Alex Salmond

[rocket_scientist]

I'm firmly in the "no smoke without fire" camp

 

On this occasion, I'm pretty certain that you're right, not that I have any insight into this particular case. The reason I think there is a good chance that he will be convicted is the sheer number of charges. I think we've got not just one woman coming forward but a multiple and whatever the circumstantial evidence might be and whatever defence counsel do to them in the witness box (as it may well be their word against his on each charge), the good old Moroov doctrine will kick in to bind them together.

 

No smoke without fire is a very dangerous cliche to follow though, particularly in the current era when smear campaigns are highly-developed strategies against political (and other) enemies. Having met Salmond though, and having watched his career over many years including numerous interviews, you get a feel for the man and my instinct is already screaming guilty. He's a fucking wank. Interesting times ahead.

[tlg1903]

Mcwhirter made a good point last week that gives me pause for thought.  "Alex Salmond is the most investigated politician in Britain. Every cheque-book hack, intelligence spook, disgruntled senior cop, political party spin-doctor...has been trying to pin something on him since 1990. BBC set up a unit into his "gambling debts" in late 90s. Nada"

 

Given this, why has nothing like this come to light before?  For example, Weinsteins sleazy ness was common knowledge in Hollywood.  I'm reserving any judgement until there are actual facts to consider.

 

 

[manc_don]

Personally, I think he looks like sleazeball and what I have read, i'm with TC.  Some people have that face, and he has it.

 

Not sure the comparison is equal though tlg.  Politicians hide anything and everything and know how to get the means to do it. Politics is very dirty world.

[TheDeeDon]

I'm not sure what to think of this news, just something about it doesn't sit right with me. I can't see how this sort of thing can be hidden for so long for a man who is always under investigation and I don't believe he had enough power/influence/money to keep this silent over the years.

 

Any future trial will be very interesting though.

[Kowalski]

I can't imagine Westminister hiding it, it would have been whipped out (no puns) during IndyRef surely, as it is a huge smear.

Perhaps the Scottish Government supressed it.  Certainly Sturgeon appears to know a bit about it, and she's getting some criticism which I think is unfair (until we know all the facts).

 

There is always the consideration that it has simply taken this long to get a case together that the PF agreed can go to court.

 

Timeline and number of accusers will be interesting.

 

I'm in the "I wouldn't put it past him" camp.  He's always been a smug git, even yesterday, and a bit odious for me.

[Elgindon]

Em, you just quite rightly said he's innocent until proven guilty,...and then went on to state as FACT the reason the case has been brought up was because(youve decided) he's not guilty,and that..."Well its to get the public of Scotland to go against the SNP, Independance so the English can RAPE our resources and pay the ENGLISH the ££££££ they will need to survive after brexit".

 

 

Lets just see how the case pans out first?   

[Tyrant]

Like some of you cunts I've met Salmond too but unlike you cunts I don't feel that was adequate to judge his guilt. I admit he's not an easy man to like and I admit that I disliked him for a long time too but it takes a level of naivety to automatically believe all this because he's a smug prick or because it suits your own political agenda. Salmond has made a career out of being a thorn in the side of Westminster and has shown that he's a danger to the political status quo in the south east. He wasn't a million miles away from breaking up what is an extremely lucrative Union for England and there's a lot to be gained by ending his career (which is the main aim with all this.) Like him or not he's a smart man. Too smart, in my opinion, to get all gropey and force himself on anyone when he has so much to lose. It doesn't make sense.

 

I'm worried that we won't hear "facts" or truths. Very difficult (impossible in fact) for a man like Salmond to get a fair trial.

 

Wonder what they'll pin on Sturgeon. The Krankie thing is hilarious and all  but something a bit more powerful will be needed for when they decide to get her. In simpler times we could have just hung, drawn and quartered the cunts.

 

 

[Kowalski]

 

I would take your comments regarding west minster governments and " hidding it"  they are WELL KNOWN to HIDE what they don't want the public to know.

