Is Alex Salmond sex pest? - Page 2 - Politics - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Is Alex Salmond sex pest?


andreimack
 Share

Recommended Posts

The comments (mostly on the indyref2 thread) when this happened gave me the mega boak. All the big SNP pro independence posters condemning him, distancing themselves, writing him off, failing to defend in any way... You are ALL a bunch of utter wankers. Every one of you without exception.

ps Andrei, if that married burd you shagged 'porno style' had seen the thread that you posted on here (just minutes later bragging about it 😎) well you would have probably been accused of rape and be in jail now... times have changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The comments (mostly on the indyref2 thread) when this happened gave me the mega boak. All the big SNP pro independence posters condemning him, distancing themselves, writing him off, failing to defend in any way... You are ALL a bunch of utter wankers. Every one of you without exception.

ps Andrei, if that married burd you shagged 'porno style' had seen the thread that you posted on here (just minutes later bragging about it 😎) well you would have probably been accused of rape and be in jail now... times have changed. 

Hooray !!! Are you only back for Halloween or are you gonna hang around for the Brexit cliffhanger ? 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thplinth said:

The comments (mostly on the indyref2 thread) when this happened gave me the mega boak. All the big SNP pro independence posters condemning him, distancing themselves, writing him off, failing to defend in any way... You are ALL a bunch of utter wankers. Every one of you without exception.

ps Andrei, if that married burd you shagged 'porno style' had seen the thread that you posted on here (just minutes later bragging about it 😎) well you would have probably been accused of rape and be in jail now... times have changed. 

Hello lovely you’ve been missed, by me and Tidy at the very least. 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, G-Man said:

Hello lovely you’ve been missed, by me and Tidy at the very least. 😊

Salutations G-Man and Tidy and wheres the pies and Everyone Else. Had to get away for a bit. By the way I lost my login details to the elite board almost as soon as I jacked posting on here. Could not even find the new site for a good while. Sorry if I was ignoring anyone. 

Edited by thplinth
adding the pieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Salutations G-Man and Tidy and wheres the pies and Everyone Else. Had to get away for a bit. By the way I lost my login details to the elite board almost as soon as I jacked posting on here. Could not even find the new site for a good while. Sorry if I was ignoring anyone. 

You’ve been missed over there. I’m trying to get exile to change his name to Quizmeister and become our overlord.

Re’ Alex Salmond I’ve stayed clear because it’s hard to separate common sense, brain, and emotion, heart when anything is levelled at someone you not only admire but also like. I don’t wish to compare the actual allegations but the situation it reminds me of is The Who and Pete Townsend and Gary Glitter. I have friends who still go to Who gigs, listen to their music and would buy anything new but would cheer to hear the news of Gary Glitters death. So is it okay to buy pictures of children being raped if you produce quality music but not if you dress in glittery jumpsuits and shout your songs about gangs? Personally my hypocrisy shows when I can spend whole days watching Woody Allen films but sneer whenever I see a Roman Polanski film. 

What I’m trying to say, badly, is it doesn’t matter what happens now I think politically he’s finished. If he’s found guilty as accused his supporters will cry “stitch up” and if he’s cleared his enemies will cry “stitch up”.

I can’t imagine in a million years why a woman would falsely claim any type of sexual assault but I know it happens, albeit in minuscule numbers. 

Edited by G-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also shocked at this particular 'judicial' process to which men accused are being subjected. The article linked to many pages above (edit: in the indyref2 thread i mean, probably) from Craig Murray (another marked man) details exactly what I mean and how it is deeply unfair and quite interestingly ripe for exploitation by dodgy forces (surprise surprise). Murray was also fucked over using the same rules, i think they are the civil services own self imposed rules from memory only.

It is mind bending - A former FM has to start a go fund me page to hire lawyers just to get a fair hearing in the court of session. How crazy is that? If this was you or me getting accused we'd just be fucked on the accusations only and no doubt screwed over

It is utter bullshit that women do not make fake accusations. They do. And a lot of time. I would guess in the exact same proportions as ohhhh say... men.

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Let's just agree to disagree on this one as we could fall out.

