Your Man in Saughton Jail - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Your Man in Saughton Jail


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, aaid said:

I mean seriously, what did he expect it to be like?

Maybe he believed all the Daily Mail readers who thing it is a cushy number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disgraceful that he was sent to prison.  The whole business stinks.  Was he a danger to society? I hardly think so.  Would an open prison not have been a better option, or better still admonition and a warning?  Worrying that the establishment seems to target indy supporters - can you imagine what lengths they would go to if indy was becoming imminent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Disgraceful that he was sent to prison.  The whole business stinks.  Was he a danger to society? I hardly think so.  Would an open prison not have been a better option, or better still admonition and a warning?  Worrying that the establishment seems to target indy supporters - can you imagine what lengths they would go to if indy was becoming imminent?

If you believe the whole StuAnon conspiracy theory then COPFS, the Judiciary, the Scottish Government and SNP leadership were all in cahoots to stitch up Alex Salmond. The judiciary of course and specifically Lady Dorrian weren’t part of this conspiracy at the time of the Salmond case, in fact Lady Dorrian was used to support those arguments, she only became an “enemy of the people” when she convicted Murray.  Which only goes to show how big a load of bollocks that all is.

I’m not sure what other examples you have of the establishment targeting Indy Supporters but would be interested to know.

Another thing, given that a number of the complainers in this case were/ active in the SNP- and could reasonably considered to be Indy Supporters - and that Murray sought to breach their rights to anonymity, you could reasonably argue that this case was actually supporting the rights of Indy Supporters.

If the courts really wanted to damage the Indy movement, I don’t think they’d have convicted Murray, I suspect they were more concerned/ pissed off at him wilfully breaching a court order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come the likes of Dani Garavelli weren't prosecuted for their jigsaw identification of some of the folk involved?  There's just one example.  The folk who ended up in trouble were all from the Yes side of the argument.  When you use words like "StuAnon" it's clear you're drinking from the Pete Wishart cool aid.  The mainstream media coverage of the Salmond trial was an utter disgrace, slanted and corrupt. That includes BBC Scotland and that evil cow Kirsty Wark with her ridiculously one sided hatchet job after the verdict.

My point is not actually about the Salmond case; it's that an old man was put in jail for something that should at worst have got him a nominal punishment.  It comes across as just plain malicious and out of all proportion to the alleged crime.  meanwhile the proven liars amongst the witnesses continue to be given the opportunity to continue to snipe at Salmond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alibi said:

How come the likes of Dani Garavelli weren't prosecuted for their jigsaw identification of some of the folk involved?  There's just one example.  The folk who ended up in trouble were all from the Yes side of the argument.  When you use words like "StuAnon" it's clear you're drinking from the Pete Wishart cool aid.  The mainstream media coverage of the Salmond trial was an utter disgrace, slanted and corrupt. That includes BBC Scotland and that evil cow Kirsty Wark with her ridiculously one sided hatchet job after the verdict.

My point is not actually about the Salmond case; it's that an old man was put in jail for something that should at worst have got him a nominal punishment.  It comes across as just plain malicious and out of all proportion to the alleged crime.  meanwhile the proven liars amongst the witnesses continue to be given the opportunity to continue to snipe at Salmond.

Whether or not other people should be prosecuted is irrelevant whataboutery and you can’t divorce Murray from the Salmond case as his prosecution stems directly from it.

The fact you talk about proven liars is telling,  No-one has been charged with perjury let alone found guilty.

Do you believe there was a high level conspiracy to convict Salmond on false and perjured evidence?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

Whether or not other people should be prosecuted is irrelevant whataboutery and you can’t divorce Murray from the Salmond case as his prosecution stems directly from it.

The fact you talk about proven liars is telling,  No-one has been charged with perjury let alone found guilty.

Do you believe there was a high level conspiracy to convict Salmond on false and perjured evidence?

 

It's not whataboutery at all.  It's some folk getting away with jigsaw identification and others being arrested and charged.  He was the only person to report on the defence case - the mainstream media completely ignored the defence part of the trial, which doesn't sound like even-handed reporting to me.  I use the phrase "proven liars" because when someone says they are somewhere on a certain date and several witnesses say they weren't, someone is lying.

I'm open minded on the "conspiracy" theory, but the whole business does look very like someone creating a disciplinary procedure specifically to get a particular person.  Let's see if the procedure is ever used again.

I think the FM's days are numbered because she refuses to push the indy cause when she should be giving it more prominence.  That started before Covid.  I also have deep suspicions about the British state's involvement within the SNP.  If they don't have plants within the party, they've not been doing their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alibi said:

It's not whataboutery at all.  It's some folk getting away with jigsaw identification and others being arrested and charged.  He was the only person to report on the defence case - the mainstream media completely ignored the defence part of the trial, which doesn't sound like even-handed reporting to me.  I use the phrase "proven liars" because when someone says they are somewhere on a certain date and several witnesses say they weren't, someone is lying.

