Question Time Tonight

[Dave78]

12 minutes ago, aaid said:

👍

Your Sturgeonite loyalism really has been something to behold over the past month or so.

[aaid]

Just now, Dave78 said:

Your Sturgeonite loyalism really has been something to behold over the past month or so.

Nothing to do with it, that’s what I consider him to be, his actions as described by his own words are those of a predatory sex-pest.

Think about why he is on the QT panel?  Is it to provide balance - although I doubt ex-Sun columnist Nina Myshkow is pro-Indy - it’s already unbalanced, it’s because he will stick the boot into the SNP.

Anyway, I won’t be watching. 

[hampden_loon2878]

14 minutes ago, aaid said:

Nothing to do with it, that’s what I consider him to be, his actions as described by his own words are those of a predatory sex-pest.

Think about why he is on the QT panel?  Is it to provide balance - although I doubt ex-Sun columnist Nina Myshkow is pro-Indy - it’s already unbalanced, it’s because he will stick the boot into the SNP.

Anyway, I won’t be watching. 

What you consider him to be and the actual truth is not the same, as you have warned me and many folk on this board, watch what you say as some would class that as slander 

[scotlad]

Nina Myskow FFS - a washed-up auld tabloid hack from the '80s!  🤣

And Jackie "the Hut" Baillie. 😩 Defo giving this a bye tomorrow.

[daviebee]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

Nothing to do with it, that’s what I consider him to be, his actions as described by his own words are those of a predatory sex-pest.

Think about why he is on the QT panel?  Is it to provide balance - although I doubt ex-Sun columnist Nina Myshkow is pro-Indy - it’s already unbalanced, it’s because he will stick the boot into the SNP.

Anyway, I won’t be watching. 

You really are an absolute fkin moron.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

What you consider him to be and the actual truth is not the same, as you have warned me and many folk on this board, watch what you say as some would class that as slander 

For something to be defamatory, it would have to be untrue.  

I’m referring to a single charge, the one that was not proven - I make no judgement on that verdict, it is a means of differentiating that from the others - his behaviour in respect of that as admitted by himself and his QC at trial.

I have my own opinions on other charges, but they’re just that opinions.

But hey, you rock on and ignore the awkward facts that don’t suit your world view. 

[duncan II]

4 hours ago, aaid said:

Nothing to do with it, that’s what I consider him to be, his actions as described by his own words are those of a predatory sex-pest. 

You keep saying this but it's not true. Weird behaviour.

[exile]

I haven't been following all the leadership/personality stuff, but has anyone put forward or predicted the possibility of NS making a comeback? Like, wait for Humza to run aground, then.... for Sturgeon to 'do a Salmond' and make a comeback as leader? 😉 

[aaid]

1 hour ago, duncan II said:

You keep saying this but it's not true. Weird behaviour.

So you think that  there is nothing unusual about having drinks with a subordinate, asking them to go to your bedroom at midnight to "do paperwork", making an unwanted sexual advance towards her to the point that the following day, she complained to her line manager and you had to apologise.   

That all sounds pretty much normal to you then?

That sounds to me like a man abusing his position of power to put a junior member of staff under pressure to have sex with him.

Additionally, given that you were First Minister of Scotland, going into the independence referendum, you clearly aren't thinking about the ramifications of your recklessness and what would've happened had this come out at the time.  Luckily it was covered up at the time.

Edited May 17, 2023 by aaid

[duncan II]

20 minutes ago, aaid said:

So you think that  there is nothing unusual about having drinks with a subordinate, asking them to go to your bedroom at midnight to "do paperwork", making an unwanted sexual advance towards her to the point that the following day, she complained to her line manager and you had to apologise.   

That all sounds pretty much normal to you then?

That sounds to me like a man abusing his position of power to put a junior member of staff under pressure to have sex with him.

Additionally, given that you were First Minister of Scotland, going into the independence referendum, you clearly aren't thinking about the ramifications of your recklessness and what would've happened had this come out at the time.  Luckily it was covered up at the time.

