Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Some MSPs on the investigating committee are considering quitting after government lawyers ruled out key evidence.
Show More
PP no doubt compiling a list of defamatory remarks he can post about Salmond.
His whole betting strategy has blown up - he never factored this gae changer in.
Dismissed Galloway as irrelevant, can't do that with Big Eck.
Dismissed Galloway as irrelevant, can't do that with Big Eck.
Galloway and Salmond will both be hammering down on Sturgeon in the chamber next government. She struggled against Ruth Davidson, these 2 political heavyweights (like them or not she is not in their intellectual league) will destroy her. Safest option for Sturgeon now is to resign - she can use her lying as the rationale but we would all know it's a fear resignation
no way she resigns...majority market thinking about flip flopping....the leaders debates should be something!
The only 2 I'll be tuning in for. No point in the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or Green turning up
A Galloway and Salmond attack on Sturgeon and then when she's out Galloway can get back to destroying Salmond about his daft we Indy dream again
A Galloway and Salmond attack on Sturgeon and then when she's out Galloway can get back to destroying Salmond about his daft we Indy dream again
Mar 26, 2021 -- 9:36AM, feedthepony wrote:
politicspunter will be frantically tearing up his betslips as we speak, punishing himself for not seeing this coming
Lol, as you pointed out to me yesterday I think it was, every single bet I have had so far is against the SNP 
Mar 26, 2021 -- 9:53AM, feedthepony wrote:
His whole betting strategy has blown up - he never factored this gae changer in.Dismissed Galloway as irrelevant, can't do that with Big Eck.
I refer you to my post above
This move surely hurts the greens most. Those who thought (wrongly in my opinion) that an snp/green vote was the most likely way to bring independence, may come to the conclusion that an snp/alba vote would be more effective. Thats a position more gross than my betting position on this election.
Probably the compo he will get from court.
Doubt it. I expect there will be a lack of transparency in regards to this issue
Doubt it. I expect there will be a lack of transparency in regards to this issue
Good old Alex. Red-blooded male in a world of abject wokery , snowflakeism and man-haters.
What a brilliant innovation.
And look out Evans - he's coming for you!
What a brilliant innovation.
And look out Evans - he's coming for you!
Who is going to vote for the disgusting old groper?
Maybe the people who understand he was found not guilty of all the many groping allegations.
Maybe the people who understand he was found not guilty of all the many groping allegations.
dude he freely admits his behaviour was not acceptable.
Yes but innapropraite behaviour is not the same as groping/sexually assaulting someone.
I don't like Galloway's politics, but Scotland or indeed any country with an attempt at a democracy needs opposition, ANY opposition.
He's a dick, but good luck to him.
At least he is just a socialist, which has some moral value, unlike the bitter hateful racists in the SNP.
He's a dick, but good luck to him.
At least he is just a socialist, which has some moral value, unlike the bitter hateful racists in the SNP.
I for 1 welcome this alliance.Wee Nic won't cope, the big boys are coming for her.
Time to outlaw all these groups disguised as charity's ,federations etc etc.that encourage division.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1376145627759927298
Should have played this at the Inquiry. Great character reference.
Should have played this at the Inquiry. Great character reference.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56630482
You can bet your bottom dollar the predator would have been found guilty if this option had not been available to the jury.
You can bet your bottom dollar the predator would have been found guilty if this option had not been available to the jury.
The stupidity in your post is unbelievable but not surprising given your history of defamation and putting down the Scottish legal system.
The Scottish legal system not proven verdict is clearly crap. That is why all parties wish to change it.
It is currently allowing sexual predators to escape justice.
There's nothing wrong with the not proven verdict. Its been there for hundreds of years.
Only a complete thicko, a troll (looking to run to the moderators when his stupidity is pointed out) or someone who is intent on defaming Salmond on the internet at every possible opportunity would suggest the not proven verdict "is currently allowing sexual predators to escape justice". For you all 3 apply.
Only a complete thicko, a troll (looking to run to the moderators when his stupidity is pointed out) or someone who is intent on defaming Salmond on the internet at every possible opportunity would suggest the not proven verdict "is currently allowing sexual predators to escape justice". For you all 3 apply.
ouch :) shrewd gets to the heart of the matter.