On the first point it's the dictionary definition of whataboutery.   In respect of Dani Garavelli, I've asked numerous people who go down this line exactly which article is supposed to be in question.  Not asking for someone to point out the specific details that are supposed to be jigsaw ID, because that in itself is jigsaw ID.   I've never had a response from anyone.  Maybe you can point me in the direction as you seem to be so certain.

Two people having a differing recollection of events doesn't prove one of them is lying.

Put it this way if I say I was somewhere and you say you were there as well and didn't see me, it doesn't mean either of us were lying and I wasn't there.  I could've been there but you didn't see me because I was in a different room or before or after you left.  All it means is you didn't see me there.

What is does do though is put a doubt into people's minds - in this case a jury - as to what are the accurate course of events and they will use that in their deliberations.

FWIW, I have doubts over the veracity of the complainer in this case but the devil I think is in the detail and I couldn't hand on heart say that it meant someone was lying, all you can say for certain is that there is conflicting evidence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, aaid said:

On the first point it's the dictionary definition of whataboutery.   In respect of Dani Garavelli, I've asked numerous people who go down this line exactly which article is supposed to be in question.  Not asking for someone to point out the specific details that are supposed to be jigsaw ID, because that in itself is jigsaw ID.   I've never had a response from anyone.  Maybe you can point me in the direction as you seem to be so certain.

Two people having a differing recollection of events doesn't prove one of them is lying.

Put it this way if I say I was somewhere and you say you were there as well and didn't see me, it doesn't mean either of us were lying and I wasn't there.  I could've been there but you didn't see me because I was in a different room or before or after you left.  All it means is you didn't see me there.

What is does do though is put a doubt into people's minds - in this case a jury - as to what are the accurate course of events and they will use that in their deliberations.

FWIW, I have doubts over the veracity of the complainer in this case but the devil I think is in the detail and I couldn't hand on heart say that it meant someone was lying, all you can say for certain is that there is conflicting evidence.

 

Deflection writ large there.  On the specific question of whether or not that person - I think known as Woman H, so for inclusiveness I should probably say no certainty whether it's a woman or a woman with male bits obviously -  more than one witness testified that at a dinner of about a dozen people at most, the individual mentioned was not there.  I would say that's pretty damning.  You might not notice at the time that somebody wasn't there, but pretty certain if you were asked if they WERE there, you'd know that they hadn't been.  I think you're trying too hard to push the party line.  Given that the FM has pretty much said that she thinks the jury's verdict was wrong, maybe no surprise.

Edited by Alibi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Deflection writ large there.  On the specific question of whether or not that person - I think known as Woman H, so for inclusiveness I should probably say no certainty whether it's a woman or a woman with male bits obviously -  more than one witness testified that at a dinner of about a dozen people at most, the individual mentioned was not there.  I would say that's pretty damning.  You might not notice at the time that somebody wasn't there, but pretty certain if you were asked if they WERE there, you'd know that they hadn't been.  I think you're trying too hard to push the party line.  Given that the FM has pretty much said that she thinks the jury's verdict was wrong, maybe no surprise.

So you’re wrong there again.  The dinner in question only consisted of three or four people.  Salmond, Ken Stott - who couldn’t give evidence because of COVID but said he couldn’t remember much about it, the woman , whose name I can’t remember but gave evidence for the defence and says there was only the three of them and possibly Woman H.  When I said the devil is in the detail, IIRC, the alleged incident took place after the dinner and if I could be arsed to go back and check I think there was some suggestion she came in later.

I see you can’t or won’t answer the question about Dani Garavelli either.

Which blogger is it that you’re swallowing their line, DYOR FFS.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, aaid said:

So you’re wrong there again.  The dinner in question only consisted of three or four people.  Salmond, Ken Stott - who couldn’t give evidence because of COVID but said he couldn’t remember much about it, the woman , whose name I can’t remember but gave evidence for the defence and says there was only the three of them and possibly Woman H.  When I said the devil is in the detail, IIRC, the alleged incident took place after the dinner and if I could be arsed to go back and check I think there was some suggestion she came in later.

I see you can’t or won’t answer the question about Dani Garavelli either.

Which blogger is it that you’re swallowing their line, DYOR FFS.

 

I think you might be making stuff up now????

Samantha Barbour is the ladies name, and she categorically stated that Woman H was not at the dinner.

It was the unnamed celebrity who couldn't remember when interviewed by police. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I think you might be making stuff up now????

Samantha Barbour is the ladies name, and she categorically stated that Woman H was not at the dinner.

It was the unnamed celebrity who couldn't remember when interviewed by police. 

Which is what I said other than I couldn’t remember Samantha Barbour’s name and that Ken Stott was the unnamed celebrity.

Just so we’re clear.

1. Salmond says it was a fabrication.

2. Samantha Barbour says there were only three people there

3. Ken Stott can’t remember - must have been a great night then. 

4. Woman H says the incident happened that night.

Now you’re going to make me go back and pore over the evidence again when I’ve got better things to waste my time on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This what you said. The highlighted bit is not true.