Aye but you could fall out with your reflection. As could I. Anyway I’ve been eating special cakes so I’m not going to fall out with anyone. But........ I’m sure I didn’t say women never make false accusations. Nope reread and I definitely didn’t say that. In fact I said I can’t fathom why women would but I know some do. Political machinations are a different thing altogether. (Chuffed as feck I can say political machinations when I’m having to type with one hand over my eye) Anyway I was mistaken for a drag queen/transvestite in Tel Aviv so I can see it from side of both sexes. 

But again, what did I say you disagree with. Tell me in a nice way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thplinth said:

miniscule = #believeher = no need for a trial = that is what annoyed me

 

From ‘minuscule’ you got ‘no need for a trial’? We may be only tamber pals but I’m really surprised that’s what you read into my post. I absolutely and wholeheartedly believe that the number of people who falsely claim rape/sexual assault is minuscule but never ever would I say every person accused is guilty and not deserving of a trial. 

At the worst of times you’d have to work much harder than this to make me fall out with you. Tonight you’d have to break in steal my last brownie and tell me to stop playing Songs from the musicals over and over again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First up it would not be a rape trial as sexual penetration needs to take place for that and the accusers have not alleged that. Salmond is alleged to have sexually abused them (if my memory serves correctly). None of us here know the truth of what happened so to blindly leap in and claim he is innocent makes us no better than unionists who blindly stick up for the Westminster government. If Thplinth you are angry with the SNP for pursuing this they have to otherwise they will be accused of looking after one of their own a la Westminster with Ted Heath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Do you know something about this Salmond business I do not?  You mention Garry Glitter and Pete Townsend and Polanski in your post. WTF!

Refresh my mind please. I'd say categorically if I even did that it would not be to liken Salmond to them.

 

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Do you know something about this Salmond business I do not?  You mention Garry Glitter and Pete Townsend and Polanski in your post. WTF!

 I mentioned those cases to show how people’s views on the person can skew their views on accusations. But I think you knew that Thplinth. 

1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Refresh my mind please. I'd say categorically if I even did that it would not be to liken Salmond to them.

 

No it was me and I didn’t compare. Or if I did it was stupidity rather than deliberately. I meant it in the way I’ve tried  to explain above. 

1 hour ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Aye Polanski pleaded guilty to fucking a 13 year old full of drugs. 

FFS will people read what I actually said,, I was actually attacking myself in the Polanski part. 

Hi PinK, not sure where you are just now but hope it’s nice wherever you are.  (first time I’ve realised you’re PinK.)

 

As The Verve said. the Drugs Don’t Work, you’re PiaK not PinK. ☹️

Edited by G-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G-Man said:

 I mentioned those cases to show how people’s views on the person can skew their views on accusations. But I think you knew that Thplinth. 

No it was me and I didn’t compare. Or if I did it was stupidity rather than deliberately. I meant it in the way I’ve tried  to explain above. 

FFS will people read what I actually said,, I was actually attacking myself in the Polanski part. 

Hi PinK, not sure where you are just now but hope it’s nice wherever you are.  (first time I’ve realised you’re PinK.)

 

As The Verve said. the Drugs Don’t Work, you’re PiaK not PinK. ☹️

Hi 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bobster said:

Hi 😀

I’m trying to write a post on elite board and bloody deleted about 5 paragraphs. It was mainly pish but fringo will like it because it involves me falling asleep and nearly missing my flight. (Thplinth needs to come back there for a while to be swaddled in the special love we all have.He has a vague memory of liking me but by Christ he’s fighting it!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, G-Man said:

 I mentioned those cases to show how people’s views on the person can skew their views on accusations. But I think you knew that Thplinth. 

I just re-read the post and no I did not. 

"Re’ Alex Salmond I’ve stayed clear because it’s hard to separate common sense, brain, and emotion, heart when anything is levelled at someone you not only admire but also like. I don’t wish to compare the actual allegations but the situation it reminds me of is The Who and Pete Townsend and Gary Glitter. I have friends who still go to Who gigs, listen to their music and would buy anything new but would cheer to hear the news of Gary Glitters death. So is it okay to buy pictures of children being raped if you produce quality music but not if you dress in glittery jumpsuits and shout your songs about gangs? Personally my hypocrisy shows when I can spend whole days watching Woody Allen films but sneer whenever I see a Roman Polanski film.."

