exile Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Lamia said: Here he is! https://www.albaparty.org/alba_draws_a_line So... while reasonably defending his own side, he spectacularly fails to acknowledge or distance himself from the original smear. Looks like a zero sum game now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 30 minutes ago, Archiesdad said: U don't half haver some shite thplinth. I am a bit worried about archie reading the vile crap you spew on here. "no touchy no case" sums you up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PapofGlencoe Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 (edited) In my experience, political people are know it alls. We probably all are to an extent. Add the zealotry of youth and the stubbornness of experience. Multiply by Twitter and they're ten times worse. There's no direction, just group think, crusades and conspiracies. Few of them remotely close to people's everyday life and struggles. Why is scottish politics zooming in on bizarre, niche theories? It's bar talk gone national news. One bad tweet and you're a demon. People hate others they've not even met, on all sides of scottish politics. A stream of content for political obsessives. It's not healthy. Even poisons the decent. I've not been "on" twitter since 2015 but I see nuance is lost more than ever. Bring back the tiresome tweetmytea wallopers, all is forgiven. A plague on all their houses. Edited April 12, 2021 by PapofGlencoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan II Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 2 hours ago, Archiesdad said: My view is . A parliament representative of the people will be respected better than one that is not. The current Scotland has a slight indy majority and a parliament showing that would be representative of the country. A parliament having a massive or even just a super majority of indy representative would not be representative. Look at what Strathclyde regional council was, a massive labour run sibolith with only a small majority of voters on a low turn out. We need to show London and the World we are serious, we are not playing games. We also need to show the new yessers, the new 20%(45%-55%) that Nicola has brought on board that we are a serious party, a serious movement that they can trust We also need to give the nawwers no get out clause. Tidy I can see you are torn at the moment, but to quote someone else,' now is not the time:' to be phannying about😊 1 +2 SNP in your region will give us Natalie and Michelle. 2 excellent candidates.👍🏴 FFS everyone if you want a referendum vote SNP 1+2. It's simple.👍🏴 If you want to gamble or play games vote some other way. Disagree. You seem sure about your position, and that's fine, but assuming your goal is ensuring a strengthening of the independence position, I think your certainty and belief is misplaced. I don't know anything for certain, but I'm favouring the idea that a regional vote for Alba is the way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 Not a great look. Has some of the history to this group, very dodgy indeed. https://sputniknews.com/uk/202104111082599323-scottish-government-funded-groups-back-lobby-for-law-to-allow-sex-with-adolescents/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 13 hours ago, Orraloon said: I don't think there is an answer to that question. It would need to be tested in court. In the Martin Keatings case the courts said that they wouldn't rule on a hypothetical. 12 hours ago, aaid said: There's no legal implications to the size or composition of a majority as regards a referendum. If the same approach is taken as in 2014, then that referendum would be legal. The Scottish Parliament has the power to hold referendums - in principle - on any subject. Aspects of the constitution - including independence are reserved - so while it's agreed that Westminster would have to legislate to enable independence its an unanswered legal question as to whether the SP can hold a referendum on that reserved matter. If it comes to that, then it will be a decision for the courts to decide and that will be decided on constitutional law and not how many MSPs there are in parliament for each party. The concept of a super-majority was introduced following the changes made as part of the Smith Commission post 2014. Certain legislation requires a super-majority which requires that a minimum of 86 (two thirds) MSPs must vote for it. That's limited to aspects surrounding who gets elected to Holyrood, so things like the franchise, how many MSPs there are, the electoral system and the like. The recent legislation which extends the franchise to all people over the age of 16 who are legally resident in Scotland regardless of their nationality was the first such piece of legislation passed. The proponents of the super majority are conspicuously vague about what they think constitutes a super majority and what they would intend to do with it. The best I can gather is that they would see it as an opportunity to call another election early, should there be a failure to secure a referendum and to have that election squarely as a plebiscite on independence with the intention of going down the UDI route should that be successful. That is my best guess at what could be behind the strategy. Personally I think its pie in the sky stuff. My view is that what Alba want to be is the tail that wags the SNP dog and you can make your own mind up as to whether or not you think that is a good thing or not. The question of what size and sort of majority is most likely to secure a referendum is a political not a legal one. It's pretty straightforwards really. To a greater or lesser extent the electorate is split 50/50. In those circumstances, if there's a majority of seats for the SNP and any other Indy parties and also a majority - however slim - if the popular vote then it becomes politically very difficult for the UKG to continue to block a referendum as there is a clear and obvious desire for one. That becomes more difficult as the popular vote increases rather than the number of seats. If the majority has been