I hate liars. They are beneath contempt.
It is no coincidence that pretty much every SNP supporter on the planet has zero integrity, zero morality, and lie all the time. Not sure why I'm even mentioning that. That lying racists are beneath contempt.
I hate liars. They are beneath contempt.
It is no coincidence that pretty much every SNP supporter on the planet has zero integrity, zero morality, and lie all the time. Not sure why I'm even mentioning that. That lying racists are beneath contempt.
All political parties and everyone else clearly disagrees with you.
The only thing wrong with the not proven verdict is idiots using it to suit their agenda i.e if it didn't exist he would have been found guilty.
I don't particularly care if they do get rid of it. It's interesting to note Sturgeon only seems to have brought this up now when she is having a public feud with someone who has been subject to a 'not proven' verdict.
I doubt anyone agrees with your statement proven verdict "is currently allowing sexual predators to escape justice".
Maybe you can explain how it does? With reference in particular to Salmonds case? Should be easy since you "can bet your bottom dollar".
I don't particularly care if they do get rid of it. It's interesting to note Sturgeon only seems to have brought this up now when she is having a public feud with someone who has been subject to a 'not proven' verdict.
I doubt anyone agrees with your statement proven verdict "is currently allowing sexual predators to escape justice".
Maybe you can explain how it does? With reference in particular to Salmonds case? Should be easy since you "can bet your bottom dollar".
Sure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56630482
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56630482
I've read that article. What part are you suggesting explains how the not proven verdict "is currently allowing sexual predators to escape justice" and would have resulted in Salmond being found guilty if it didn't exist?
LOL. Still using the attack lines and lies as put out by his racist English hating little shitbag party. No matter how he's laughed at.
He's a trooper, if nothing else.
He's a trooper, if nothing else.
Shrewd, the "case was about the women and Salmond was hiding ****" is the SNP line.
Rule1 of dealing with the sort of bigots who support the SNP is to not get drawn into their games.
They have no interest in the truth. Every SNP supporter is the same: an unpleasant bigot who wants to wear you down.
Rule1 of dealing with the sort of bigots who support the SNP is to not get drawn into their games.
They have no interest in the truth. Every SNP supporter is the same: an unpleasant bigot who wants to wear you down.
The Miss M case as an example.
That isn't even an example never mind a bad one.
A Sheriff in a civil court deciding a case based on the balance of probabilities shows that 8 members of the 15 member jury in a criminal court would go from not finding a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt to finding a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt just because a not proven verdict was no longer available to them.
That isn't even an example never mind a bad one.
A Sheriff in a civil court deciding a case based on the balance of probabilities shows that 8 members of the 15 member jury in a criminal court would go from not finding a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt to finding a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt just because a not proven verdict was no longer available to them.
Actually PP you may be on to something.
Maybe you've given a good reason for the abolition of juries and beyond reasonable doubt being used as the standard for guilt in criminal justice throughout the world.
Maybe you've given a good reason for the abolition of juries and beyond reasonable doubt being used as the standard for guilt in criminal justice throughout the world.
Maybe you should contact every major political party in Scotland and tell them that their plans to end the crap not proven verdict are wrong? It's you against them by the looks of it.
Shrewd, the other day I pointed out that the Salmond court cases revealed that Salmond had a history with women that lead to their being a policy tha women weren't allowed to be left alone with him. This of course implies a knowledge that hte SNP (Sturgeon) knew about him. Which she then lied about.
Of course the forums resident English Tory (and not an SNP supporter) does not like this obvious conclusion, and attacked me for it. I wonder why.
Of course the forums resident English Tory (and not an SNP supporter) does not like this obvious conclusion, and attacked me for it. I wonder why.
The funniest thing about PP is he thinks he is clever ;)
Maybe you should contact every major political party in Scotland and tell them that their plans to end the crap not proven verdict are wrong? It's you against them by the looks of it.
No I won't because I don't care if its scrapped. There's nothing wrong with the view of wanting to scrap it and bring it in to line with other judicial systems however theres nothing crap about it other than people using it for their agendas. In the SNP's case they are now using it like they did with their failed attempts to abolish corroboration to pander to people who think it will be a magic bullet to increase convictions without understanding the role it actually plays in the legal system.
There is a lot wrong with your view on what it results in or that it prevented Salmond from being found guilty. That view is stupid, nonsensical and backed up by nothing other than your blinkered desire to have Salmond seen as guilty.
No I won't because I don't care if its scrapped. There's nothing wrong with the view of wanting to scrap it and bring it in to line with other judicial systems however theres nothing crap about it other than people using it for their agendas. In the SNP's case they are now using it like they did with their failed attempts to abolish corroboration to pander to people who think it will be a magic bullet to increase convictions without understanding the role it actually plays in the legal system.
There is a lot wrong with your view on what it results in or that it prevented Salmond from being found guilty. That view is stupid, nonsensical and backed up by nothing other than your blinkered desire to have Salmond seen as guilty.
It's the tories main manifesto pledge. Why don't you write to Douglas Ross and explain to him that he is wrong?
It's a stupid thing to make as a manifesto pledge never mind the main one. I'm not in the habit of writing to leaders of political parties everytime they put something in their manifesto that is stupid. That would be a full time job.
Do you think Sturgeon will come out and say she agrees with all the other parties main pledges and will do them anyway if she gets elected?
Do you think Sturgeon will come out and say she agrees with all the other parties main pledges and will do them anyway if she gets elected?
Well, it looks as though it's just you that thinks the tories main manifesto pledge is stupid.
You've polled everyone else and they think it's great?
Well, it looks as though it's just you that thinks the tories main manifesto pledge is stupid. (So far)
I take it you won't be voting tory then if you think their main manifesto pledge is stupid?
And appears to be only you that thinks that getting rid of the not proven verdict would have resulted in Salmond being found guilty or preventing sexual predators escaping justice.
Just me and all the main political parties in Scotland by the looks of it. That's why we all want it scrapped.
From the bbc...
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
Just me and all the main political parties in Scotland by the looks of it. That's why we all want it scrapped.
No none of them agree with you on your reasons for getting rid of it and what it meant in the Salmond case. You can't even back up your own position on it. You've already shown yourself up to not have a clue with your waffle about a civil case.
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
As much as we all place credibility on what "Dross" says even he is not agreeing with the nonsense you have spouted.
No none of them agree with you on your reasons for getting rid of it and what it meant in the Salmond case. You can't even back up your own position on it. You've already shown yourself up to not have a clue with your waffle about a civil case.
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
As much as we all place credibility on what "Dross" says even he is not agreeing with the nonsense you have spouted.
On the contrary, I agree fully and completely with what he is saying. Why can't you?
You agree with him but he doesn't agree with the nonsense you have come out with.
By the way I do agree with the quote in terms of its literal meaning but its also a meaningless soundbite that doesn't actually say anything of any substance.
"disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" True, but so what? There's a disproportionate number of not guilty verdicts in rape cases. Is that an argument for getting rid of the not guilty verdict?
"certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict". True but the not guilty verdict doesn't deliver for the victim and every verdict has uncertainty given we have an appeal system.
By the way I do agree with the quote in terms of its literal meaning but its also a meaningless soundbite that doesn't actually say anything of any substance.
"disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" True, but so what? There's a disproportionate number of not guilty verdicts in rape cases. Is that an argument for getting rid of the not guilty verdict?
"certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict". True but the not guilty verdict doesn't deliver for the victim and every verdict has uncertainty given we have an appeal system.
You say...
There's a disproportionate number of not guilty verdicts in rape cases.
Link to this please?
There's a disproportionate number of not guilty verdicts in rape cases.
Link to this please?
It's a well know fact that rape is one of the offences with the lowest conviction rates (therefore not guilty verdicts) in most jurisdictions.
Does Betfairs foremost bullshistting pro SNP crap merchant REALLY want to go down the route of demanding OTHERS cite their statements when he spouts B/S pretty much ever day?
I didn't just read this somewhere. It's a well known fact. I'm not going to go and find a link for you. Do it yourself.
Askiing for regular citing of sources is dangerous territory for liars. I'd be happy to do it,as I'm honest. Do pro SNP liars want to open that Pandora's box?
You mean you can't provide a link to your statement, can you?
Perhaps you can provide a link to support Douglas Ross statement..
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
Are you actually disagreeing with what I have said or are you just trying to waste my time and have me look for a link for you then deflect on to something else?
Shrewd, you are arguing with a proven liar who spends pretty much every minute given defending the SNP and attacking the Tories, while at the same time saying he is an English Tory. Don't waste your time with people with zero integrity like that, SNP types are just worthless as humans.
I would have to go and look for that data. I know it's correct. I'm not going to waste my time looking for it when you can't be bothered. If you are suggesting it's not true then I probably will to make you look more of a mug.
I am not suggesting anything. I am simply asking you for a link to your statement.
Not off the top of my head no. These things are all statistically recorded. What I have said is true. If you are interested in seeing these statistics then the internet is a wonderful thing for finding these and I'm sure you will be able to do it yourself.
I am simply asking you for a link to your statement?
And I have said I'm not wasting my time looking for one for someone like you when you can't be bothered youself.
Here's an idea. Why not contact your big pal "Dross" and tell him you're a massive Tory and ask him if he can point you towards the statistics he mentions for the 'not proven verdict' and then in the same place you will find the statistics for the not guilty verdict.
Here's an idea. Why not contact your big pal "Dross" and tell him you're a massive Tory and ask him if he can point you towards the statistics he mentions for the 'not proven verdict' and then in the same place you will find the statistics for the not guilty verdict.
Look, I never made the statement. If you can't verify it, ok.
https://news.sky.com/story/controversial-not-proven-verdict-in-scottish-courts-needs-to-be-looked-at-nicola-sturgeon-says-12265460
.
There are some figures on here which support Douglas Ross viewpoint...
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
.
There are some figures on here which support Douglas Ross viewpoint...
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/campaigns-end-not-proven/
Some detail from Rape Crisis Scotland.
Some detail from Rape Crisis Scotland.
And that pretty much confirms there is a disproportionate amount of not guilty verdicts for rape as well. Well done. See you could find it.
It does not, you made a statement without any verification.
I have just provided links to Donald Ross viewpoint (and all major political parties in Scotland) that..
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
This has no connection with your unverified not guilty statement.
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
This has no connection with your unverified not guilty statement.
It's there in the statistics in the article you have posted.
No it isn't. I have provided a link verifying Douglas Ross statement. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing.
According to its statistics, in 2016/17, only 39% of rape and attempted rape cases resulted in convictions, the lowest rate for any type of crime.
Nearly 30% of acquittals were not proven,
Rape and attempted rape cases have 39% convictions rates i.e in 39% of cases they result in a guilty verdict.
We can therefore conclude that 61% deliver acquittals. Nearly 30% of acquittals are not proven according to your article and therefore the other 70% must be not guilty.
Rape has the lowest conviction rates according to your article so it's fairly obvious that not guilty verdicts are disproportunately higher in rapes cases as well as not proven verdicts if the other 70% of acquittals that aren't not proven are not guilty.
You would think someone on a betting site would have at least a basic understanding of statistics and percentages.
Nearly 30% of acquittals were not proven,
Rape and attempted rape cases have 39% convictions rates i.e in 39% of cases they result in a guilty verdict.
We can therefore conclude that 61% deliver acquittals. Nearly 30% of acquittals are not proven according to your article and therefore the other 70% must be not guilty.
Rape has the lowest conviction rates according to your article so it's fairly obvious that not guilty verdicts are disproportunately higher in rapes cases as well as not proven verdicts if the other 70% of acquittals that aren't not proven are not guilty.
You would think someone on a betting site would have at least a basic understanding of statistics and percentages.
The high rate of acquittals in Scotland are because 30% of them returned a not proven verdict. If the not proven verdict was removed, the suggestion is that the conviction rate would increase.
The high rate of acquittals in Scotland are because 30% of them returned a not proven verdict. If the not proven verdict was removed, the suggestion is that the conviction rate would increase.
You were asked to justify this view a couple of pages back and provide examples and you couldn't not sure why you are repeating it again.
You were asked to justify this view a couple of pages back and provide examples and you couldn't not sure why you are repeating it again.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make? This is the point I am making..
The high rate of acquittals in Scotland are because 30% of them returned a not proven verdict. If the not proven verdict was removed, the suggestion is that the conviction rate would increase.
The high rate of acquittals in Scotland are because 30% of them returned a not proven verdict. If the not proven verdict was removed, the suggestion is that the conviction rate would increase.
I think I've made my point. It was a waste of time me finding these stats because you found them yourself and then jumped to regurgitating the same thing from 3 hours ago just as I thought you would.
The high rate of acquittals in Scotland are because 30% of them returned a not proven verdict. If the not proven verdict was removed, the suggestion is that the conviction rate would increase.
Why would someone delivering an acquittal because they don't find a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt suddenly find a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt simply because the not proven verdict (an aquittal verdict) is not available to them?
Unless of course you're presuming juries are idiots and simply pin a tail on the donkey to decide the verdict and instead of having 3 options there's only two so the chance of gulity has increased from 33% to 50%. In which case we have a lot bigger problems than the not proven verdict.
The high rate of acquittals in Scotland are because 30% of them returned a not proven verdict. If the not proven verdict was removed, the suggestion is that the conviction rate would increase.
Why would someone delivering an acquittal because they don't find a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt suddenly find a charge proven beyond reasonable doubt simply because the not proven verdict (an aquittal verdict) is not available to them?
Unless of course you're presuming juries are idiots and simply pin a tail on the donkey to decide the verdict and instead of having 3 options there's only two so the chance of gulity has increased from 33% to 50%. In which case we have a lot bigger problems than the not proven verdict.
Do you know what the conviction rate in England is for the same offences?
No? I will tell you then. In 2016/2017 in Scotland the conviction rate was 39%. In England it was 57.6%.
I am showing you that if the not proven verdict was removed, the conviction rate would be much higher.
No your not.
There are a number of factors that are far more likely to be relevant than guessing its the not proven verdict that is doing without the slightest of rational for you assertions. See below. See also corroboration.
https://inews.co.uk/news/rape-cases-statistics-dropped-charges-cps-target-co...
There are a number of factors that are far more likely to be relevant than guessing its the not proven verdict that is doing without the slightest of rational for you assertions. See below. See also corroboration.
https://inews.co.uk/news/rape-cases-statistics-dropped-charges-cps-target-co...
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has admitted to imposing set conviction targets on staff, which may have created a “perverse incentive” to not charge on complicated rape cases.
The undisclosed targets encouraged prosecutors to achieve a 60 per cent conviction rate in rape cases, leading to accusations that “weaker” cases, ones in which conviction was less assured, were dropped more readily in order to create better-looking results.
The revelation comes as rape prosecutions in England and Wales have dropped to their lowest number since 2008, despite a record number of allegations made to police.
The revelation comes as rape prosecutions in England and Wales have dropped to their lowest number since 2008, despite a record number of allegations made to police.
Ah, you are getting mixed up there with decisions whether to charge compared to convictions in court.
Are you being serious? The decision whether to prosecute weak cases is clearly going to have an affect on convictions in court. Binning weak cases to an extent where it has been challenged in court will clearly increase court convictions in England a conviction rate you are seaking to rely on to point out the affect the not proven verdict has on the Scottish convictions rate. I give up you really don't even have a basic level of understanding of things like this.
I am simply comparing like for like. Scotland court convictions compared to England court convictions for the same offence. As Douglas Ross says..
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
I fully agree with him.
Mr Ross highlighted a "disproportionate number of not proven verdicts in rape cases" which he said "certainly doesn't deliver for the victim and it still leaves the accused with an uncertain verdict".
I fully agree with him.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539