Question Time Tonight

[hampden_loon2878]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

I'm going on what was disclosed at the trial.  It was his own lawyer that described him as a sex pest.

You are taking things out of context but hey and you know it,, i will get to ask the man in person in the next few days and i will ask a simple question of can i trust the leadership of the snp,, that will tell me all i need to know. Sturgeon is finished IMO,, the shit is going to hit the fan after the election with or without a majority 

[hampden_loon2878]

7 hours ago, thplinth said:

aaid starting to come completely unglued now. 

Anyone actually seen her(?) in the same room as Woman H.

You may not be far from the truth. 

[aaid]

17 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

You are taking things out of context but hey and you know it,, i will get to ask the man in person in the next few days and i will ask a simple question of can i trust the leadership of the snp,, that will tell me all i need to know. Sturgeon is finished IMO,, the shit is going to hit the fan after the election with or without a majority 

You've been saying that for the last year.  Change the record ffs.

Don't tell me, more secret evidence is going to come out.

[Dave78]

2 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

You must be on the books for the murrells

It's already been established that aaid is 'Head of T-Shirt Sales' for the SNP 

 

9 hours ago, aaid said:

I don't think there's a comparison with their personal politics, I do think that where Alba is concerned they are trying to tap into a similar section of the electorate that certainly Farage did.  I find it interesting that I suspect a lot of the other policies that Alba seem to be promoting are not ones which Salmond himself really believes in, so you have to question why that is.

I don't think it's to the advantage of the Indy movement as I don't fundamentally think that the demographic which they are attracting is big enough to make any positive difference but is certainly loud enough to have a negative one.

I think i remember reading on here, posted by yourself no less (please correct me if i'm wrong) that around a third of voters have switched sides on the indy question since 2016. Most of those coming to Yes were previous No voters that were also Remain voters in 2016. But crucially, a good chunk of Yes-Leave voters jumped ship to No.

If Salmond can win them back to Yes, then that would be very significant.

 

Also...

I read a couple of interesting tweets yesterday about how Alba can shift the overton window in a way that favours Yes. Alba can make the radical case, leaving the SNP case looking 'sensible' to your average undecided/soft No. The upshot is that the SNP's position is no-longer the outlying risky one. 

 

9 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Yes I am being serious. We failed due to no concrete currency plan all under his watch which is amateurish and we'll fail again the next time if we do not address it. As I said realism is needed here. Independence will be achieved by solidarity and solid plans on taking Scotland forward not by someone people are intent on portraying as some kind of superman that isn't.

To be fair, the currency issue blindsided the entire SNP.

 

9 hours ago, aaid said:

He could've apologised, even a Priti Patel style, I apoligise if anyone was upset, but didn't.  

You know yourself that that's a quality in politics these days! You don't back down, you double down 

[hampden_loon2878]

42 minutes ago, aaid said:

You've been saying that for the last year.  Change the record ffs.

Don't tell me, more secret evidence is going to come out.

Anyone with any savy knows the script regarding the  murrells it is in no way “secret”, especially with peter. Its you that needs to change the record, any chance to snipe at salmond and destroy his character you jump on it. I am still a snp member and in general support them, especially when interacting socially with friends. I admire your loyalty but not the unquestionable loyalty,, salmonds a good guy, no angel that's a given,, maybe ask yourself is there a possibility that he was set up.

[shunkyboy and the fluffer]

16 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Anyone with any savy knows the script regarding the  murrells it is in no way “secret”, especially with peter. Its you that needs to change the record, any chance to snipe at salmond and destroy his character you jump on it. I am still a snp member and in general support them, especially when interacting socially with friends. I admire your loyalty but not the unquestionable loyalty,, salmonds a good guy, no angel that's a given,, maybe ask yourself is there a possibility that he was set up.

And also a possibility he was touchy.

[daviebee]

10 hours ago, aaid said:

He's an unrepentant predatory sex pest that should have no role in public life, it's pretty simple.

Utter pish. If you've got info that the predominantly female jury, the female judge and Salmond's female defence witnesses didn't hear then man up and go to the police with it.  The 20+ officers who spent all these hours interviewing hundreds of women going back decades of his life couldn't find anything so I'm sure they'd appreciate the help.