manipulated by "gaming the system" then that could be used to discredit the result. In this case having say, 60% of the seats off of 55% of the vote is a much more stronger position than having 66% of the seats off of 52% of the vote. 12 hours ago, Archiesdad said: My view is . A parliament representative of the people will be respected better than one that is not. The current Scotland has a slight indy majority and a parliament showing that would be representative of the country. A parliament having a massive or even just a super majority of indy representative would not be representative. Look at what Strathclyde regional council was, a massive labour run sibolith with only a small majority of voters on a low turn out. We need to show London and the World we are serious, we are not playing games. We also need to show the new yessers, the new 20%(45%-55%) that Nicola has brought on board that we are a serious party, a serious movement that they can trust We also need to give the nawwers no get out clause. Tidy I can see you are torn at the moment, but to quote someone else,' now is not the time:' to be phannying about😊 1 +2 SNP in your region will give us Natalie and Michelle. 2 excellent candidates.👍🏴 FFS everyone if you want a referendum vote SNP 1+2. It's simple.👍🏴 If you want to gamble or play games vote some other way. Thanks for your replies. Appreciate your views on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 Anyone wanna bit of a laugh!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanderark14 Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 10 minutes ago, Lamia said: Anyone wanna bit of a laugh!! What's funny about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, vanderark14 said: What's funny about it? Nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanderark14 Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Lamia said: Nothing! OK, why post 'anyone want a laugh? Edited April 13, 2021 by vanderark14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 13, 2021 Author Share Posted April 13, 2021 10 hours ago, duncan II said: Disagree. You seem sure about your position, and that's fine, but assuming your goal is ensuring a strengthening of the independence position, I think your certainty and belief is misplaced. I don't know anything for certain, but I'm favouring the idea that a regional vote for Alba is the way forward. First of all people should vote for the parties and/or candidates that they feel can best represent their views. But if you say your goal is to strengthen the independence position I'm not sure why you think using the list vote for the Alba party is the way forwards. While there are some regions where the SNP will find it very difficult to pick up list seats if they sweep the board in the constituencies - and that is by no means a certainty - South Scotland is not one of them. The SNP will *not* win all the constituency seats. I'd say that a good result for them would be to pick up East Lothian (likely) and Ayr (possiblity) but I can't see them making any headway into the three seats the Tories hold in the borders - in the two SW constituencies what happens to the Labour vote will be key to who wins - the SNP need to peel off Labour votes to win. The best route in South of Scotland to maximise the number of pro-Indy seats is SNP1/SNP2. In other regions it could well be different but again is predicated on the SNP picking up all bar a handful of constituency seats - in that I'd be very sceptical of seat prediction websites as they apply a national swing and don't take into account local factors. I suspect the actual number of constituency seats the SNP win to be a bit fewer than the top end of current predictions. On current polling though, the Greens rather than Alba would seem to be the party more likely to translate those votes into seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamia Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 3 hours ago, vanderark14 said: OK, why post 'anyone want a laugh? Would have thought that was blindingly obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanderark14 Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 12 minutes ago, Lamia said: Would have thought that was blindingly obvious Clearly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, TDYER63 said: Thanks for your replies. Appreciate your views on the subject. Here's a reasonably concise list of reasons to consider voting for ALBA. Most of them you will already have thought about, but maybe not all at the same time. I think it's hard to argue with most of the stuff in here but I'm would imagine somebody will give it a go. https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/04/seven-good-reasons-to-vote-for-alba.html Edited April 13, 2021 by Orraloon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 Here's one for hampdenloon. I think this pretty much goes along the lines of what he has already told us. https://www.thenational.scot/news/19214033.will-leave-supporters-punish-tories-banffshire-buchan-coast/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan II Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 3 hours ago, aaid said: First of all people should vote for the parties and/or candidates that they feel can best represent their views. But if you say your goal is to strengthen the independence position I'm not sure why you think using the list vote for the Alba party is the way forwards. While there are some regions where the SNP will find it very difficult to pick up list seats if they sweep the board in the constituencies - and that is by no means a certainty - South Scotland is not one of them. The SNP will *not* win all the constituency seats. I'd say that a good result for them would be to pick up East Lothian (likely) and Ayr (possiblity) but I can't see them making any headway into the three seats the Tories hold in the borders - in the two SW constituencies what happens to the Labour vote will be key to who wins - the SNP need to peel off Labour votes to win. The best route in South of Scotland to maximise the number of pro-Indy seats is