1 hour ago, aaid said:

So you’re wrong there again.  The dinner in question only consisted of three or four people.  Salmond, Ken Stott - who couldn’t give evidence because of COVID but said he couldn’t remember much about it, the woman , whose name I can’t remember but gave evidence for the defence and says there was only the three of them and possibly Woman H.  When I said the devil is in the detail, IIRC, the alleged incident took place after the dinner and if I could be arsed to go back and check I think there was some suggestion she came in later.

I see you can’t or won’t answer the question about Dani Garavelli either.

Which blogger is it that you’re swallowing their line, DYOR FFS.

 

Samantha Barber said that Woman H was not at the dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

This what you said. The highlighted bit is not true.

Samantha Barber said that Woman H was not at the dinner.

I think you’re dancing on the head of a pin.  However if there were people other than those mentioned, at the dinner would it not be fair to assume that they’d be called to confirm or refute that testimony?

edit.  
 

she said that Woman H wasn’t there *and* that there were only three people present.

 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, aaid said:

I think you’re dancing on the head of a pin.  However if there were people other than those mentioned, at the dinner would it not be fair to assume that they’d be called to confirm or refute that testimony?

edit.  
 

she said that Woman H wasn’t there *and* that there were only three people present.

 

So what did you mean by the bit in bold? To me that seems to imply that you are saying SB said she wasn't sure if Woman H was there or not. She is clear in her evidence that Woman H was not there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

So what did you mean by the bit in bold? To me that seems to imply that you are saying SB said she wasn't sure if Woman H was there or not. She is clear in her evidence that Woman H was not there. 

Ah, OK, I see what you're getting at.  I edited that part before I posted it and obviously made an arse of it because that makes no sense at all, but I think we're in agreement over the basic facts.

Anyway I did go back and check.  According to James Doleman who was in court and covering the case,

Woman H makes no mention of actually being at the meal - just that she had set this and other similar meetings up - and her testimony only focusses on what happened later on that night as well as if she'd ever been to a Metallica concert for some bizarre reason.  She mentions "after Stott left" so I guess you can assume that she was there while Stott was in the building.  Stott is unable to confirm or deny this as he has no recollection.   She doesn't mention Barber being there.  Given that she doesn't mention Barber being there and Barber specifically says that she didn't see her there, then you could draw a conclusion that one party is lying.  You could also draw a conclusion that they were there at different times, i.e. Barber left, Woman H arrived, Stott left, Woman H was alone with Salmond.

This is his report of the days proceedings.

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/09/the-trial-of-alex-salmond-i-did-not-want-this-to-happen/

And these are two  threads of his live tweets of the testimony which has more detail.
 

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1237030753634078723?s=20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 1/6/2022 at 5:36 PM, aaid said:

On the first point it's the dictionary definition of whataboutery.   In respect of Dani Garavelli, I've asked numerous people who go down this line exactly which article is supposed to be in question.  Not asking for someone to point out the specific details that are supposed to be jigsaw ID, because that in itself is jigsaw ID.   I've never had a response from anyone.  Maybe you can point me in the direction as you seem to be so certain.

 

Are allowed to even mention the article?  😵

I thought the one that caused the stushie was the one on image.jpeg.a5ddd46524dceac2efa4e35b231183bd.jpegmedia.com on 1st April 2o2o

Edited by exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2022 at 8:46 PM, ParisInAKilt said:

Cheers for posting that.

An interesting, if depressing read. 

Thanks. I just thought it interesting, for an inside view (from any journalist in that position, whoever it was).

The relation to deprivation is so stark you'd think there must be a way to target addressing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, exile said:

Are allowed to even mention the article?  😵

I thought the one that caused the stushie was the one on image.jpeg.a5ddd46524dceac2efa4e35b231183bd.jpegmedia.com on 1st April 2o2o

Well that’s what I assume they refer to but I’ve read it a number of times and can’t see anything remotely wrong with it. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aaid said:

Well that’s what I assume they refer to but I’ve read it a number of times and can’t see anything remotely wrong with it. 
 

 

I skimmed down it, I couldn't see where the issue was, I wondered if it was the right article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, exile said:

I skimmed down it, I couldn't see where the issue was, I wondered if it was the right article.

I’ve just re-read it, it was written before the inquiry so it’s actually interesting to get a perspective on what she’s saying in the light of what came out during that.

There’s literally nothing in it that comes close to identifying anyone. If I was being charitable I’d say that perhaps some think that a right to anonymity confers with it an obligation to be silent and as she interviews the original two complainers that’s somehow a breach of the order, which is obviously bollocks. 

I’ve tried to draw this out with a number of people who come up with these assertions that don’t tally with the facts and without exception they can’t tell you anything beyond the accusations and it either results in you being blocked - big deal - or ignored.  Occasionally you get an admission that they read it somewhere, generally Wings and they believe that as the holy writ.

I mean the piece absolutely eviscerates Salmond and I suspect for those who support him, that’s the real problem they have with it.  

As an aside, her son plays for Hamilton Accies. 
 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i've seen on Twatter, this seems to be the offending passage. Specifically the date of the meeting, as apparently it was publicised.

 

 

 

Screenshot_2022-01-05-15-01-20-270_com.payzone.parkingtag.jpg

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...