Question Time Tonight

[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

[Shaundy]

Tonight’s line up looks interesting. Never quite seen Bruce go so all out screaming Britnat “snp bad . Fukin right !” 
‘mon Eck Fish 

[slasher]

Wtf is a ‘gold standard’ referendum? 🙈

[Shaundy]

Always amazed they never , when it comes to workers, talk about low pay. Refuse  to say the shops like Aldi are paying the same as 20 years ago and farmers still want cheap labour working their arses off for £4 pound an hour. 
Hospitality 😬 that’s just the poorest paid to service the few. Fukin feudal then and now. 

[hampden_loon2878]

tonight on QT just reinforces the madness of those within the SNP whom have tried to neutralize alexander salmond from the independence or the snp debate. The biggest unionist realize the calamity of this to independence and cant believe there would be those within the SNP who would want him silenced or even jailed. Mcallan is a competent politician however she has been thrown to the wolves with the HMPA'S it may well destroy her political career which is a shame. salmond is just head and shoulders above any politician going, an absolute master at his craft his biggest mistake that may well harm his legacy, is handing powers over to sturgeon, what a lapse in judgment that was.. anyways, that QT gave me a bit of optimism that i needed

[aaid]

13 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

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

This is getting more and more off the wall and more detached from reality with every twist and turn.   I suppose that’s to be expected, as every thread unravels they have to come up with more and more ludicrous stories to keep the grift going. 

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

tonight on QT just reinforces the madness of those within the SNP whom have tried to neutralize alexander salmond from the independence or the snp debate. The biggest unionist realize the calamity of this to independence and cant believe there would be those within the SNP who would want him silenced or even jailed. Mcallan is a competent politician however she has been thrown to the wolves with the HMPA'S it may well destroy her political career which is a shame. salmond is just head and shoulders above any politician going, an absolute master at his craft his biggest mistake that may well harm his legacy, is handing powers over to sturgeon, what a lapse in judgment that was.. anyways, that QT gave me a bit of optimism that i needed

I was going to post something similar to this though it didn’t leave me feeling positive. 
I only seen the last 30 mins of it so realise my take on things could be different if I seen the whole show, however based on what I did see my observations were : 

Tory guy had an absolute howler. Was pleasing.

BBC probably knew it was a waste of time supporting the Tories in Scotland so gave the other other arse cheek,  aka Jackie Baillie , a platform to present a Labour political broadcast. 
Also, an audience member mentioned that a ferry hadnt been running for a month and that she had to make a 96 mile round trip to get to the studio . Fiona Bruce managed to shoehorn her plight at least 3 times throughout the rest of the show. 

McAllan was ok. Didn’t do anything wrong but didnt blow up my skirt either. Used scripted soundbites , wouldn’t fancy her chances under strong questioning. 

Salmond , by far the most competent person on the panel. Natural and sharp. He was the only one that sounded like he wasnt spouting party politics. He got the most claps by far which seems to fly in the face of public opinion. 
This is why I feel disappointed. The UK has very few outstanding politicians. IMO he is one of them but he is never going to be in pole position to drive independence . 
 

 

 

[Alibi]

22 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. 

No, I'm certainly not suggesting you are a paedophile - just making a point.  However you twist and turn to support the line taken by the SNP leadership.  You never even consider the possibility that they are wrong in anything they say or do - do you ever think that maybe some of those near the top of the party are infiltrators?  If the Brit establishment could infiltrate the IRA, I'm sure they could do similar with a political party.  Would certainly explain some of the daft decisions since about 2017.

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, Alibi said:

No, I'm certainly not suggesting you are a paedophile - just making a point.  However you twist and turn to support the line taken by the SNP leadership.  You never even consider the possibility that they are wrong in anything they say or do - do you ever think that maybe some of those near the top of the party are infiltrators?  If the Brit establishment could infiltrate the IRA, I'm sure they could do similar with a political party.  Would certainly explain some of the daft decisions since about 2017.

Nothing would surprise me, although the reason why the security services managed to be so successful with the IRA was that they were able to leverage people who’d been caught doing illegal acts for the IRA and turn them.   That’s clearly not the case with the SNP.  

That said, again, nothing would surprise me but I wouldn’t restrict that the current day as the security services are known to play a long game.  Who that would be exactly, or indeed if there’s anyone, I’ve no idea but it would be likely to be the person who you’d least expect.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the “critics” of the current SNP were agents provocateur though.  