It doesn't sound like "sex pest" behaviour. Inappropriate probably, but you don't know the exact background. Like it or not, colleagues have affairs, signals get misread. Nothing illegal or particularly that bad happened. And I'm quite prudish myself! You have an agenda, just admit it.

[aaid]

25 minutes ago, duncan II said:

It doesn't sound like "sex pest" behaviour. Inappropriate probably, but you don't know the exact background. Like it or not, colleagues have affairs, signals get misread. Nothing illegal or particularly that bad happened. And I'm quite prudish myself! You have an agenda, just admit it.

I suggest that you go back and check the reports of the trial.   I don’t think it constituted an attempted rape - which was what the charge was - but I do think it was highly inappropriate for all sorts of reasons.  
 

FWIW, I’d be inclined to believe that the other alleged attempted rape was a case were signals were being misread, given that there was an admitted previous - consensual - sexual encounter the previous year.  Then again, that suggests that this behaviour was hardly a one off.

I’d also say that where there is an imbalance of power it is the responsibility of the person with the power - in this case, Salmond - to make certain that there’s no misreading of signals or whatever.  As a leader, you should *never* be acting in a manner which makes your staff feel uncomfortable, that’s just good practice.  Fucking the payroll is never a good idea and rarely ends well, it also points towards predatory behaviour. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by aaid

[hampden_loon2878]

1 minute ago, aaid said:

I suggest that you go back and check the reports of the trial.   I don’t think it constituted an attempted rape - which was what the charge was - but I do think it was highly inappropriate for all sorts of reasons.  
 

FWIW, I’d be inclined to believe that the other alleged attempted rape was a case were signals were being misread, given that there was an admitted previous - consensual - sexual encounter the previous year.  Then again, that suggests that this behaviour was hardly a one off.

I’d also say that where there is an imbalance of power it is the responsibility of the person with the power - in this case, Salmond - to make certain that there’s no misreading of signals or whatever.  As a leader, you should *never* be acting in a manner which makes your staff feel uncomfortable, that’s just good practice.  Fucking the payroll is never a good idea and rarely ends well.

You are so full of shit, a twisted bitter person with an agenda, how you spin it and what actually happened is night and day, you see the sturgeon legacy going up in flames, the legacy you tried to prop up like she was the best thing to ever happen, when in fact she has fucked the whole notion of independence, admit it!! You were wrong, the desperation and slander won’t change what is away to happen, and you and your sturgeon ass licking will look pitiful,,  

[aaid]

Just now, hampden_loon2878 said:

You are so full of shit, a twisted bitter person with an agenda, how you spin it and what actually happened is night and day, you see the sturgeon legacy going up in flames, the legacy you tried to prop up like she was the best thing to ever happen, when in fact she has fucked the whole notion of independence, admit it!! You were wrong, the desperation and slander won’t change what is away to happen, and you and your sturgeon ass licking will look pitiful,,  

You are so wrong. This has nothing at all to do with anyone other than Salmond.  I have no agenda, I don’t like him, I never have done particularly and only joined the SNP after he had stepped down.   I used to have a lot of respect for him but that disappeared when the facts came out in the trial - I still think that there wasn’t enough conclusive evidence to convict him but that is often the case in cases of sexual assault - and how he has behaved since then.  Of course, that is very different from believing that because someone has been found not guilty that all the charges against him were cooked up and all the prosecution witnesses lied which plenty of people seem to believe.  

I find him sleazy and arrogant and I think he is a major hindrance to independence and would do everyone a favour if he just disappeared.  Is he still the most unpopular politician in Scotland?

Instead of being abusive, how about you point out where I’m saying anything factual which isn’t true.  You won’t of course because you can’t.  

[hampden_loon2878]

21 minutes ago, aaid said:

You are so wrong. This has nothing at all to do with anyone other than Salmond.  I have no agenda, I don’t like him, I never have done particularly and only joined the SNP after he had stepped down.   I used to have a lot of respect for him but that disappeared when the facts came out in the trial - I still think that there wasn’t enough conclusive evidence to convict him but that is often the case in cases of sexual assault - and how he has behaved since then.  Of course, that is very different from believing that because someone has been found not guilty that all the charges against him were cooked up and all the prosecution witnesses lied which plenty of people seem to believe.  

I find him sleazy and arrogant and I think he is a major hindrance to independence and would do everyone a favour if he just disappeared.  Is he still the most unpopular politician in Scotland?

Instead of being abusive, how about you point out where I’m saying anything factual which isn’t true.  You won’t of course because you can’t.  

The facts have not came out about the trial and that is the problem, you are either insanely naive, deceitful, my guess is the later. The facts may never come out as they have been boxed in pretty well by the murrells however there is some signs that these are about to come out, you know this. 
 

you are a relatively new member to the snp,  however you sit there up on your Perch as if you know what’s best for Scotland and independence, you do what sturgeonists do, attack those who question anything, belittle, smear and bully,, everything that’s went wrong in the snp is personified in you 

 

I know exactly what happened in the salmond stitch up.

[aaid]

28 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

The facts have not came out about the trial and that is the problem, you are either insanely naive, deceitful, my guess is the later. The facts may never come out as they have been boxed in pretty well by the murrells however there is some signs that these are about to come out, you know this. 
 

you are a relatively new member to the snp,  however you sit there up on your Perch as if you know what’s best for Scotland and independence, you do what sturgeonists do, attack those who question anything, belittle, smear and bully,, everything that’s went wrong in the snp is personified in you 

 

I know exactly what happened in the salmond stitch up.

Yes, me and about 100,000 who all joined in the wake of the referendum.

Since you seem to be so well informed, how about you let us all in on the secrets.  You don’t need to mention any names if that’s what you’re concerned about.

Of course, you won’t do that either.

[Caledonian Craig]

8 hours ago, exile said:

I haven't been following all the leadership/personality stuff, but has anyone put forward or predicted the possibility of NS making a comeback? Like, wait for Humza to run aground, then.... for Sturgeon to 'do a Salmond' and make a comeback as leader? 😉 

I say no chance of that happening now.

Why? Well the same reason I have always cited Salmond's career as a leading political figure is finished - tarnished by scandal. Shit sticks. Even if this investigation peeters out it will never wash away the scandal and mistrust.

Scotland's independence movement must now await our next influential leader to step up to the plate to lead Scotland back in the direction of independence. Hopefully, that will come sooner tather than later but at present that person is not even on the radar, worringly.

[Alibi]

21 hours ago, aaid said:

👍

You really are a piece of work.  Calling Salmond a sex pest is very likely defamation given that he was exonerated in a trial.  If we all started referring to you as a paedophile, would you not object on the grounds that it was defamation?  I'm assuming for the sake of argument that you're not.  You're a lily white virgin, never sullied by human hands.

Why do you not defame all the other politicians, of both sexes, who have, or have tried, to get a bit of nookie?  There are countless numbers of them.  Why are you picking on the one man who has actually been charged and then cleared of all charges?  I'm guessing you're not an amateur at this social media "influencing".

[aaid]

33 minutes ago, Alibi said:

 If we all started referring to you as a paedophile, would you not object on the grounds that it was defamation? 

The last person who tried that got a sine die ban. I don’t take that you’re genuinely suggesting that from your post.

People can get up to whatever they want in their private lives as long as it’s consensual and legal (age, etc).   There are a few caveats to that with respect to politicians though.  Firstly if they are promoting publicly, an image and policies that are opposite to there own personal behaviour, so for example someone who promotes “family values” and then plays around - I don’t think applies to Salmond.   The other is where someone behaves with a recklessness that would borders on the irresponsible and which would likely be a resignation matter if it were to become public - that I do certainly believe applied to Salmond and he should’ve been reigned in by those close to him.

You seem to think that a verdict of not guilty means that what the accused said is by definition true and what those accusing him said is lies.  That’s not the case, all you can infer is that the required level of proof was not met.

As we know, two people can have very different recollections and experiences of any historic event and neither are lying, their viewpoints are just different.  Salmond admitted as much when he gave evidence saying that some of the incidents had been blown up out of all proportions - that means they happened.

I happen to think - in the main - that there is some truth in each of the accusations but that they didn’t meet the burden of proof.  There is one witness some of whose evidence I think is problematic although I suspect there was an incident which may have been unwanted but she didn’t raise it at the time for her own reasons.  I’m not suggesting she’s lying btw, just that her evidence was problematic. 

[exile]

15 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I say no chance of that happening now.

Why? Well the same reason I have always cited Salmond's career as a leading political figure is finished - tarnished by scandal. Shit sticks. Even if this investigation peeters out it will never wash away the scandal and mistrust.

Scotland's independence movement must now await our next influential leader to step up to the plate to lead Scotland back in the direction of independence. Hopefully, that will come sooner tather than later but at present that person is not even on the radar, worringly.

That's plausible. 

[Ally Bongo]

7 hours ago, aaid said:

The last person who tried that got a sine die ban. I don’t take that you’re genuinely suggesting that from your post.

People can get up to whatever they want in their private lives as long as it’s consensual and legal (age, etc).   There are a few caveats to that with respect to politicians though.  Firstly if they are promoting publicly, an image and policies that are opposite to there own personal behaviour, so for example someone who promotes “family values” and then plays around - I don’t think applies to Salmond.   The other is where someone behaves with a recklessness that would borders on the irresponsible and which would likely be a resignation matter if it were to become public - that I do certainly believe applied to Salmond and he should’ve been reigned in by those close to him.

You seem to think that a verdict of not guilty means that what the accused said is by definition true and what those accusing him said is lies.  That’s not the case, all you can infer is that the required level of proof was not met.

As we know, two people can have very different recollections and experiences of any historic event and neither are lying, their viewpoints are just different.  Salmond admitted as much when he gave evidence saying that some of the incidents had been blown up out of all proportions - that means they happened.

I happen to think - in the main - that there is some truth in each of the accusations but that they didn’t meet the burden of proof.  There is one witness some of whose evidence I think is problematic although I suspect there was an incident which may have been unwanted but she didn’t raise it at the time for her own reasons.  I’m not suggesting she’s lying btw, just that her evidence was problematic. 

Grouse Beater

3h

 

Justice for Salmond When Alex Salmond's legal experts take his case to the courts for damages, we'll know that in accusation and in defence of their claims, the women gave such false accounts they amount to a travesty of the truth. In which case, he is due gazillions!

[aaid]

7 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Grouse Beater

3h

 

Justice for Salmond When Alex Salmond's legal experts take his case to the courts for damages, we'll know that in accusation and in defence of their claims, the women gave such false accounts they amount to a travesty of the truth. In which case, he is due gazillions!

When’s that happening exactly?

[Shaundy]

23 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

You are so full of shit, a twisted bitter person with an agenda, how you spin it and what actually happened is night and day, you see the sturgeon legacy going up in flames, the legacy you tried to prop up like she was the best thing to ever happen, when in fact she has fucked the whole notion of independence, admit it!! You were wrong, the desperation and slander won’t change what is away to happen, and you and your sturgeon ass licking will look pitiful,,  

Laughing at that post still. 😅 good one 👍🏻

[Ally Bongo]

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

When’s that happening exactly?

Soon probably - not the first time it has been mentioned

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Soon probably - not the first time it has been mentioned

I’m pretty sure that you can’t be sued for defamation in respect of statements made in respect of giving evidence in court.  It’s the same basis as the House of Commons to allow witnesses to speak freely.

Still, I’m sure that his “legal experts” will have that covered. 

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

I’m pretty sure that you can’t be sued for defamation in respect of statements made in respect of giving evidence in court.  It’s the same basis as the House of Commons to allow witnesses to speak freely.

Still, I’m sure that his “legal experts” will have that covered. 

From what i read somewhere i believe it is those in the Scottish Government that organised and coached the witnesses his legal experts are after