 

Back in the 70's onwards there was rumours going around of a LOT of pedos hiding as politicians.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mi5-helped-Margaret-thatcher-cover-6120006

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/17/Westminster-child-abuse-paedophile-ring-failure

 

https://www.wessexscene.co.uk/politics/2014/07/17/thatchers-cabinet-minister-paedophile-cover-up/

 

I'm well aware of this but you've missed my point.  The above is about Westminister covering up Westminster, why would they cover up for the SNP/Scottish Government?  Especially in today's political climate.

 

My question would be, WHY after his previous court case he was found not guilty there. Is this happening DURING the last few weeks before BREXIT.

 

Which previous court case are you referring to?

 

Well its to get the public of Scotland to go against the SNP, Independance so the English can RAPE our resources and pay the ENGLISH the ££££££ they will need to survive after brexit.

 

Watch the nuke subs being moved so they can get access to the west coast of Scotlands OIL reserves.

 

Jesus wept.

[rocket_scientist]

It's a high profile case, nobody can know what the outcome will be and nobody has said that he WILL be convicted. Yet it's impossible for him to get a fair trial? Salmond specifically stated he has faith in the Scottish justice system. The only certainty some are putting forward is that the whole thing is a stitch up, designed to "end his career". I wonder what they know to state with such confidence that he's not guilty?

 

For me, another factor to suggest that he is going to be found guilty is his own language. He's denying the "criminality" of his actions, thereby acknowledging that he has done something inappropriate, obviously, as you and I don't get charged with attempted rapes and other sexual offences every day of the week. He's already thinking ahead. He's preparing his defences in the public domain. The man doth protest too much. I think he will get a fair trial, I think he'll be convicted and the most interesting aspect will be the sentence given.

 

The identity of the complainants are surprisingly slow to come out. That's another factor which will have a big influence on the case and will suggest if there is any possibility of a stitch up or not. Whilst the establishment have history of ruining and even ending a man's life unfairly and abhorrently, this isn't the occasion in my opinion.

[Tyrant]

It's a high profile case, nobody can know what the outcome will be and nobody has said that he WILL be convicted. Yet it's impossible for him to get a fair trial?

 

Correct. This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO.

 

 

I wonder what they know to state with such confidence that he's not guilty?

 

The opposite of what you know to state so confidently that he's guilty.

[rocket_scientist]

Correct. This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO.

 

 

The opposite of what you know to state so confidently that he's guilty.

 

If you read properly, you will find that the ONLY person on this thread who has already come to a conclusion is you.

 

And a pretty remarkable conclusion it is too.

 

Remember to discern between speculations on his possible guilt and actually saying that he is not guilty, as you maintain.

 

You say that it is "impossible" for him to get a fair trial. Do your paranoid reasons for the case being brought include that these women just made it up, or in your fantasy world are they being paid a lot of money to make up these complaints? The evidence hasn't even been heard yet and you have convinced yourself that he's not guilty?

 

How does a fair trial become impossible? Alex Salmond stated that the trusts the Scottish legal system which is what we might expect an innocent man to say, but it is also something a guilty politician might say so there's nothing to be gained by seeking to understand his motives for saying it but why do you not trust the system?

 

How is it even possible to skew the justice system? Will "the establishment" threaten and coerce Salmond's defence counsel? Will the jury be pressurised and similarly nobbled? Will the procurator fiscal be briefed with a killer argument, one that overrides the facts and evidence presented? What the fuck are you talking about man?

[RicoS321]

If you read properly, you will find that the ONLY person on this thread who has already come to a conclusion is you.

 

And a pretty remarkable conclusion it is too.

 

Remember to discern between speculations on his possible guilt and actually saying that he is not guilty, as you maintain.

 

You say that it is "impossible" for him to get a fair trial. Do your paranoid reasons for the case being brought include that these women just made it up, or in your fantasy world are they being paid a lot of money to make up these complaints? The evidence hasn't even been heard yet and you have convinced yourself that he's not guilty?

 

How does a fair trial become impossible? Alex Salmond stated that the trusts the Scottish legal system which is what we might expect an innocent man to say, but it is also something a guilty politician might say so there's nothing to be gained by seeking to understand his motives for saying it but why do you not trust the system?

