Jim Beem Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Strong and interesting statement from Cherry. I hope this is the end of Sturgeon. Ludicrous waste of time and money, how can it go to a criminal case when it didnt even get through a civil case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Nicola will be gone before the coronavirus is, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 On 3/9/2020 at 5:08 PM, Caledonian Craig said: And where are Ted Heath and that other eminent Tory supporter Jimmy Savile in that sequence of photos? Surely Salmond will be seeing this rag in court very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 I have been following the trial on and off and was interested to see the difference made when Craig Murray was reporting, relative to the mainstream media. It seemed to me that the MSM headlines always emphasised the charges over the defence arguments. Most of the reports seemed to be "Salmond accused of X" or else "Salmond denied X." - in each case emphasising the connection to the alleged crimes X. If you only ever read the mainstream/Unionist press, it's no wonder that so many comments are saying things like "Really?" or "Surprising verdict". A few things struck me today, - how soon the verdict was reached; how it would have been easy for the jury to make more or all of the charges "not proven" (if they sort of thought he did it but couldn't prove it, or shied from putting him in jail) - but that only happened once; and a point made by Wings over Scotland, that if it's true the prosecution went fishing for evidence down the years, it's surprising that no evidence came from Westminster - all those years of living and working in London (where, remember, journalists have successfully trawled for and found indiscretions among other SNP MPs) - they didn't find any independent accusers there - or anywhere. So now the boot is on the other foot - not only any of the accusers colluding in perjury, but all those who made defamatory accusations right through the trail and before and after... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Jim Beem said: Ludicrous waste of time and money, how can it go to a criminal case when it didnt even get through a civil case Two totally different cases about totally different things. The civil case was a judicial review into the process carried out by the SG in their investigation, it was nothing to do with any of the allegations. In fact the Scottish Government investigation only covered two complaints and I've no idea if these were even amongst those that went to court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Beem Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 34 minutes ago, aaid said: Two totally different cases about totally different things. The civil case was a judicial review into the process carried out by the SG in their investigation, it was nothing to do with any of the allegations. In fact the Scottish Government investigation only covered two complaints and I've no idea if these were even amongst those that went to court. Second paragraph, fair enough. 👍 Cant agree with your first though bit of a stretch IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 (edited) Interesting that some pro-Salmond sympathisers are gunning for Sturgeon as she must have been complicit in pushing the allegations, while anti-SNP critics are gunning for Sturgeon as she must have been trying to cover them up! Edited March 23, 2020 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccaughey85 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 1 hour ago, exile said: Interesting that some pro-Salmond sympathisers are gunning for Sturgeon as she must have been complicit in pushing the allegations, while anti-SNP critics are gunning for Sturgeon as she must have been trying to cover them up! Everybody seems to think she was behind this, is there clear evidence she was involved. I think she was just trying to be fair and be impartial so that justice could be done. Was sturgeon one of the accusers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 34 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said: Everybody seems to think she was behind this, is there clear evidence she was involved. I think she was just trying to be fair and be impartial so that justice could be done. Was sturgeon one of the accusers? Sturgeon seems way too canny to get involved directly or indirectly in something so cack-handed as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Yeah so that is why it is why everyone around her then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccaughey85 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, thplinth said: Yeah so that is why it is why everyone around her then. Are you suggesting it's her behind this whole case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 2 hours ago, mccaughey85 said: Everybody seems to think she was behind this, is there clear evidence she was involved. I think she was just trying to be fair and be impartial so that justice could be done. Was sturgeon one of the accusers? I don't know, and was not implying she was. My guess would be that faced with the allegations, her instinct was to listen to the complaints and support her staff/colleagues (or whoever they are) and be seen to follow due process, even if it put her mentor in a difficult position. Rather than be actively plotting. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted March 23, 2020 Author Share Posted March 23, 2020 3 hours ago, mccaughey85 said: Everybody seems to think she was behind this, is there clear evidence she was involved. I think she was just trying to be fair and be impartial so that justice could be done. Was sturgeon one of the accusers? If she was an accuser, wouldn't people have spotted her missing while attending court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted April 5, 2020 Author Share Posted April 5, 2020 Looks as if Wings over Scotland has reported a bunch of unionist newspaper journalists to the police and Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal service implying contempt of court. https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-poisoned-pens/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Interesting stuff. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/04/information-wars/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 In what would be the least surprising news of the day, Craig Murray has been charged with contempt of court over his reporting of the Salmond trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 Probably be sharing a cell with Assange soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave78 Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 2 hours ago, aaid said: In what would be the least surprising news of the day, Craig Murray has been charged with contempt of court over his reporting of the Salmond trial. Do we know yet the detail of what he revealed that the newspapers already hadn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 Well I read all of Craig Murray's reporting on the trial and I was not able to really pinpoint any of the accusers. Sure I had a few suspects but I really cant say who they were based on his articles. Can anyone quote what they think was the alleged contempt of court? The only time I think I was able to nail one accuser down for sure was when Wings reported all those MSM journalists for identifying one of them as an attendee at a meeting with NS and AS on a certain specific date. Apparently that made it easy to identify one of them. So will all of them be getting accused of contempt as well I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dave78 said: Do we know yet the detail of what he revealed that the newspapers already hadn't? I've no idea and for pretty obvious reasons I doubt that will ever be in the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 It's a shambles loads of newspapers had an article which easily allowed the identification of one of the accusers, and nothing is done and it was reported multiple times. Again it's all to do with maintaining the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 (edited) From recollection the closest Murray got was saying that 8 out of the 12 accusers were from NS's "inner circle". That was important to report at the time to make sense of AS's defense lawyer saying there had been a conspiracy from within the SNP's upper echelons to keep AS from coming back into politics. He really had to report that IMHO but we will see how the judges view it (I think I read on his blog that contempt is a judges only trial.) At most it gave you a basket of people who might be an accuser assuming you knew who saw NS regularly enough to qualify as a member of her "inner circle". I did not. I tried and I was not able to say who any of them were with any level of certainty. I have a few suspects but that was from the previous judicial review fiasco. So hopefully they have a hard time proving this as I don't think he actually crossed over the line and his reporting was invaluable compared to the one sided shite in the MSM. No doubt a crowd funding page coming to help with legal fees... Edited April 24, 2020 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 James Doleman actually tweeted out a name of one of the accusers or so i'm told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 (edited) I think it is one of these funny things whereby if you already knew who the accusers were anyway (by being already hooked into the SNP for example) then it would have felt like Murray was identifying them with the jigsaw bits of information. He might have thrown out the odd piece of the jigsaw but nowhere near enough to pin any of them down for sure IMHO. I say that because I genuinely did not know who they were and tried my bestest to work it out and I don't think you can based on Murray (or Wing's) posts. (Yes on Wings reporting others but not on anything he directly said at the time). Edited April 24, 2020 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 32 minutes ago, Dave78 said: Do we know yet the detail of what he revealed that the newspapers already hadn't? Yes, he reported on witness testimony for the defence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.