So, Mr Salmond

Who was it trying to set him up?

It prompted immediate recriminations and demands for resignations within the SNP, which Salmond’s allies and opposition parties said now faced profound questions over its handling of the case.

The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians.

And I guess that idea that we must always believe the woman needs to be put to one side at least occasionally.

40 thoughts on “So, Mr Salmond”

  1. We are being asked to believe that 9 people were involved in fitting Salmond up and not one leaked to the MSM. Highly unlikely.

  2. Perhaps these nine women organised JFK’s assasination and filmed the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot footage in 1967, they sure can keep a secret…

  3. Tim, you will find better information over at Craig Murray’s blog (inc previous posts).

    Yes, rabid socialist I know, but very good on other stuff

  4. The Savile /Yewtree hysteria wasn’t a “conspiracy”–save to the extent shite like Treason May at the HO and her creature Saunders at the CPS WERE following a plan to marx-fem attack men in general.

    Once the turd of one false accusation is dropped in the pond lots of flies are attracted by the stench. Blubottles routinely “trawl” for more victims –always mentioning criminal compo and ensuring that –if no one else–gold-digging female psychopaths will always show up.

    In the case of the kind of stew of Marxist shite attached to an evil gang of left-scum like the SNP,9 female mental cases is a likely low number.

  5. It is always possible that they were telling the truth and there were some SNP diehards on the jury.
    It goes much further than that.
    If Farage was libelled, would he get a fair trial of the matter? To be fair, would Corbyn?
    Does anyone think a jury of mostly Islamists will convict many muslim terrorists? Of course, there is jury vetting, but if you can fool the people who are employed to ‘dereadicalise’ you over months, I’m pretty sure you can slip past a few cursory checks (esp if the people conducting the checks are also Islamists).
    This is why we had Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. Juries work when you are one nation essentially pulling together.
    We are very much no longer one nation essentially pulling together.

  6. Craig Murray is a fucking nutjob.

    The previous day’s rambling nonsense is predicated on Murray’s belief that Dixons Carphone has gone bankrupt (it hasn’t, it is closing its Carphone Warehouse shops) and contains random barbs against David Ross, a major shareholder who has not been involved with the company for more than a decade.

    Of course Murray might be on the nail about the SNP, but I don’t really care about infighting amongst the porridge wogs, unless it is entertaining…

  7. The patterns of false accusations are also well-established Interested and this one has most of them. Years after the events/ large number of women/claims of brazen behaviours/ he said, she said–no other evidence etc, ad nauseum.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    Maybe all this believe the victim and other #metoo stuff has led women to genuinely believe what was once thought of as being the actions of a creep and best stay out of his way really is tantamount to sexual assault.

    Rational human being have’t received the memo and if they did they filed it in the round thing in the corner, the police and Procurator Fiscal (CPS) fell for it hook, line and sinker.

  9. The not proven one – was that the charge where he said accuser Ms H was not even at the dinner with the Cleb?

    That was a weird one for me. H said it happened after they went to dinner with actor Cleb. Cleb said H was there, but in a police interview – not called as witness for some reason. Defence on the other hand had H’s friend up (went to wedding reception) in the box. She was there (not disputed) say no H wasn’t there that night. Looks to me that H/police muffed up the night in question and defence team say well we’ll fight it on much easier to establish facts rather interpretations. – would be ironic if that lead to the not proven verdict.

    So did they came up with not proven for the one where there was actually an alibi rather than you know an interpretation of intent. – i’m sure with the court mockers off- find out who the cleb is and see how they remember things.
    p.s my guess Brian Cox.

  10. The Pedant-General

    Except that tehy did have the civil service chap saying that did check rosters to ensure that women were not left alone with him. There’s a hell of a lot of smoke about, is all.

  11. “The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians”

    I thought even the “government officials” were actually SNP political appointees – Spads and suchlike.

  12. I thought he was probably guilty of at least some of the charges, as I didn’t believe 9 (previously it was reported to be 10) women would lie about 14 counts of sexual assault and attempted rape.

    The speed with which the jury disposed of the allegations suggests the case against him was as strong as a papier mache swimming costume.

    Wtf is going on in Scotland anyway? Looks like hatchet-faced bitches and flamboyant homosexuals have completely taken over politics.