 

How is it even possible to skew the justice system? Will "the establishment" threaten and coerce Salmond's defence counsel? Will the jury be pressurised and similarly nobbled? Will the procurator fiscal be briefed with a killer argument, one that overrides the facts and evidence presented? What the fuck are you talking about man?

 

Good points. Tyrant, if yer going to suggest "establishment" conspiracies, then at least back it up. The only possible way I can think that the justice system could intervene is by refusing witnesses, or certain evidence to be heard. None of that, however, will make the testimonies of the alleged victims any less true or false.

 

The annoying thing is, is that there is an establishment, and our political system is corrupted (including at Holyrood, as Salmond's interactions with Trump showed) and infiltrated throughout by money. There are a huge number of credible avenues to look down for evidence of this. Why choose something so remarkably uncontentious? It's just a manny who may or my not have done something that many mannies in his position have done before. Stop elevating him to some level of importance beyond that which he once represented. The ideas of independence are not in any way reliant on one individual. This constant need for a "leader" or single person that who we can follow toward freedom (or whatever) is like a form of mass-patheticism. Independence is just something that he was a temporary salesman for. If he turns out to be a dick, then we just get another salesman.

[Tyrant]

If you read properly, you will find that the ONLY person on this thread who has already come to a conclusion is you.

 

And a pretty remarkable conclusion it is too.

 

Remember to discern between speculations on his possible guilt and actually saying that he is not guilty, as you maintain.

 

You say that it is "impossible" for him to get a fair trial. Do your paranoid reasons for the case being brought include that these women just made it up, or in your fantasy world are they being paid a lot of money to make up these complaints? The evidence hasn't even been heard yet and you have convinced yourself that he's not guilty?

 

How does a fair trial become impossible? Alex Salmond stated that the trusts the Scottish legal system which is what we might expect an innocent man to say, but it is also something a guilty politician might say so there's nothing to be gained by seeking to understand his motives for saying it but why do you not trust the system?

 

How is it even possible to skew the justice system? Will "the establishment" threaten and coerce Salmond's defence counsel? Will the jury be pressurised and similarly nobbled? Will the procurator fiscal be briefed with a killer argument, one that overrides the facts and evidence presented? What the fuck are you talking about man?

 

 

Please to be advising where I said he wasn't guilty. Did you read properly?

 

What kind of naive tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system? Corruption is commonplace everywhere so why not here? Or is this not a possibility? I have literally seen someone falsely convicted with my own eyes. Knowing the facts and having faith is all well and good but a guilty verdict was still returned. Why that was I can only speculate. But that's a man's life more or less ruined. Did they bully the lawyers or the jury? Only a fly on the wall or someone with full vision of every piece of the jigsaw would know that. Bottom line is incorrect verdicts are a reality. Was OJ really innocent? Was Brendan Dassey really guilty? If Salmond has faith then good for him. I really hope this one is proved beyond doubt either way.

 

[rocket_scientist]

 

Please to be advising where I said he wasn't guilty. Did you read properly?

 

What kind of naive tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system? Corruption is commonplace everywhere so why not here? Or is this not a possibility? I have literally seen someone falsely convicted with my own eyes. Knowing the facts and having faith is all well and good but a guilty verdict was still returned. Why that was I can only speculate. But that's a man's life more or less ruined. Did they bully the lawyers or the jury? Only a fly on the wall or someone with full vision of every piece of the jigsaw would know that. Bottom line is incorrect verdicts are a reality. Was OJ really innocent? Was Brendan Dassey really guilty? If Salmond has faith then good for him. I really hope this one is proved beyond doubt either way.

 

You said the charges didn't make sense. You said he's a smart man, too smart to grope. You said it was impossible for him to get a fair trial. Yes I did read properly. You can't take back your words.

 

I too have seen wrongful convictions, almost always police lying in court. But this won't have any police witnesses, it will be the retired elder statesman's words against those of the women he affronted. Once again, why have you already made determinations that a) he's too "smart" to grope, and b) this particular trial will be an affront to truth and justice?