SNP1/SNP2. In other regions it could well be different but again is predicated on the SNP picking up all bar a handful of constituency seats - in that I'd be very sceptical of seat prediction websites as they apply a national swing and don't take into account local factors. I suspect the actual number of constituency seats the SNP win to be a bit fewer than the top end of current predictions. On current polling though, the Greens rather than Alba would seem to be the party more likely to translate those votes into seats. Fair enough, I didn't realise the poster was talking specifically about South Scotland. Can't be bothered checking back but don't think that was obvious? My response was due to the poster's 'certainty' that his position was right and we should all follow his direction. No other option. We must. I was arguing that there are other options, and things may not turn out the way he confidently suggested. There will be thousands of wasted SNP list votes across Scotland, even if they don't sweep the board with constituencies. People may also wish a more representative voice in the parliament, speaking from various independence-supporting viewpoints. I do. The polls, I think, are misleading. Yeah, Alba may very well not return any MSPs, but I'd like them to; I favour them over the Greens, for example. I was merely saying there existed another option, in contrast to the poster's certainty that we HAD to do it the SNP/SNP route. I was not saying my way was the only way. I personally find it distasteful the way there is so much of an entrenched position being taken, by both SNP and Alba people. I suppose that's politics. Like others here, and in real life, I suppose I was really enthusiastic about 2014 and dreamed of a better way of doing things. But politics is politics, and it's shite. I think, however, you are placing too much certainty in your own position of SNP/SNP. I think you are showing a real animosity towards Salmond, as are many in the SNP, and I don't know where it comes from, given his acquittal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Orraloon said: Here's a reasonably concise list of reasons to consider voting for ALBA. Most of them you will already have thought about, but maybe not all at the same time. I think it's hard to argue with most of the stuff in here but I'm would imagine somebody will give it a go. https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/04/seven-good-reasons-to-vote-for-alba.html I'm waiting till the economic strategy is placed by ALBA. That was Salmonds weakness (as the majority said on here in the post mortem) in 2014 on strategy. Let's see what lessons have been learned and new strategies implemented. I've not ruled out voting ALBA since Wightman is away north. As an aside is there any independence blog that does "analysis" properly. That blog reads like a buzzfeed top 7 milkshape toppings in it's depth. "not necessarily actively opposed to independence" is a belter of sentence saying nothing but implying everything. Who are these people? What is the evidence for the claim? Why does the evidence support your conclusion? What are the confounding variables that could disrupt your claim. instead we get "the top place on the SNP list in each region is held by a very mixed bag of individuals, and in some cases their Alba counterparts are obviously superior. The clearest example of all is in Lothian, where it's a no-brainer that Kenny MacAskill would be a better list MSP than Graham Campbell. " So much rot that's considered good cause the reader agrees with it. Edited April 13, 2021 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDYER63 Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 1 hour ago, Orraloon said: Here's a reasonably concise list of reasons to consider voting for ALBA. Most of them you will already have thought about, but maybe not all at the same time. I think it's hard to argue with most of the stuff in here but I'm would imagine somebody will give it a go. https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2021/04/seven-good-reasons-to-vote-for-alba.html Thanks Orraloon I will have a read 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 13, 2021 Author Share Posted April 13, 2021 27 minutes ago, duncan II said: Fair enough, I didn't realise the poster was talking specifically about South Scotland. Can't be bothered checking back but don't think that was obvious? My response was due to the poster's 'certainty' that his position was right and we should all follow his direction. No other option. We must. I was arguing that there are other options, and things may not turn out the way he confidently suggested. There will be thousands of wasted SNP list votes across Scotland, even if they don't sweep the board with constituencies. People may also wish a more representative voice in the parliament, speaking from various independence-supporting viewpoints. I do. The polls, I think, are misleading. Yeah, Alba may very well not return any MSPs, but I'd like them to; I favour them over the Greens, for example. I was merely saying there existed another option, in contrast to the poster's certainty that we HAD to do it the SNP/SNP route. I was not saying my way was the only way. I personally find it distasteful the way there is so much of an entrenched position being taken, by both SNP and Alba people. I suppose that's politics. Like others here, and in real life, I suppose I was really enthusiastic about 2014 and dreamed of a better way of doing things. But politics is politics, and it's shite. I think, however, you are placing too much certainty in your own position of SNP/SNP. I think you are showing a real animosity towards Salmond, as are many in the SNP, and I don't know where it comes from, given his acquittal. I mentioned South Scotland specifically because you live in Kilmarnock - or at least that's what your profile says. I can easily explain where my animosity towards Salmond comes from. Some of his behaviour while FM was - IMHO - totally inappropriate for someone in his position and you can limit that if you want to facts that were not disputed by either him