[daviebee]

3 hours ago, aaid said:

I'm going on what was disclosed at the trial.  It was his own lawyer that described him as a sex pest.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790

 

[aaid]

11 hours ago, Dave78 said:

I think i remember reading on here, posted by yourself no less (please correct me if i'm wrong) that around a third of voters have switched sides on the indy question since 2016. Most of those coming to Yes were previous No voters that were also Remain voters in 2016. But crucially, a good chunk of Yes-Leave voters jumped ship to No.

If Salmond can win them back to Yes, then that would be very significant.

 

Also...

I read a couple of interesting tweets yesterday about how Alba can shift the overton window in a way that favours Yes. Alba can make the radical case, leaving the SNP case looking 'sensible' to your average undecided/soft No. The upshot is that the SNP's position is no-longer the outlying risky one. 

 

 

On the first point, Yes, that was the case, although since 2019 those votes have been coming back to some extent.  However, the question is really not if Salmond can get more back, or indeed if anyone can get them back but whether you want to get them back.  They are all people who wanted out of the EU and who - still - place being out of the EU above independence.   The only way you would be likely to win these people back is with a policy of remaining outwith the EU and bluntly there are a hell of a lot more people who voted No in 2014, Remain in 2016 and would now vote Yes on the basis that Scotland would be looking for early accession.   On sheer numbers, it's not a demographic that's worth chasing.

On the second point, I saw those comments and I just thought it was bullshit, straw clutching from people who were trying to justify their existence and changing the narrative because of how poorly they are polling.

The level of cognitive dissonance as regards Alba is off the scale frankly.  

I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks what impact if any they've made.   Then it will either be a case of "I told you so" or a raft of ever more ridiculous excuses for why they didn't get through.

Personally, I suspect that Salmond may just about have a big enough residual personal support in the North East to get the 17000 or so votes that was required to get the last seat in 2016, lower turnout might help that.   I wouldn't say that was at all guaranteed though.   My Aberdeen contact tells me that other than "Wings types" no-one seems to be planning to vote for them.

Across the rest of the country, I can't see how they'll trouble the scorers.   I suspect that most of those Yessers that are considering voting tactically on the list will see the Greens as a much more attractive option.

[hampden_loon2878]

11 hours ago, daviebee said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790

 

He said the word “sex pest” in what context utter nonsense,,, the same media that throw so much shit towards the snp yes movement and you guys swallow all the shit thrown against salmond and hold them up as if to be believed,, you guys need to take a step back and see what’s really going on 

[daviebee]

22 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

He said the word “sex pest” in what context utter nonsense,,, the same media that throw so much shit towards the snp yes movement and you guys swallow all the shit thrown against salmond and hold them up as if to be believed,, you guys need to take a step back and see what’s really going on 

And you need to have a look at who I was replying to when I posted that link that clearly states that Alex Salmond's QC said he WASN'T a sex pest.

[Caledonian Craig]

27 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

He said the word “sex pest” in what context utter nonsense,,, the same media that throw so much shit towards the snp yes movement and you guys swallow all the shit thrown against salmond and hold them up as if to be believed,, you guys need to take a step back and see what’s really going on 

It does work two ways though.

Forget about sex case as he was cleared but admits himself doing inappropriate stuff. What his supporters cannot seem to accept is how deeply crap he does in polls. Voters just do not rate him. We keep hearing how crap BJ is and how loathed he is and it is widely accepted yet Salmond's popularity in polls is around BJ's but his supporters paint him as some kind of god.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Another question here. How many vulnerable women who have had sexually inappropriate stuff done to them or worse do you think will be keen to put an X in his party box?

Edited April 24, 2021 by Caledonian Craig

[hampden_loon2878]

1 hour ago, daviebee said:

And you need to have a look at who I was replying to when I posted that link that clearly states that Alex Salmond's QC said he WASN'T a sex pest.

Apologies 

[hampden_loon2878]

1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It does work two ways though.

Forget about sex case as he was cleared but admits himself doing inappropriate stuff. What his supporters cannot seem to accept is how deeply crap he does in polls. Voters just do not rate him. We keep hearing how crap BJ is and how loathed he is and it is widely accepted yet Salmond's popularity in polls is around BJ's but his supporters paint him as some kind of god.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Another question here. How many vulnerable women who have had sexually inappropriate stuff done to them or worse do you think will be keen to put an X in his party box?

