Jump to content

aaid

Member
  • Content Count

    8,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

aaid last won the day on January 12

aaid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

835 Great guy

About aaid

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.loonyalba.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Royal Berkshire

Previous Fields

  • TA Club
    Loony Alba

Recent Profile Visitors

11,141 profile views
  1. He's on again tomorrow. Definitely give the impression of a man who is more comfortable asking the questions than answering them.
  2. Have you even read any of the explanations why this evidence can't be released? It would be illegal to do so, invoking section 23 of the Scotland act is a red herring, suggesting that his solicitors would release it is grandstanding and he knows it. His solicitors are no more able to release it than he is. The committee has been trying to get a hold of these for months with no success. Two possible scenarios here. 1. These messages contain everything Salmond says they do and back up what he says. 2. They contain nothing of the sort but it suits his purposes to make people thi
  3. Yes, and "secret evidence" just plays into that narrative as well.
  4. Need to wait to see the data but I'm prepared to believe that it will comedown to a handful of respondents either way. James Kelly seems to be suggesting that the DR/SM went with Survation hoping it would return a positive return for the Union. Cracks me up though how pundits will point to any change in the poll being as a result of what's just happened - in this case - the Salmond inquiry - whereas everyone knows that you can't compare polls from different polling companies. The last poll from Survation was on the 13th January so this small shift could be down to anything, e.g
  5. Any comments on the actual article? Maybe try reading it first.
  6. This is a long read but a very good piece on Salmond's evidence. Pretty balanced too as it highlights both where he hit the target but also where he shot wide. It also goes into some detail about the problems the legal committee faces over evidence and debunks some of the wilder theories flying about. One piece I think is very important with regards to what can and cannot be published. https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/insight-the-alex-salmond-inquiry-and-unpicking-a-tangle-of-disinformation-3149409
  7. I'm not saying that he should do, but it could be a way towards him rehabilitating his reputation. A lot of people - and I include myself in that - accept he wasn't guilty of any criminal acts but also feel that what he himself admitted to was totally inappropriate for anyone, but particularly for someone in his position. Speaking personally, its the abuse of power that's obvious here, with a powerful older man putting younger, more junior women into difficult situations where the feel at best uncomfortable. Its both the difference in seniority and age. That's what I find most u
  8. Evidence isn't being withheld to protect anonymity, its not being published for that reason. Big, big difference. Salmond was able to talk to - and did to the extent he's able to, since he wasn't personally present and is only recounting what someone told him - the specific pieces of information that were redacted from his submission. The First Minister - who was present for some or all of that - will no doubt be questioned on it next week. Her submission is published on the Committee's website, unredacted as she wrote it in a way that would not breach the court order. Salmond
  9. Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that he feels Sturgeon should go as well. He's not coming out and saying that outright for two reasons. Firstly because he has no proof that she was directly involved unlike the others he names - whether that amounts to anything remains to be seen, but he concedes he has nothing. Secondly, he knows how popular Sturgeon is right now and knows if he goes after her - particularly with no proof - that will likely backfire badly and will also bring into question his allegations against those who he thinks he does have proof against. He didn
  10. The right to anonymity doesn't imply that you have to take a vow of silence. You are perfectly entitled to state your case particularly if you think you are being unfairly attacked or maligned. Whatever your views on the merits of their case, I think its hard to disagree that the complainers have been subject to some pretty vile and concerted abuse.
  11. Are you sure that's 61% v 39% for the members and not the total number of votes cast?
  12. Read this for an explanation on why the evidence cannot be shared and for a rationale as to why it might not be as crucial as is being claimed. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1365357909891309568.html His solicitors are under the same restrictions as he and the Crown Office are, so it would appear that his offer to the committee is actually that he - through his solicitors - will be prepared to test the law in a legal challenge. I can only assume that the reason why the committee haven't to date done similar is that they've had legal advice that this attempt would not be succ
  13. I've just followed the whole thing with interest from the start, that's all. That and I have a reasonably good memory - although not infallible. TBH, its actually not that complicated or complex a story. There is a huge amount of misinformation being thrown about - some of it unwittingly but a lot of it deliberately, so I can understand why people get confused. I guess it would only take about 30 minutes to outline it.
  14. I've no doubt he'll let it drop but if all he comes up with is the same accusations with the same lack of proof, people will stop listening and he will lose credibility rapidly. "Knowing" is one thing - and he might be right in his suspicions - is a world away from being able to prove something. Used to be the case where the police would routinely fabricate evidence and justified that because they "knew" the suspects were guilty. Thankfully due to changes to the law and criminal justice system, that is a much rarer occurrence these days. Not sure why "the UK looking on" is at all r
  15. I was prepared to believe that Joanna Cherry hadn't completely lost the plot until this.
×
×
  • Create New...