  13. There is also, I think, the effect of re-remembering events and re-interpreting them.

    Some event dismissed at the time for what it was is given a different interpretation.

    “You look lovely today” accompanied by a hug is interpreted at the time as “he thinks I look lovely today and has given me a hug”

    Two years later and under the ‘guidance’ of some Feminazi, it becomes “he was definitely trying it on with me”

  14. T PG – yeah but the defence produced a female civil servant left alone with him, late at night at Bute Hse on her lonesome, regularly, for years, who never had an inkling of an issue or a policy. So you know, not a slam dunk having a civil servant say they considered something, or even they decided to do something. (however i would say only those present would be even in a position to speculate/guess whether attractiveness had anything to do with it perhaps the policy was more nuanced)- but nevertheless – The defence witness was a civil servant, worked with him all the time. Never heard of the policy, never had an issue.

  15. The Pedant-General

    Hallowed Be
    Fair enough. Bet she was some kind of ferocious battleaxe though. 🙂

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    OT

    @Bongo, I know we said 2pm but I’m happy to concede and that’s one bet I’m pleased I lost. I’d like to think its because the social distancing mostly worked but I suspect its more a testing and reporting issue.

    Sadly it doesn’t mean the problem has gone away.

    PS I added the ÂŁ10 to the donation I was going to make next month (brought forward) when I distribute the money I would have paid for the Economist subscription I let let lapse a couple of years ago.

  17. If you accept the verdicts, and I do, then there is clear evidence of perjury.
    If no action is taken on that, trials will cease to have a purpose.

    NB Anyone know what happened to the proposed perjury case against the woman who made up the Kavanagh stuff?
    Remember: “I don’t know where the party was held, or what date, or how I got there, or how I got home, but I entered a room where there were 5 men who I had never met before, they attacked me, and I immediately recognised both of them”. That woman.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    I don’t know about the Kavanagh case but I was listening to Steven Elliott talk about why he’s suing Moira Donegan over his inclusion in the the “Shitty Men” list as a rapist recently. He’s no getting pilloried for that as well! His thinks he’s got a good case and is currently in discovery.

  19. Looks like hatchet-faced bitches and flamboyant homosexuals have completely taken over politics.

    You don’t just mean in Scotland, do you, Steve?

  20. “There is also, I think, the effect of re-remembering events and re-interpreting them.”

    Yup. Make a pass at a woman and she’s flattered (all women desire to be desired), even if she rejects you, because she believes you think she’s special. Once she discovers you have made similar passes at her friends and colleagues, she’s offended because she realises that you didn’t think she was special and she assumes you thought she was merely the type who would…

    Thus do women re-intrepret sexual history…

  21. Isolated porridge wog

    @Steve, 0948

    “The speed with which the jury disposed of the allegations suggests the case against him was as strong as a papier mache swimming costume.”

    Remember that up here there are 15 on the jury and a minimum of 8 is needed for a verdict. The jury will discuss each charge but essentially votes on a verdict for each charge. It is NOT necessary to convince all jury members of the verdict for each charge (cf down south where unanimity of 12 is sought, 10 maybe allowed by the judge).

    AIUI, this is also the reason for keeping 3 verdicts (guilty, not guilty, not proven = “mebbe’s aye, mebbe’s naw”). Voting on binary verdicts might give too much scope for rigging, miscarriages, etc.

    I also noted that nippy sweetie said we should accept the jury’s verdicts – through gritted teeth, I thought.

  22. Did seem a rather botched up affair, also may have run into the problem of the public not agreeing with the CPS interpretation of sexual assault. One was that he put his hand on a woman’s leg in the back of a car while her husband was sat in the front, something that made her feel uncomfortable.
    Now definitely not gentlemanly behaviour, but some may balk at being asked to find someone guilty of sexual assault vs just being a slimy dick.

  23. Surreptitious Evil

    I thought even the “government officials” were actually SNP political appointees – Spads and suchlike.

    Nope. A number of them were but most are career civil servants. I’m waiting for the briefing from Nicola Central.

  24. “…some may balk (sic) at being asked to find someone guilty of sexual assault vs just being a slimy dick.”

    Scotland may have its own thing, I do not know, but my experience of sexual assault prosecutions in England was that overwhelmingly they concerned slimy dickedness*: Saddos having a quick grope.