Theres only one thing that counts and that is votes on the day, from my experience up here most preferred salmond in charge, the problem will be voters not understanding the voting system, 

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, hampden_loon2878 said:

Theres only one thing that counts and that is votes on the day, from my experience up here most preferred salmond in charge, the problem will be voters not understanding the voting system, 

Its about understanding voters and polls. All polls I have seen show Salmond as being far from popular (about as popular as Johnson) and however you look at it there will be a proportion of women who will refuse to put their trust in his party because of past events. That is two big clumps of voters who will be put off voting for Alba.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, daviebee said:

And you need to have a look at who I was replying to when I posted that link that clearly states that Alex Salmond's QC said he WASN'T a sex pest.

Gordon Jackson was quoted as saying "He's (Salmond) a sex pest...but he's not charged with that".   

"Inapproriate, stupid...but sexual?  Unfortunately (two accusers) say it's sexual"

So he clearly uses the phrase sex pest to describe Salmond and concedes his behaviour was stupid and inappropriate.

Subsequently when the story broke, he didn't deny it- he could hardly when it was caught on tape - but claims he doesn't think Salmond is a sex pest which begs the question why he described him in those terms.

Maybe we'll get a clearer picture when his professional misconduct case is eventually heard.

[thplinth]

Ahhh yes the very strange incident on the train that Gordon Jackson can't even remember happening.

aaid getting desperate now... but smearers gotta smear.

“I wasn’t speaking to a stranger on a train but I don’t know who it was,” he said. “I can’t remember the conversation. I’m clearly talking to someone I knew and who knew me but they have never come forward. If it was a pal you would expect them to say, ‘That was me’.”

So we have no idea of the context of the conversation.

But also we should be very suspicious about how it was obtained, edited and manipulated. Craig Murray touches on this but he is legally hamstrung in what he can reveal.

I cannot begin to imagine how evil you have to be to attempt falsely to convict someone of that most vicious, most unforgivable of crimes – rape. But it is impossible to have followed the trial, still more impossible to know the evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible as collateral, without forming the view that this was a deliberate, a most wicked, conspiracy to fit him up on these charges. Furthermore it was a conspiracy that incorporated almost the entire Establishment – a conspiracy that included a corrupt Scottish Government, a corrupt Crown Office, a corrupt Scottish Police and an uniformly corrupt media.

Coverage of the trial was a disgrace. The most salacious accusations of the odious prosecutor were selected and magnified into massive headlines. The defence witnesses were almost totally ignored and unreported. The entire stream of evidence from credible witnesses that disproved the prosecution case in its entirety was simply never presented in the papers, still less on radio and TV. A great deal of that evidence proved that prosecution witnesses were not merely mistaken, but had been deliberately and coldly lying.

Let us consider the lead accusation, that of attempted rape. I want you honestly to consider whether or not this should have been brought before the court.

Woman H claimed that Salmond attempted to rape her after a small dinner with Alex Salmond, an actor (the publication of whose name the court banned), and Ms Samantha Barber, a company director. Salmond gave evidence that the entire story was completely untrue and the woman had not even been there that evening. Samantha Barber gave evidence that she knows woman H well, had been a guest at her wedding reception, and that woman H had phoned and asked her to attend the dinner with the specific explanation she could not be there herself. Indeed, affirmed Ms Barber, woman H definitely was not there. She had given that firm evidence to the police.

Against that, there was a vague statement by the actor that he believed a fourth person had been present, but he described her hair colour as different to woman H, described her as wearing jeans when woman H said she was wearing a dress, and did not say the woman had her arm in a sling – which it was established woman H’s arm was at that time. One arm in a sling would be pretty debilitating in eating and the sort of detail about a fellow diner at a very small dinner party you would likely remember.

Given the very firm statement from Samantha Barber, her friend, that woman H was definitely not there, a number of lawyers and police officers with whom I have discussed this have all been perplexed that the charge was brought at all, with such a strong witness to rebut it, given that the police were relying on an extremely tentative identification from the actor (who did not appear in court to be cross-examined). The truth is, as the jury found, that woman H was not physically there when she said the incident took place. Woman H had lied. More importantly, the evidence available to the police and prosecutor fiscal showed that there was never any realistic prospect of conviction.

So why was the charge brought?

You might also wish to consider this. While the jury was considering its verdict, two members of the jury were removed. Here I know more than I can legally say at present. That might be put together with the chance that somebody was tailing Alex Salmond’s defence counsel and video recording his conversation on a train. If you look at the recording, it is obvious that if it were being taken with a mobile phone, that act of recording would have been very plainly visible to Mr Jackson. It appears far more likely this was done with a concealed device, possibly routed through a mobile phone for purposes of metadata.

