Alex Salmond arrested.

POGS sadly trial by social media/ kangaroo courts etc are all too common. I do not support them whoever is under investigation. However I do feel that we are all selective in when we think is OK to make unfounded allegations and make and voice our assumptions etc on all sorts of issues!

All politicians / celebs / high profile cases are vulnerable to this.

I certainly would.

Yes, I know Granny23 but they may still feel short changed, depending on the outcome.

Lemongrove The Crowd Funding was for the Legal Challenge, which Salmond won. More money was raised than was needed and the residue has been given to Charities.

I know I go on but I have to say I wish this respect for waiting to know the facts and outcomes of court cases had applied on so many occasions where there has been no such thing.

The Kangaroo Court certainly has been alive and kicking at other times and sadly ruined the lives of good men who died without so much as an apology from the ugly people who channel hatred and political contrivance to damage the reputation of the opposition.

AS's innocence or guilt does not depend on whether members of GN do or don't like him! Investigations may take a long time to be pulled together depending on complexity. We do not know the details … all we can do is wait!

Depending on the verdict, all those who crowd funded him may wish for a refund.

Read the post before mine EllenVannin I wasn't referring to yours.

Paddyann gave her view,I gave mine.Isn't that balance enough ? I don't see what she said had anything to do with me anyway, or vice-versa.

What sort of " balance ?"

Did I say you weren't EllanVannin? I was simply providing balance to the remark about paddyann

Well, wasn't it, trisher ? Because I happened to say I didn't like him ? Aren't I entitled to say that ?

Did I say that the investigation wouldn't be efficient ? NO ! So what are you on about ?

Justice takes the time it takes....

A dig??? * EllanVannin*
Surely I'm not the only person who thinks investigations like this should be done efficiently and promptly and not allowed to take over a year of police time?

Timeframes aren’t the most important issue here. I don’t have enough information to say whether there’s enough evidence for a conviction. It’s been decided there’s enough for charges to be made.
Surely we can accept that people making serious allegations don’t always make them immediately. Research - of course many join the anti expert views, when it suits them

Can't resist a dig can you trisher ?
Can I ask why you and others are carrying on with this thread when it's clearly been stated that the case is ongoing ?

I wasn't commenting on you having given a guilty/innocent verdict, trisher, but on the fact that some posters are already certain one way or the other.

I didn't say anything about the allegations as being true or untrue Elegran but given that the original 2 allegations took place in 2013, were made to police in January 2018, and extensively reported when Salmon took the government to court in September 2018, the length of time the police have taken to act must surely be questioned.
It isn't a question of innocence or guilt but of the time frame.

A wise woman keeps her own counsel... though that would kill many a chat forum!

It may be, Trisher that his victory over the government is what convinced the complainants to take action, from whatever motive. There would be no arrest and no publicity about the allegations until after all the painstaking investigation into whether a substantial case could be made.

The fact that charges have been laid against him shows that it is considered that there is enough evidence for it to be worth pursuing. However the rest of us do not yet know enough of that evidence to judge whether he should be declared guilty or innocent, so we should wait and see.

As also has Ellan Vannin I believe.Completely opposite judgements of course!!!
I worry about the time this investigation seems to have taken and why the charges didn't emerge until after his victory over the government?

paddyann has certaintly judged the man,

Thanks Jalima. It might be difficult to decide which are likely to cause problems which is why I am urging caution.

Winterwhite I'm not sure what to say except please read both my posts and the link, if you can. The matter is now sub judice under Scottish law. There is nothing to prevent people having views and expressing them, but there are risks in posting (effectively publishing) on an open public forum like GN, where it may be difficult for the editors to know a different legal system. It is they who would be fined/jailed, not us.

There is nothing wrong with asking the question. It's the answers you get which could prove prejudicial, going by some of the comments here.

This particular situation is one of the best examples of Scottish Law protecting people from being judged anywhere other than in open court. It also protects witnesses/accusers and potential jurors, though in this case I already feel the latter is going to be a tricky issue, precisely because of comments in social media. We don't need to make it any more difficult.

Agreed, I have also pointed this out before now about other things.It won’t just be the editors of GN either, it will be the poster!

And please, my fellow Gransnetters, be aware that these pages will be closely monitored by prosecution and defence in a high profile case like this. Do you really want to see the editors in GN hauled up for contempt of court while the matter is sub judice (going through the Scottish legal process)?
Caledoinal4 when I warned on a thread a while ago about another high profile case which was sub judice I was ignored, this is only GN, etc etc, so I hope that your warning is heeded this time.

I'm sure that GNHQ will be keeping an eye on it and perhaps deleting posts which could in any way prevent a fair trial, or indeed prevent a trial ever taking place.