[RicoS321]

 

Please to be advising where I said he wasn't guilty. Did you read properly?

 

What kind of naive tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system? Corruption is commonplace everywhere so why not here? Or is this not a possibility? I have literally seen someone falsely convicted with my own eyes. Knowing the facts and having faith is all well and good but a guilty verdict was still returned. Why that was I can only speculate. But that's a man's life more or less ruined. Did they bully the lawyers or the jury? Only a fly on the wall or someone with full vision of every piece of the jigsaw would know that. Bottom line is incorrect verdicts are a reality. Was OJ really innocent? Was Brendan Dassey really guilty? If Salmond has faith then good for him. I really hope this one is proved beyond doubt either way.

 

The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names.

 

Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting.

 

In terms of bullying lawyers, Salmond has the funds to get lawyers that won't be bullied. Bullying the jury? Possibly, but I doubt that'd happen in such a high profile case.

 

If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent.

 

I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court).

 

By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer.

 

I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

[Tyrant]

The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names.

 

I'm not suggesting there's any relevance. I mention those just to emphasise that having faith in the (any) legal system doesn't mean anything.

 

Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting.

 

Yes. two females concocted a claim against one man. Their word against his. Jury believed them. Man found guilty.

 

If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent.

 

I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court).

 

By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer.

 

I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

 

At no point have I said that I have 100% faith in Salmond. Someone (who can only see in from the outside) having doubts doesn't mean I'm denying that it's a possibility that the crime took place. All I'm saying is I have my doubts. So I don't really feel the need to fully explain every possible way that the trial could be stacked against Salmond. The accuser being paid or bullied into lying isn't something that even came into my head. My doubts around Salmond getting a fair crack of the whip stem from my worry that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have already decided on his guilt before the trial because they don't like the cunt or what he believes in. Are humans not hateful and vengeful by nature? My issue here is maybe isn't about lack of faith in the justice system but lack of faith in humanity.

[RicoS321]

I'm not suggesting there's any relevance. I mention those just to emphasise that having faith in the (any) legal system doesn't mean anything.

 

Yes. two females concocted a claim against one man. Their word against his. Jury believed them. Man found guilty.

 

At no point have I said that I have 100% faith in Salmond. Someone (who can only see in from the outside) having doubts doesn't mean I'm denying that it's a possibility that the crime took place. All I'm saying is I have my doubts. So I don't really feel the need to fully explain every possible way that the trial could be stacked against Salmond. The accuser being paid or bullied into lying isn't something that even came into my head. My doubts around Salmond getting a fair crack of the whip stem from my worry that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have already decided on his guilt before the trial because they don't like the cunt or what he believes in. Are humans not hateful and vengeful by nature? My issue here is maybe isn't about lack of faith in the justice system but lack of faith in humanity.

 

You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO."

 

By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. 

 

You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here.

 

Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.

[rocket_scientist]

I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature.

 

I agree on every one of your points and in support of this one, the Scottish legal system is a beautiful thing. With its foundations and core principles taken from ancient Roman Law, it's a masterpiece of human creativity which enshrines fairness and decency for all.

 

Any foundation-less claims that Salmond won't get a fair trial are not to be taken seriously because the claimant hasn't offered even a notion of how this might be possible. He simply hasn't thought it through and has confused what he wants to happen with his own absurd arguments and ridiculous points. That's ok, he's not the first to spik utter shite and he won't be the last although quite what makes a man put his head in the sand and attempt to deny a possibility, any possibility, is really quite bizarre and concerning.

[Tyrant]

You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO."

 

By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. 

 

You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here.

 

Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.

 

 

All fair points and you might well be right. It could be argued that the victims won't get a fair crack of the whip because some pro-indy nuts might end up on the jury will have already decided he's innocent before hearing anything in court. That is a possibility. It's not so much that I can't be arsed typing out every way that I can think of in which the trial or charge list might be flawed. Alleged victim statements taken by police and manipulated to maximise the list of charges seems to be one that I've heard of happening before. There are so many possibilities. I don't know them all because I don't know the legal system inside out. Who amongst us does? I knew my post was contentious. But whether fellow DT posters take me less seriously as a result or not I can live with quite frankly.

 

If I'm wrong and he's tried 100% fairly then great. This is why I said that I hope the verdict is somehow proven beyond doubt and you (quite correctly) pointed out that anything being proven beyond doubt in a case like this is unlikely because it's going to be testimony based from the accuser and the accused with little or no witnesses.

 

 

I agree on every one of your points and in support of this one, the Scottish legal system is a beautiful thing. With its foundations and core principles taken from ancient Roman Law, it's a masterpiece of human creativity which enshrines fairness and decency for all.

 

A poor attempt at baiting from a man who recently claimed he has also seen wrongful convictions in court. (or were they in England whilst not following ancient Roman law? ) Surely in a legal system as fucking wonderful as you describe this wouldn't be happening.

 

 

although quite what makes a man put his head in the sand and attempt to deny a possibility, any possibility, is really quite bizarre and concerning.

 

Which is literally what you're doing in this thread? 

 

 

Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

I don't know the legal system inside out.

 

This is why I said that I hope the verdict is somehow proven beyond doubt

 

It appears that you don't know even the basics about the legal system, let alone "inside out".

 

EVERY conviction in Scotland (and I understand in England too) needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is why I mentioned the Moorov doctrine in my first post, which I suspect the pf will need to get conviction in this case.

 

And yet , without knowing the very first basic fundamental premise of criminal law, you still feel qualified to state that it's "impossible in fact" for him to get a fair trial?

 

Very difficult (impossible in fact) for a man like Salmond to get a fair trial.

 

 

 

A poor attempt at baiting from a man who recently claimed he has also seen wrongful convictions in court. (or were they in England whilst not following ancient Roman law? ) Surely in a legal system as fucking wonderful as you describe this wouldn't be happening.

 

The Scottish legal system is very highly regarded in many countries in the world. The law does not mean ONLY criminal law. There are many other aspects of human existence that are covered by legislation and judicial interpretation. "The rule of law" that you've heard all the politicians regurgitate means the separation of powers and recognising the distinct roles of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

 

What you fail to understand is that it is not the weakness of the system that leads to wrongful convictions (in criminal law) or wrongful decisions in civil law (where the burden of proof is less, being on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). It is wholly down to the evidence presented and where a policeman lies, or where a witness misinterprets a situation but presents it as fact (or also lies), this is not the fault of the legal system itself.

 

It is very common to engage a reflection strategy, to simply throw back an argument (or an insult) in the face of your accuser, particularly when exhausted and having run out of credible arguments. It's what weak people do;

 

The opposite of what you know to state so confidently that he's guilty.

 

Which is literally what you're doing in this thread? 

 

I did NOT deny any possibility. You on the other hand did: -

 

Like him or not he's a smart man. Too smart, in my opinion, to get all gropey and force himself on anyone when he has so much to lose. It doesn't make sense.

 

I'm worried that we won't hear "facts" or truths. Very difficult (impossible in fact) for a man like Salmond to get a fair trial.

 

It is poetic that you then go on to prove your inability to embrace possibilities with your closing statement: -

 

Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.

 

Karma as a concept is widely misunderstood and it has many different meanings. Just because you don't believe in the concept - you are probably an ignorant atheist too? - doesn't mean that Chinese philosophy over millennia is completely without merit and that the doctrine of Yin and Yang does not exist. Your failure to embrace the possibility doesn't mean that the other billions who follow Hinduism are misguided. The Bhagavad Gita isn't nonsense just because you say it is. The three gunas of nature embraced by Yogi cultures and practised in Yoga might be beyond your limited imagination but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

 

You should seek understanding before seeking confrontation for the sake of it. I believe that one creates one's own luck and I believe that we reap what we sow, matters that are described in some of the interpretations of karma. You however have attributed some meaning of karma to me without first knowing what I mean and, I strongly suspect, not having invested the energy to read any philosophy (let alone Eastern philosophies) which kind of proves that you are lacking in credibility and imagination but still think you've got all the answers. You sir, are a small bitter man with a major problem.

 

Edit: By the way, Salmond hasn't got "so much to lose" in terms of his "career". That is already spent. It's his reputation that is at stake here, plus his liberty.

 

[Tyrant]

It appears that you don't know even the basics about the legal system, let alone "inside out".

 

EVERY conviction in Scotland (and I understand in England too) needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

And yet you still feel qualified to state that it's "impossible in fact" for him to get a fair trial?

 

 

 

The Scottish legal system is very highly regarded in many countries in the world. The law does not mean ONLY criminal law. There are many other aspects of human existence that are covered by legislation and judicial interpretation. "The rule of law" that you've heard all the politicians regurgitate means the separation of powers and recognising the distinct roles of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

 

What you fail to understand is that it is not the weakness of the system that leads to wrongful convictions (in criminal law) or wrongful decisions in civil law (where the balance of proof is less, being on a balance of probabilities rater than beyond reasonable doubt). It is wholly down to the evidence presented and where a policeman lies, or where a witness misinterprets a situation but presents it as fact (or also lies), this is not the fault of the legal system itself.

 

I do understand your point, Rocket. There's nothing complicated about it. But I don't agree that in a legal system apparently worth writing home that a person should lose his or her liberty because one person lies. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. It comes down to the jury's opinion of what reasonable doubt is. There was massive doubt in the case that I saw. I felt a not guilty verdict would be reached or at least a "not proven". The jury were wrong. You obviously wouldn't attribute this to the "legal system". Rather the testimony given in court but the fact is that the legal system allowed it to get to court in the first place. The semantics are not that important when a person's life is on the verge of being fucked up. I've read/heard countless times over the years about various crimes that have allegedly been committed and the suspect ends up not facing a court because the CPS doesn't feel there's sufficient evidence to convict. I read somewhere that only 4% of rapes result in a conviction. That seems low but thinking about it you'd think that as it's the sort of crime that happens behind closed doors it's likely to be one person's word against another which is why I assumed many wouldn't make it to court. Of course no one should get away with sexual assault of any kind but you've got to be sure you've got the right person and that a crime has taken place before it reaches court. In my opinion the system is weak at this point. 

 

 

It is very common to engage a reflection strategy, to simply throw back an argument (or an insult) in the face of your accuser, particularly when exhausted and having run out of credible arguments. It's what weak people do;

 

I did NOT deny any possibility. You on the other hand did: -

 

It is poetic that you then go on to prove your inability to embrace possibilities with your closing statement: -

 

Karma as a concept is widely misunderstood and it has many different meanings. Just because you don't believe in the concept - you are probably an ignorant atheist too? - doesn't mean that Chinese philosophy over millennia is completely without merit and that the doctrine of Yin and Yang does not exist. Your failure to embrace the possibility doesn't mean that the other billions who follow Hinduism are misguided. The Bhagavad Gita isn't nonsense just because you say it is. The three gunas of nature embraced by Yogi cultures and practised in Yoga might be beyond your limited imagination but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

 

You should seek understanding before seeking confrontation for the sake of it.

 

By the way, Salmond hasn't got "so much to lose" in terms of his "career". That is already spent. It's his reputation that is at stake here, plus his liberty.

 

Whilst I would never profess to be all-knowing when it comes to Karma I believe it's a belief system based on the mindset of "You reap what you sow". If that's not right please enlighten me.

 

Ironic that you use the word "ignorant" when talking about atheism. Atheism is the future. Religion stems from fear and a lack of scientific understanding. Ancient Chinese philosophy may not be entirely without merit, it would be ignorant to make such a sweeping generalisation, but much of it will stem from ignorance. People use religion to shirk responsibility. Atheists don't. That is slowly turning the other way and not a moment too soon.

[rocket_scientist]

I do understand your point, Rocket. There's nothing complicated about it. But I don't agree that in a legal system apparently worth writing home that a person should lose his or her liberty because one person lies.

 

At least your tone is less confrontational now and you have desisted from your insulting rhetoric. It was you who introduced "naive" to the debate in an attempt to back up your point which has since been proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) to be a confused one.

 

I would argue that it is incredibly naive to fail to understand that people do lie but to hold up the legal system as somehow being to blame for that. Your "apparently worth writing about" was noted for what it was and as Marcellus Wallace said "that's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride" Instead of seeking confrontation all the time or attempting to portray yourself as being the only man on the planet who doesn't make mistakes, get some humility.

 

 

Whilst I would never profess to be all-knowing when it comes to Karma I believe it's a belief system based on the mindset of "You reap what you sow". If that's not right please enlighten me.

 

If you admit that you're not all-knowing about karma, what did you mean when you tried to insult me? What did you interpret by my use of that term in other threads and why did it weaken any points that I had made when using it?

 

As for enlightening you, there are no short cuts in life. You either study a subject or you choose not to.

 

Ironic that you use the word "ignorant" when talking about atheism. Atheism is the future. Religion stems from fear and a lack of scientific understanding. Ancient Chinese philosophy may not be entirely without merit, it would be ignorant to make such a sweeping generalisation, but much of it will stem from ignorance. People use religion to shirk responsibility. Atheists don't. That is slowly turning the other way and not a moment too soon.

 

Atheists are as arrogant (and as ignorant, close-minded and imaginationless) as the pious, for a very simple reason. They have decided that there is no God just like the religious have decided that there is a God (or Gods). Agnosticism is the future, the ability to say "I don't know", which requires humility of course. As an agnostic myself, we can reject all world religions too.

 

Philosophy and religion need to be recognised as totally different subjects. Ancient philosophies do not stem from ignorance. On the contrary many of the truths in this world have been articulated before and many of them are to be found within ancient texts. By reading many of these texts, we find that the same truths are expressed in different ways and in different contexts.

 

Never confuse science and religion too. That's as stupid as people who decry art because they don't understand it. I was at Tate Britain and Tate Modern at the weekend and I guarantee that most of us (particularly on the south bank and definitely including me) didn't have even an entry point at which to attempt to understand the subjects and themes of many of the exhibits, far less interpret them for our own learning let alone interpret them for others. It doesn't make life any less enjoyable however, not knowing. It's only the really ignorant cunts who need to be proved right all the time, particularly on a forum such as this where it enters patheticism (a word made up by Rico on this thread rather than me, who invents words all the time to fit a debate).

 

Edit: my mistake, it wasn't an invented word. It is a real one, a word I had never come across before.

[Tyrant]

At least your tone is less confrontational now and you have desisted from your insulting rhetoric. It was you who introduced "naive" to the debate in an attempt to back up your point which has since been proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) to be a confused one.

 

I would argue that it is incredibly naive to fail to understand that people do lie but to hold up the legal system as somehow being to blame for that. Your "apparently worth writing about" was noted for what it was and as Marcellus Wallace said "that's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride" Instead of seeking confrontation all the time or attempting to portray yourself as being the only man on the planet who doesn't make mistakes, get some humility.

 

Aye. And I appreciate your insulting rhetoric being marginally more subtle this time round! 

 

 

If you admit that you're not all-knowing about karma, what did you mean when you tried to insult me? What did you interpret by my use of that term in other threads and why did it weaken any points that I had made when using it?

 

As for enlightening you, there are no short cuts in life. You either study a subject or you choose not to.

 

So I was right? I believe to an extent that you get out of life what you put in but life is influenced by your environment, your mindset and your intelligence (amongst many other things I'm sure) but much is simply down to chance.  The belief that everyone will get what they deserve is a romantic one but not one that I'm likely to ever believe even if it is written on highly regarded ancient books. You might have a completely different take on the definition of Karma but you declined my humble request for enlightenment (which of course you're not obliged to grant).

 

Atheists are as arrogant (and as ignorant, close-minded and imaginationless) as the pious, for a very simple reason. They have decided that there is no God just like the religious have decided that there is a God (or Gods). Agnosticism is the future, the ability to say "I don't know", which requires humility of course. As an agnostic myself, we can reject all world religions too.