C'mon G-man that is fucked up shit. You are cleverly associating an innocent (until proven guilty) person with many mega-proven pedophiles and you are way too smart to do it by accident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, G-Man said:

I’m trying to write a post on elite board and bloody deleted about 5 paragraphs. It was mainly pish but fringo will like it because it involves me falling asleep and nearly missing my flight. (Thplinth needs to come back there for a while to be swaddled in the special love we all have.He has a vague memory of liking me but by Christ he’s fighting it!

I cant be saved G-man. I like you but I disagree with you... a lot. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I just re-read the post and no I did not. 

"Re’ Alex Salmond I’ve stayed clear because it’s hard to separate common sense, brain, and emotion, heart when anything is levelled at someone you not only admire but also like. I don’t wish to compare the actual allegations but the situation it reminds me of is The Who and Pete Townsend and Gary Glitter. I have friends who still go to Who gigs, listen to their music and would buy anything new but would cheer to hear the news of Gary Glitters death. So is it okay to buy pictures of children being raped if you produce quality music but not if you dress in glittery jumpsuits and shout your songs about gangs? Personally my hypocrisy shows when I can spend whole days watching Woody Allen films but sneer whenever I see a Roman Polanski film.."

C'mon G-man that is fucked up shit. You are cleverly associating an innocent (until proven guilty) person with many mega-proven pedophiles and you are way too smart to do it by accident. 

As God is my witness I did not mean to cast him in the same light. I don’t want to say this in case it sounds crass or I don’t know what exactly. I really like Alex Salmond, I’ve never ever thought him smug and never understood Independence supporters who seemed partly blame him or his personality after the loss. I don’t think he’s ever come away with a statement without the acknowledgement and agreement of Nicola Sturgeon, even the ones where people have thought or accused him of shit stirring. But my problem is I believe he’s innocent based on nothing else but my admiration and like for him and as a woman (albeit one who’s deeply in touch with her masculine side) that’s hard to admit. So I’m 100% sure I didn’t mean, even on a subconscious level, to associate him with the guilty. Thank you for thinking I’m smart, you’re wrong but it’s just deepened my love for you. 

3 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I cant be saved G-man. I like you but I disagree with you... a lot. :)

I love you because I know it pisses you off. 😘

(It’s good we disagree, that’s what caused the problems with me and Tom Cruise, we agreed on too much. He thought I was a wee fat annoying Glaswegian fud and I agreed. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I just re-read the post and no I did not. 

"Re’ Alex Salmond

someone you not only admire but also like.

Hey thplinth. Good to see you back.

I’ve re-read the post too and I read it different. Seems to me that G-Man is referring to how other people associate innocent (until proven guilty) with proven paedophiles.

But both of you are smarterer than me so I’ll leave you to it 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bobster said:

-

Okay I love you too but not when you’re in those bowfing see through boxers. (NIADW and now also NSTD)  🧐☺️😊

I may have cocked up by using paedophiles when I was trying to make a case for people’s views on innocent or guilty based purely on our feelings for the person.  I’m struggling to think of cases involving high profile accused involving only adults. I know there’s been a few involving footballers but I’ve neither liked nor particularly ‘known’  the footballers so they haven’t meant as much to me. That’s why I used the cases I used in original post. I now realise that may be why I felt my post had been misread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been very saddened by the overall reaction to these accusations, not by the people who dislike Salmond (of which there are many it seems), their reaction was entirely predictable, but by the folk who did like him.

Quote

 

When They Decide to Get You

Alex Salmond’s jeopardy has caused me a dreadful shudder of recognition and empathy. I too was accused of hideous offences under a civil service disciplinary code and barred from taking any action to defend myself. I was not allowed to speak to anybody at all about the charges, and particularly not allowed to know the identity of my accusers, or to organise witnesses in my defence – which appears the exact procedure which Alex Salmond now, with absolute justice, complains of. These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth.

As with Alex Salmond, some of the accusations against me were hideous – offering visas in exchange for sex, for example. They were so hideous that the mental anguish of not being permitted to take any normal steps to defend myself caused me a mental breakdown. I know what Salmond must be feeling. I received psychiatric treatment in St Thomas’ Hospital for a condition called “learnt helplessness” – meaning it was the dreadful experience of having things done to me which I was not permitted to take any normal steps to counter, which caused my clinical depression.