or his defence team. His acquittal means he was innocent of any criminal behaviour, it does not mean that he was fit to be FM. We should be under no illusions, had the incidents that formed the two original complaints came to light at the time, then it would have been a resignation matter without any doubt. Had he shown any level of contrition or acceptance of the impacts and inappropriateness of his behaviour after the trial then maybe there would have been sympathy for him and an opportunity for him to rehabilitate his reputation and play some part again in the future. However, he didn't do that, instead he has directly - or indirectly through his proxies, WoS, Craig Murray, etc., - sought to attack those who complained against him and those who he feels should have made his problems disappear. You've seen a raft of increasingly wilder accusations against the FM, her husband, her CoS and the complainers themselves, none of which have stood up to any level of scrutiny. I used to have a high regard for him, now it's akin to something I'd scrape off the sole of my shoe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 13, 2021 Author Share Posted April 13, 2021 32 minutes ago, phart said: I'm waiting till the economic strategy is placed by ALBA. That was Salmonds weakness (as the majority said on here in the post mortem) in 2014 on strategy. Let's see what lessons have been learned and new strategies implemented. I've not ruled out voting ALBA since Wightman is away north. As an aside is there any independence blog that does "analysis" properly. That blog reads like a buzzfeed top 7 milkshape toppings in it's depth. "not necessarily actively opposed to independence" is a belter of sentence saying nothing but implying everything. Who are these people? What is the evidence for the claim? Why does the evidence support your conclusion? What are the confounding variables that could disrupt your claim. instead we get "the top place on the SNP list in each region is held by a very mixed bag of individuals, and in some cases their Alba counterparts are obviously superior. The clearest example of all is in Lothian, where it's a no-brainer that Kenny MacAskill would be a better list MSP than Graham Campbell. " So much rot that's considered good cause the reader agrees with it. James Kelly is normally very good and takes a logical and rational approach to polling and electoral arithmetic. However, he has such a blind spot where Salmond is concerned that he is in danger of destroying his own credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan II Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 23 minutes ago, aaid said: I mentioned South Scotland specifically because you live in Kilmarnock - or at least that's what your profile says. I can easily explain where my animosity towards Salmond comes from. Some of his behaviour while FM was - IMHO - totally inappropriate for someone in his position and you can limit that if you want to facts that were not disputed by either him or his defence team. His acquittal means he was innocent of any criminal behaviour, it does not mean that he was fit to be FM. We should be under no illusions, had the incidents that formed the two original complaints came to light at the time, then it would have been a resignation matter without any doubt. Had he shown any level of contrition or acceptance of the impacts and inappropriateness of his behaviour after the trial then maybe there would have been sympathy for him and an opportunity for him to rehabilitate his reputation and play some part again in the future. However, he didn't do that, instead he has directly - or indirectly through his proxies, WoS, Craig Murray, etc., - sought to attack those who complained against him and those who he feels should have made his problems disappear. You've seen a raft of increasingly wilder accusations against the FM, her husband, her CoS and the complainers themselves, none of which have stood up to any level of scrutiny. I used to have a high regard for him, now it's akin to something I'd scrape off the sole of my shoe. You're right, I am in Kilmarnock. I will endeavour to look into the specific situation as it develops here before making a decision. You obviously have strong feelings on it and I can respect that. But remind me, what specifically were the two original complaints that, in your eyes, were definite resignation matters (I genuinely can't remember)? From the (generally unreported) defence of Salmond it was specifically shown (was it not?) that (some of) the complainers lied under cross-examination? Can Salmond not then make accusations against people who intended to wrongfully imprison him? He has, arguably, shown some restraint in not doing so more determinedly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 42 minutes ago, aaid said: I mentioned South Scotland specifically because you live in Kilmarnock - or at least that's what your profile says. I can easily explain where my animosity towards Salmond comes from. Some of his behaviour while FM was - IMHO - totally inappropriate for someone in his position and you can limit that if you want to facts that were not disputed by either him or his defence team. His acquittal means he was innocent of any criminal behaviour, it does not mean that he was fit to be FM. We should be under no illusions, had the incidents that formed the two original complaints came to light at the time, then it would have been a resignation matter without any doubt. Had he shown any level of contrition or acceptance of the impacts and inappropriateness of his behaviour after the trial then maybe there would have been sympathy for him and an opportunity for him to rehabilitate his reputation and play some part again in the future. However, he didn't do that, instead he has directly - or indirectly through his proxies, WoS, Craig Murray, etc., - sought to attack those who complained against him and those who he feels should have made his problems disappear. You've seen a raft of increasingly wilder accusations against the FM, her husband, her CoS and the complainers themselves, none of which