
“Not guilty and not proven are verdicts of acquittal and have the same effect. An accused acquitted of a charge cannot be prosecuted again on that charge, save in exceptional circumstances, and it makes no difference whether the acquittal verdict is not guilty or not
proven.
“It’s not necessary that your verdict is unanimous, it can be by a majority. But for any verdict of guilty, there must be at least eight of you, an absolute majority of your whole number (originally, not of those who remain) in favour of that.”

The advice in Renton and Brown is (to my view) not that juries should be not be told anything about the meaning – but rather that judges should probably avoid falling into the trap of trying to draw a distinction between the two – exactly the same as anyone here should avoiding inferring that a person found not proven is more guilty than those found not guilty.

The nature of the jury room is such we will never why they reached that verdict or what message they may have been trying to convey with the different verdicts.

I don’t think anyone, even Mr Salmond himself, has suggested that his behaviour at all times was proper. But actually that admitted behaviour applies to many of the charges not just the one he was found not proven on.

Closet should be enough of a clue.

Classy 🙄

To be fair. You were the one who asked

To be fair. You were the one who asked

He asked for someone to make a bigoted attempt at humour?

No humour was intended. Not that that will stop you and your slurs.

No humour was intended.

So you are saying the skeleton in Sturgeon’s closet is that she is a lesbian?

I hate to tell you but being a lesbian isn’t going to do as much damage to her political career as you might hope.

Anyway, what’s the source of your information that she is a lesbian?

That rumour has been about forever. I’m not believing you haven’t heard it.
And I would hope that if it was true it would make no difference to anyones career.
I actually hate homophobic attitudes.

See that wee comment “you might hope” That marks you out as a snidey small man.

Well, it looks like telling bigots where they can go gets you a warning now.

If the mods think it’s acceptable to call travellers ‘abnormal’ and suggest that there is something shameful about being a lesbian then STW is not the place for me anymore.

It’s all yours, brads.

I don’t think anyone, even Mr Salmond himself, has suggested that his behaviour at all times was proper.

Looks like we have a new leader in the 2021 Understatement of the Year trophy!

call travellers ‘abnormal’ and suggest that there is something shameful about being a lesbian

Niether of which was said or done by me, but carry on with making the narrative suit your agenda.

And another slur before you go. Well done, you must feel so small.

That rumour has been about forever. I’m not believing you haven’t heard it.

Sounds like classic Yoon nonsense, no doubt related to the fact she’s never had children.

I’ve never once heard this “rumour” but thankfully I don’t associate with the kind of people that believe it or spread it

brads
Full Member
I said they want no part in normal society and normal rules do not apply to them.
If that’s abnormal then so be it. I know plenty abnormal peopel who aren’t Gypsies.

I wouldn’t want any of them as neighbours.

For context, amazing how you spout shite like that and then you are the victim.

I don’t like or dislike Salmond or Sturgeon. But the problem is that they have been at the top of Scottish politics for a long time. Good or bad, I don’t know. However if you stand long enough in the public eye, then eventually you become a target for everything. In Salmond’s case his behaviour towards women is inexcusable today. But it is not criminal and this has been shown in a trial.

What is being examined here is the Scottish Government’s role in the matter and why it cost the taxpayer a cool £500,000 in payments to Salmond plus the states own costs. Most people these day’s see SNP and Scottish Government as one and the same. From the various testimonies it appears that some in the SNP and administration have the same problem.

Sturgeon has tried to point out that Salmond is an odious little toad (and he probably is) but that is not the point of this enquiry – as she knows. She is known for a her attention to detail and being able to absorb lots of information. So for her to claim that she forgot about meetings or that she was not sure if the were Government or SNP business is stretching her creditability.

The other problem is that for many people she is the SNP. She has had lots of very positive airtime with the main stream media for her handling of the pandemic. She is recognised by virtually all of the MSM as one of the leading politicians of her time across the UK. But that does not mean that the MSM should not dig into this in detail. As the leader of the SNP and Scottish Government and the most prominent supporter of an Independent Scotland, this enquiry is big news. And rightly it is getting the headlines. Across all of the media. Even in those titles that support her.

Sturgeon has had a fantastic run, but it is coming to an end. Just because she has been in power for so long. And like most leaders, leaving is unlikely to be at her choosing. It is normally death from a 1000 cuts. She may survive this. She will probably win the next Scottish election, but some of her credibility is draining away. And if the enquiry reports that she did mislead parliament then she is a dead weight.

🎼 "You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar, when I met you…." pic.twitter.com/INVR5ktfsO

— Malcolm V Tucker 🏴‍☠️🇺🇦 (@Tucker5law) March 2, 2021

sadmadalan
Full Member

Sturgeon has had a fantastic run, but it is coming to an end.

doubt that very much tbh.

So do I , but she didn’t come across all that great.
I suspect watching the old master at work got her worried before she even walked into the room.

Amazingly popular though and as of yet, Scotland has no meaningful opposition to oust her party and I doubt her party will oust her.