The charges against me were entirely fake and entirely vexatious, even malicious, issued after I had objected to British complicity in torture in the “War on Terror”, which the government denied at the time, calling me a liar, though now admits. The charges were designed to destroy my reputation. You can read the full story in my book “Murder in Samarkand”, widely available in libraries. I believe it conveys the anguish that “learnt helplessness” can cause.

To be plain, I was told not to reveal the existence of the charges to anybody at all and specifically forbidden from contacting witnesses. Nevertheless the charges were such obvious nonsense they eventually collapsed and I was found not guilty of all eighteen charges – but found guilty of breaking the order to keep the charges secret, in organising my defence. Not keeping the charges secret is the only disciplinary offence of which I was ever convicted.

The extreme Kafkaesque nature of this is only increased by the fact that the government themselves had revealed the charges in the widest possible manner, by leaking them to the Daily Mail, in the effort to permanently ruin my reputation. A number of the charges were sexual, such as having a secret flat to entertain prostitutes – again, totally untrue, but great for the tabloids. The use of false sexual allegations to destroy threats to the political elite is routinely deployed – Alex Salmond joins Julian Assange, Tommy Sheridan (whose recent court victories against the Murdoch press went totally unreported), Scott Ritter and myself among recent victims of this tactic.

There is one important difference between Alex Salmond’s case and my own – I requested several times that my case be referred for police investigation but the FCO refused, whereas the Salmond allegations have been referred. The case of Michelle Thomson, the entirely innocent former MP whose career was deliberately destroyed by Police Scotland keeping an investigation open for years into simple matters that could have been cleared up in a week, makes this a limited comfort. I don’t doubt we will see years of this nonsense against Salmond before it is finally dismissed.

“Safe” members of the establishment elite can conduct the most blatant of crimes and never get prosecuted at all. The late Tessa Jowell engaged repeatedly and personally in blatant money laundering of crooked Berlusconi funds that would have had anyone but a senior politician locked up. Amber Rudd was a Director of a share ramping scheme that ripped off hundreds of investors. Michelle Mone is currently engaged in a Ponzi scheme badly disguised as a crypto-currency. None of those will be prosecuted.

I would suggest that the financial affairs of the vast majority of the wealthy and powerful would not stand up to close investigation and scrutiny. But in the normal course of events the powerful are shielded from such scrutiny. Paul Manafort’s financial dealings would have been actionable at any time in the last few decades. It is only when caught in the mass fishing expedition of the Mueller “Russiagate” investigation that he gets convicted – for matters nothing to do with the ostensible reason for the investigation. Which is not to say the convictions are a bad thing, just that if you scratch below the surface of any multi-millionaire or any friend of the powerful, you will be able to convict them. They should all be scratched, not just those whom other wealthy individuals regard as a threat to the political order.

Prosecution is not happening in the Manafort case from motives of preventing financial impropriety of the rich – 99.9% of that is overlooked, all the time. It is happening because for some reason the neo-conservative Establishment in the United States continue to see Donald Trump as a threat. What I do not understand is why they see Trump as a threat to Establishment interests, as he has given no indication he means to follow through on any of his anti-establishment or non-interventionist campaign rhetoric. The Establishment are not those who should feel threatened by Trump.

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/08/when-they-decide-to-get-you/

As you yourself said G-man...

"What I’m trying to say, badly, is it doesn’t matter what happens now I think politically he’s finished. If he’s found guilty as accused his supporters will cry “stitch up” and if he’s cleared his enemies will cry “stitch up”."

This is why I think you have to be very suspicious of what is happening to Salmond right now. I don't claim to know one way or the other but I sure as fuck am highly skeptical at this point. They tied his hands with these " Kafkaesque" rules and then leaked the accusations to the press. It stinks of a set-up but of course it will takes years to come out if so and the damage is done in the meantime.

I don't consider independence a viable possibility at this point (and had zero thoughts about a Salmond come back, he is too nice anyway to win it) but I do feel very aggrieved that this guy who steered us quite brilliantly to indyref1 (IMHO) and who conducted an honorable dignified campaign despite the opposition behaving atrociously has now been successfully smeared. The SNP supporters seem to accept this 'no smoke without fire' line with the same passive attitude they had instantly accepting the NO vote even when it was clearly obvious the opposition knew the result at one second past the polls closing.

I cant help thinking of that saying... with friends like this he does not need enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...