have stood up to any level of scrutiny. I used to have a high regard for him, now it's akin to something I'd scrape off the sole of my shoe. As usual a pile of cowardly aaid smears devoid of a scintilla of evidence or proof. Been doing it on here for years. Shit on his shoe more like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 58 minutes ago, aaid said: James Kelly is normally very good and takes a logical and rational approach to polling and electoral arithmetic. However, he has such a blind spot where Salmond is concerned that he is in danger of destroying his own credibility. That's why it's amsuing to see claims of identity politics being bad, when the some of the folk making the claims are caught up in a cult of personality situation themselves. Two sides of the same coin, no wonder they despise each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted April 13, 2021 Author Share Posted April 13, 2021 50 minutes ago, duncan II said: You're right, I am in Kilmarnock. I will endeavour to look into the specific situation as it develops here before making a decision. You obviously have strong feelings on it and I can respect that. But remind me, what specifically were the two original complaints that, in your eyes, were definite resignation matters (I genuinely can't remember)? From the (generally unreported) defence of Salmond it was specifically shown (was it not?) that (some of) the complainers lied under cross-examination? Can Salmond not then make accusations against people who intended to wrongfully imprison him? He has, arguably, shown some restraint in not doing so more determinedly? The most serious complainant was the one which has been characterised - by Salmond - as the "sleepy cuddle". That resulted in the Not Proven verdict on a charge of attempted rape. This was where he was in he'd asked a senior civil servant - after they'd been drinking - to go with him to his bedroom in Bute House to finish off some paperwork late at night. He made an advance towards her - there's a difference of opinion over how serious and how prolonged it was - he was rebuffed and backed off. The complainer raised it unofficially - there was no route at that time to raise an formal complaint - and he apologised for his behaviour. None of that is disputed. The other complaint was less serious, again I believe what's disputed was the seriousness and intent and whether it amounted to criminality. I'm not aware of any witnesses being proven to have lied in court, when that happens perjury charges tend to follow. What I have seen is a couple of things. Firstly people trying to contend that because someone is found not guilty then by definition witnesses who say otherwise are by definition lying which is obvious bollocks. That's a general theme. There's also a particular point that is contended which is where the other charge of attempted rape was alleged to have taken place in Bute House after a dinner. There's conflicting evidence as to whether or not the complainer was present or not. I've seen people claim that because a witness claimed that she wasn't there that proves that the complainer was lying. It doesn't course prove anything of the sort, nor does the complainer claiming she was there prove the contrary. It's just a case of people cherry picking the bits of evidence that suits their view and ignoring the bits which counter that. FWIW, I'm personally sceptical about that witness's evidence but you couldn't go as far to say that you thought she was lying. I'm of the opinion that it happened but that she wasn't minded to pursue it at the time for whatever reason but that she changed her mind when the two original complaints became public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan II Posted April 13, 2021 Share Posted April 13, 2021 20 minutes ago, aaid said: The most serious complainant was the one which has been characterised - by Salmond - as the "sleepy cuddle". That resulted in the Not Proven verdict on a charge of attempted rape. This was where he was in he'd asked a senior civil servant - after they'd been drinking - to go with him to his bedroom in Bute House to finish off some paperwork late at night. He made an advance towards her - there's a difference of opinion over how serious and how prolonged it was - he was rebuffed and backed off. The complainer raised it unofficially - there was no route at that time to raise an formal complaint - and he apologised for his behaviour. None of that is disputed. The other complaint was less serious, again I believe what's disputed was the seriousness and intent and whether it amounted to criminality. I'm not aware of any witnesses being proven to have lied in court, when that happens perjury charges tend to follow. What I have seen is a couple of things. Firstly people trying to contend that because someone is found not guilty then by definition witnesses who say otherwise are by definition lying which is obvious bollocks. That's a general theme. There's also a particular point that is contended which is where the other charge of attempted rape was alleged to have taken place in Bute House after a dinner. There's conflicting evidence as to whether or not the complainer was present or not. I've seen people claim that because a witness claimed that she wasn't there that proves that the complainer was lying. It doesn't course prove anything of the sort, nor does the complainer claiming she was there prove the contrary. It's just a case of people cherry picking the bits of evidence that suits their view and ignoring the bits which counter that. FWIW, I'm personally sceptical about that witness's evidence but you couldn't go as far to say that you thought she was lying. I'm of the opinion that it happened but that she wasn't minded to pursue it at the time for whatever reason but that she changed her mind when the two original complaints became public. Right, okay. But wait a minute, maybe I'm not following. If a complainant made a complaint but wasn't actually there, how can there be any other conclusion reached other than she was lying? 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.