 

Philosophy and religion need to be recognised as totally different subjects. Ancient philosophies do not stem from ignorance. On the contrary many of the truths in this world have been articulated before and many of them are to be found within ancient texts. By reading many of these texts, we find that the same truths are expressed in different ways and in different contexts.

 

I don't think it's fair to brand every atheist arrogant. I don't doubt that some are. I can appreciate the point of view of the agnostic (and even the religious if they're not cantankerous cunts) but I don't agree that by saying you don't believe in God(s) you're being arrogant or closed minded. I can't speak for others but I'm willing to immediately change my mind at a split second's notice should a shred of credible evidence appear to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a deity and I will happily admit that I was wrong. In the meantime whether God exists or not I don't believe it so I can't call myself agnostic. I guess you'd accuse those who deny the existence of unicorns arrogant and closed-minded too? After all there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that they now, or ever have existed but you'd refuse to rule out that possibility out of (a misplaced in my opinion) sense of humility and open mindedness? That doesn't make sense to me. It almost sounds like an ultra-liberal type trying to not be politically incorrect.

 

Never confuse science and religion too. That's as stupid as people who decry art because they don't understand it. I was at Tate Britain and Tate Modern at the weekend and I guarantee that most of us (particularly on the south bank and definitely including me) didn't have even an entry point at which to attempt to understand the subjects and themes of many of the exhibits, far less interpret them for our own learning let alone interpret them for others. It doesn't make life any less enjoyable however, not knowing. It's only the really ignorant cunts who need to be proved right all the time, particularly on a forum such as this where it enters patheticism (a word made up by Rico on this thread rather than me, who invents words all the time to fit a debate).

 

Edit: my mistake, it wasn't an invented word. It is a real one, a word I had never come across before.

 

We'll probably never agree on many things, Rocket. Karma and atheism included. But I agree completely with your point on art and dismissing it out of a lack of understanding. Art will resonate with a person (or not) for many different reasons. Also influenced by intelligence and taste I'm sure. What floats one person's boat might not necessarily float another's. Some may see it as rubbish and another as a masterpiece. This seems really obvious to me. It's something that should (but seemingly often doesn't) apply to music too (another form of art of course). I don't understand the appeal of every artist. For example I've never been particularly fond of The Beatles but it would be remiss and arrogant of me to declare that they're shite because I don't feel anything when I hear their songs when there are millions of people who do. I don't understand why some people focus so much on things they don't like. The anti-Coldplay brigade springs to mind. You don't have to listen to them or even like them but some are fucking determined to try and stop others from feeling and enjoying the music. I don't understand why grown adults are like that.

 

Now I can hear the theists crying out "It's arrogant of you to say The Beatles are shite but not God?" Correct. Because there's clear evidence that The Beatles exist.

 

[rocket_scientist]

So I was right?

 

It depends what you mean? You might have been but until you clarify what it is you're actually saying, we will never know, not that this subject is necessarily definable and therefore easily rejected by the absolutists, those without imagination, the science types who demand answers for everything, even when it is perfectly obvious that not everything is explicable.

 

You need to first define what your position is;

 

Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.

 

You attributed an interpretation of "karma" to me, one that you disagreed with. Not that I give a fuck what you think but how can you be right (or wrong) on something if you don't back it up?

 

What were you meaning by this sleight?

[Garlogie_Granite]

Interesting discussion that has nothing to do with the topic this has turned into.

 

As far as religion goes, Tyrant is bob on, we've had thousands of years for there to be any evidence of one of the many hundreds of gods there have supposedly been, yet still not a spec. Saying there is no god(s) isn;t arrogant, it's a factually based statement and absolute common sense.

 

On art though, blah blah, meanings, etc. Awa min, art should be decorative additions to a home or in a gallery where you can go and gawp. Where it started going wrong was when it moved from that to modern art that had "meaning", and then just any old shite dressed up as "art". Tracy Emin and her like are just the Dom Jolly of the art world, absolutely taking the piss. "Hey, here's a dead cow in a jar, what's that about"? It's about taking the fucking piss that's what.