[Alibi]

33 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I was going to post something similar to this though it didn’t leave me feeling positive. 
I only seen the last 30 mins of it so realise my take on things could be different if I seen the whole show, however based on what I did see my observations were : 

Tory guy had an absolute howler. Was pleasing.

BBC probably knew it was a waste of time supporting the Tories in Scotland so gave the other other arse cheek,  aka Jackie Baillie , a platform to present a Labour political broadcast. 
Also, an audience member mentioned that a ferry hadnt been running for a month and that she had to make a 96 mile round trip to get to the studio . Fiona Bruce managed to shoehorn her plight at least 3 times throughout the rest of the show. 

McAllan was ok. Didn’t do anything wrong but didnt blow up my skirt either. Used scripted soundbites , wouldn’t fancy her chances under strong questioning. 

Salmond , by far the most competent person on the panel. Natural and sharp. He was the only one that sounded like he wasnt spouting party politics. He got the most claps by far which seems to fly in the face of public opinion. 
This is why I feel disappointed. The UK has very few outstanding politicians. IMO he is one of them but he is never going to be in pole position to drive independence . 
 

 

 

I thought McAllan tried hard but every time she spoke she was interrupted and shouted down by Fiona Bruce & Jabba Baillie.  She's a promising politician but not ready for a bear pit like that.  I was appalled by Fiona Bruce's initial "summary of events" which was a blatant attack on the SNP and the Scottish government - would she ever launch such a diatribe against any of the unionist parties?  It was clear she had an agenda.

Alex Salmond showed why he is head and shoulders above any other politician in Scotland. Calm but incisive, summed up where the SNP has gone wrong in recent years and spelled out the legislation that they should not have gone near.  i think Fiona Bruce actually said in her opening speech that Alex was the most unpopular politician in Scotland.  I wonder if that is actually true, because the audience applause suggested he is still pretty popular despite the best efforts of the Kirsty Warks and Dani Garavellis of this world.

Where Mairi McAllan should have stuck the knife in was Labour's policies: pro brexit, anti immigration, no FoM, no single market, basically Tory policies photocopied. Jabba spoke about people wanting "change", but can't actually elaborate on that.  I think Labour might get a real fright once people realise what they actually stand for, hard brexit and associated matters in particular.

[Och Aye]

Fiona Bruce is a horrible subservient establishment cow. 

[TDYER63]

11 minutes ago, Alibi said:

I thought McAllan tried hard but every time she spoke she was interrupted and shouted down by Fiona Bruce & Jabba Baillie.  She's a promising politician but not ready for a bear pit like that.  I was appalled by Fiona Bruce's initial "summary of events" which was a blatant attack on the SNP and the Scottish government - would she ever launch such a diatribe against any of the unionist parties?  It was clear she had an agenda.

Alex Salmond showed why he is head and shoulders above any other politician in Scotland. Calm but incisive, summed up where the SNP has gone wrong in recent years and spelled out the legislation that they should not have gone near.  i think Fiona Bruce actually said in her opening speech that Alex was the most unpopular politician in Scotland.  I wonder if that is actually true, because the audience applause suggested he is still pretty popular despite the best efforts of the Kirsty Warks and Dani Garavellis of this world.

Where Mairi McAllan should have stuck the knife in was Labour's policies: pro brexit, anti immigration, no FoM, no single market, basically Tory policies photocopied. Jabba spoke about people wanting "change", but can't actually elaborate on that.  I think Labour might get a real fright once people realise what they actually stand for, hard brexit and associated matters in particular.

I will have missed some of this in the first half of the programme. Doesn’t surprise me though and I don’t think I will rewatch on catch up , to save my blood pressure. 

McAllan is a young, pretty girl. Much as looks should have nothing to do with anything,  I don’t think anyone but real anti SNP folk would look favourably on her being shouted down by older women. Appearance does have an influence on some people. But she will need to be stronger than she was. She did manage to get in Labours hypocrisy on Brexit and that none of the 2 main Westminster parties have any intention of rejoining the EU. I actually thought she did ok on that. 

But Salmond was far superior. He addressed questions with direct answers, highlighting issues like the price of supermarket own brands , and the cost of electricity when there is no real increase to the underlying components.