I only have definite good source information on MI5 involvement in the attempt to dredge up charges at Edinburgh airport. While I have no direct evidence the juror expulsion or the Jackson tape were underlain by security service surveillance, I am very suspicious given the knowledge that MI5 were engaged in the witch-hunt. Which of course also begs the question that if any of the alleged incidents inside Bute House were true, the state would by now have produced the MI5 or GCHQ/NSA recordings to prove it (claiming they were sourced from elsewhere). Salmond has been considered by them a threat to the UK state for decades, and not only over Scottish Independence.

I also ask you to consider who has been, and who has not been, persecuted. Alex Salmond stood in the dock facing total ruin. The conspirators have faced not even questioning about their collusion.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/jaccuse-2/

 

[thplinth]

What Craig Murray is hinting at is that MI5 (or similar) were actively setting-up and nobbling jurors that favoured Salmond as the trial proceeded. (Which means of course they were listening in and spying on them inside and outside of court.)

You might want to ask yourself, why would they need to go to such lengths to stitch-up someone who was actually guilty of all these crimes...

Why the need to have MI5 involved...

Why not just let the facts speak for themselves if they were so guilty...

The jury found that Woman H was and is a liar. A very, very nasty and dislikable one as well. She was alas not alone.

The Sturgeon regime are up to their necks in all this. That is why aaid is on here desperately trying to deflect away from what they have done. But there is no hiding from it.

Edited April 24, 2021 by thplinth

[scotlad]

4 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It does work two ways though.

Forget about sex case as he was cleared but admits himself doing inappropriate stuff. What his supporters cannot seem to accept is how deeply crap he does in polls. Voters just do not rate him. We keep hearing how crap BJ is and how loathed he is and it is widely accepted yet Salmond's popularity in polls is around BJ's but his supporters paint him as some kind of god.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Another question here. How many vulnerable women who have had sexually inappropriate stuff done to them or worse do you think will be keen to put an X in his party box?

The difference between Johnson and Salmond is that Salmond, despite his bevvying and leching, was actually quite good at his job. Arguably he ran government better than Sturgeon has.

Johnson, on the other hand, as well as being a sleazy git in a number of ways, is also a dreadful Prime Minister.

[Caledonian Craig]

2 hours ago, scotlad said:

The difference between Johnson and Salmond is that Salmond, despite his bevvying and leching, was actually quite good at his job. Arguably he ran government better than Sturgeon has.

Johnson, on the other hand, as well as being a sleazy git in a number of ways, is also a dreadful Prime Minister.

I agree but both have traits that put off voters.

[daviebee]

10 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Apologies 

No worries, buddy.  Hopefully some folk will get their just desserts soon enough.

[aaid]

10 hours ago, daviebee said:

No worries, buddy.  Hopefully some folk will get their just desserts soon enough.

Is that supposed to be some sort of coded threat?

[daviebee]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Is that supposed to be some sort of coded threat?

  WTF?  Coded threat?  Don't be fkin daft.  We're all Scotland fans on here so I try not to be rude to anyone but FFS...

[thplinth]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Is that supposed to be some sort of coded threat?

Holy shit.  Paranoid much?

Between that and the Ayatollah Khomeini line from Widow Twankie on the other thread...  wow, thanks for the laughs girls and boys. Mental as fuck, but funny all the same.

(As I said, unglued! lol.)

[Orraloon]

27 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Holy shit.  Paranoid much?

Between that and the Ayatollah Khomeini line from Widow Twankie on the other thread...  wow, thanks for the laughs girls and boys. Mental as fuck, but funny all the same.

(As I said, unglued! lol.)

I've changed my mind again. I'm back to thinking that AS has made the election a wee bit more interesting. Imagine how boring it would have been without his intervention. All the parties have got absolutely nothing new to make us interested. At least he has given us something to talk about.

The SNPs biggest problem is not AS, they shouldn't be wasting any time on this ALBA slagging nonsense. They should just be ignoring ALBA and concentrating on what is their biggest problem. Voter apathy. They need to concentrate on getting the vote out. Nicola has made a big mistake opening up the pubs tomorrow. She should have waited for election day. She should have allowed folk to go to the pub, but only after they have voted. If you don't vote you don't get back to the pub until the following Monday. She missed a trick there.