And next it's Alex Salmond

I know have an ear worm

Let the winds blow high, let the winds blow low
Through the street in my kilt I go
Etc

welbeck

The title of the thread is perfectly acceptable and this case has been widely reported by all media. The OP contains nothing more than a link to a BBC report which many people will have already seen.

I agree that it could be prejudicial to a trial for known aspects to be discussed on social media but a jury would be directed to disregard anything they have heard or read prior to the trial.

I fear GNHQ have little idea of kilts,Callistemon but I do wonder why my comment was picked out ???????

But mine remains

Perhaps one of the mods is a Scotsman wearing a kilt to work, MawB!

What on earth did you say Maw??!

You have to larf don’t you?

Despite many other comments about a certain former First Minister and opinions as to his conduct on occasions it is my flipping (see what I did there) not to say flippant reference to kilts which gets deleted!
Happy now Welbeck ( or whoever ) ?

I don’t speak for other women so I won’t comment on whether there might be a certain satisfaction for other women who choose to hit a man - it’s down to the individual. If a woman chooses to hit back or pursue him through the courts then I am not going to judge - she has every right to do what she believes is best, as I’ve already said.

You said “some might choose to do something more instant and stop being victims” and another poster derided some of the women in the AS case.

SirChenjin Do you not think that there might be a certain satisfaction for a woman when she drew attention to a man's behaviour by hitting him or shouting loudly at him? More in some ways than the tortuous and long winded legal process will give. It might also empower a woman and it certainly doesn't stop her taking legal action as well. I have not by the way said women are victims if they don't fight back, nor have I derided anyone.

I don’t think that’s the point

There is nothing here which isn’t in the public domain on the mainstream media.

However if GNHQ believes it to be prejudicial then of course they should remove it.

Who would be the right legal authorities in Scotland to report this thread to? I don’t know their legal system

When this thread started I asked HQ to put a warning on about sub judice - they weren’t interested. We should all care about a fair trial /, usually it’s the victims that suffer if a trial collapse / remember that aide of an MP who caused a rape trial to collapse and the poor victim had to go through it all again?

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981
I have reported this discussion to GN and asked for it to be removed.
It is an offence to publish anything that could be prejudicial while a case is sub judice.
The publisher and / or the individual poster could be liable.
These are offences of strict liability, intention is irrelevant.

A general discussion re women's experiences is ok, but no mention must be made of any case currently before the criminal courts, nor of any named accused person.

The title of this thread is not acceptable because it directs people to read prejudicial material.

Absolutely - no-one is disputing that there will always be men like that. However, placing the responsibility for that at the door of women by inferring that they are victims if they don’t fight back or deriding women who have taken a prominent politician to court or accusing brutally murdered young women of being foolish in the extreme shows how far we still have to go in challenging attitudes to violence against women and girls.

I totally agree with trisher on this one. There will always be laddish men who consider themselves Gods gift ( have they looked in the mirror lately?!!!) and try it on no matter how much society disapproves, in exactly the same way that you'll always get loutish behavior from any section of society from both men and women. A short sharp reminder can often work wonders. Both my GD's go to self defense classes which at least gives them an idea on how to protect themselves should it ever be necessary.

Not at all. I’m interested why you think that?

Mmm
if those women who could simply stamped, stabbed or slapped perhaps the men doing things would get the message and all women will be better protected

No trisher
and
Women shouldn't have to put themselves at risk of escalated violence by stamping on a man's foot
That is not empowering or encouraging them. It is asking them to accept they must be victims

1. I have not said that women are not free to stamp on a man if they choose to - but they shouldn’t be expected to for the sisterhood.
2. Of course women are afraid to speak out because they think they are responsible in some way - posts on this and other threads demonstrate that only too well.

SirChenjin you can educate all you want. You can teach as much as you like.You can take men to court and go through the legal system. There will still be the occasional man who will try it on with a woman and some of them will be stopped by a woman who takes action, who protests loudly in public, who slaps a face and draws attention to the man's actions. One of the reasons women keep quiet is because they think they are responsible in some way. I haven't said it is wrong to take legal action just that some might choose to do something more instant and stop being victims. Denying women that right is just as bad as denying them the right to legal action. Both are valuable ways of stopping unwanted attention.

if those women who could simply stamped, stabbed or slapped perhaps the men doing things would get the message and all women will be better protected

No trisher - men will get the message when they are raised from an early age to understand this is not acceptable behaviour; when society stops objectifying women; when women hold equal power; when we start to teach about healthy relationships from an early age; when the justice system starts taking women's complaints more seriously...the list is endless. Women shouldn't have to put themselves at risk of escalated violence by stamping on a man's foot (stilettos?? Very few women wear them nowadays and rightly so) - they need to know that the behaviour of these men is not tolerated at societal level and that the onus is not on women to behave a certain way. If men continue to behave in this manner then women have every right (morally and legally) to challenge them through the courts whenever they see fit.

SirChenjin of course some women will freeze and be unable to fight back, but if those women who could simply stamped, stabbed or slapped perhaps the men doing things would get the message and all women will be better protected. I do think there is a difference between men who physically wish to harm a woman and those who are trying a quick grope. Wouldn't it be better to stop the gropers earlier rather than having to wait years for legal action? Perhaps also we should be teaching girls to react to gropes loudly and physically.
I don't like being hugged or kissed by anyone unless it is someone I am really friendly with and strangely enough I find some women insist on hugging more than men do. But it isn't sexual, simply inappropriate and they soon realise I don't accept their uncalled-for attention.

Each charge is considered on its own before it proceeds to court (or not) - it’s not a case of trying to weed out one from the other in one homogeneous mass. They are one attempted rape, one intent to rape, 10 sexual assaults and two indecent assaults.

My sympathies lie with the women.

Weeding out probable and improbable would I suppose be difficult, and give rise to accusations of bias. Maybe best to accept all and see what stands up and what doesn't by process of illumination. I find some of the charges a bit unbelievable too, but I guess time will tell! Politically motivated? Could well be, in which case I feel very sorry for A.S and his wife as it must be horrible for both of them.

I don't suppose the procurator fiscal would accept that the charges were without merit Esspee otherwise these cases wouldn't be going to court. The police must have been satisfied that there good cases against him.

I find many of the charges levelled at AS laughable in the extreme and expect them to be treated with the derision they deserve. As for the others we will need to hear more detail before anyone is able to come to a reasonable conclusion. Certainly there is a knee jerk reaction when there are 10 women levelling complaints (the no smoke without fire attitude) but the pettiness of some of the supposed "assaults" smells of politically motivated attacks.