    The problem was, as far as I could see, that juries generally refused to convict, knowing as they did of the sheer scale of opprobrium to follow (‘sex offender’ etc.), for the sake of seven seconds of creepiness.

    Like those 19th century juries which refused to convict for defacing Westminster bridge, where the penalty was, um, death.

    * I can, however, think of one case where the only explanation was that the jury was Kentish. So to speak. Actually, come to think of it, there was a couple of others which defied understanding.

  25. BNic,

    “One was that he put his hand on a woman’s leg in the back of a car while her husband was sat in the front, something that made her feel uncomfortable.”

    According to Craig Murrays’ account, the ministerial vehicle in question had a fixed armrest containing a telephone between the two, making any hand / knee related hanky panky very unlikely without being spotted.

    Many of the other allegations were similarly unlikely and uncorroborated.

  26. According to Craig Murrays’ account, the ministerial vehicle in question had a fixed armrest containing a telephone between the two, making any hand / knee related hanky panky very unlikely without being spotted.

    Many of the other allegations were similarly unlikely and uncorroborated.

    Agreed. But note also that this is not just “Craig Murrays’ account” – it’s the evidence presented in court, on which the jury (which included 9 women, from anti-nationalist Edinburgh) based their verdict.

    Could it be that the levers of power were and are are being manipulated by a bunch of folks, pretending to be “Nationalists”, who’s nice taxpayer funded income stream depends on independence not happening.
    And therefore very happy to band together to “set up” an inconvenient actual nationalist?

    To quote Murray “That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.”

    I recommend checking back on his blog in coming days…

  27. My take on it is that Wee Eck is lucky to be a free man given Rolf Harris is doing time (or has he been released now?) on evidence that was far more flimsy than in these cases. My guess is an SNP jury that would have refused to convict even if he’d been caught absolutely red handed.

  28. Wonder how much some of the complainants (as BBC is referring to them) admitting they were more worried about bad press during the independence campaign and helped cover it up made the jury think they couldn’t have been that serious an offence to start with or that they were complicit in some way and it’s was now to late to be changing their mind

  29. Meant to add, to what extent might a jury decide that weighing it up and choosing not to say something at the time because of the independence campaign was actually a form of consent.
    It’s not as if we are talking coercion, fear of violent reprisals where there is no choice, they had a choice of sorts.

  30. Jim–Rolf is out.

    He pushed on with his appeal despite being threatened with a second trial with a second batch of bullshiters.

    So they gave him a 2nd trial and warmed up the next 7 mental cases on the list but left out of the orig trial.

    Unfortunately Plod had ranked the list with the most “credible” at the top –now gone in the first trial.

    Despite the fact that it should be easy to convict a man on more charges when he has already been jailed for similar charges the 7 cases all flopped. He was cleared of 3 or 4 and the Jury could not agree on a verdict for the others–likely because they were COUGH,COUGH-bullshit.

    Their ploy gone and a v bad result for Plod with an appeal of the orig pending. So they offered Rolf a deal –release now in exchange for no more legal action on his part. At 80+ I expect Rolf was just glad to get the fuck out and avoid poor Max Clifford’s fate. Revenge on Plod would be sweet but not worth the risk of a backfire and death in jail.

  31. “the complainants (as BBC is referring to them)”: what a puzzle. Why would they refer to them thus?

    Did they earlier refer to them as “victims”?

  32. Gareth – I’m not saying it wasn’t an iffy stitch up, but seems a trop too far for craig and ilk to declare confidently it’s an iffy stitch up by the unionist wing of the SNP. They love their no true scot nat gatekeeping as much as they love their porridge.

  33. @Interested

    Interesting view. Diplock – RC Judge next door but 1 murdered (shot) by IRA, wife and three <10 children moved to GB

    In this case, Jury make-up irrelevant, the 'victim' testimonies were as pathetically weak as Weinstein trial. Good that UK public/jury rejecting #metoo agenda

    'Salmond touched my knee in his bedroom, then I went back and he did it again.' – 'victim' bitter Salmond didn't want her as his mistress?

    @Tim the Coder

    +1 on Perjury

  34. If we’re talking about Max Clifford, something has always puzzled me: if he was so good at PR, why did everyone think he was a cunt?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *