sonofoi Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Anyone got a link to the court of session live stream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 STV website is running it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 STV website is running it. Got the link - all I can see is iplayer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossan Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Got the link - all I can see is iplayer! i can get it on STV Glasgow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34156640 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34156640 Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 As much as I would love to see Carmichael found guilty, and hung out to dry, I do think watching it would be almost as bad as what we watched last Friday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofoi Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 As much as I would love to see Carmichael found guilty, and hung out to dry, I do think watching it would be almost as bad as what we watched last Friday night. Not much between them for the masochists among us! Good preparation for the boot in the baws tonight!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weekevie04 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Last time I watched something like this was Tommy Sheridan. STV kept the mics running and heard lots of great quotes from the public "Always thought you were bawbag" "You should be facing life for some of the munters you pumped" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Mr Rennie also claimed the campaign against Carmichael had a “slightly vindictive nature” in the beginning, and was “quite intimidating”, although tempers had cooled over the summer. He said: “I’m sure some people in Orkney and Shetland agree with [those taking Carmichael to court]. But I think they’ll lose. “It was quite intimidating after a while - the dog’s abuse that we were getting through emails and Twitter was constant, from the Nationalist movement generally. There was a lot of that. “I’m pretty confident that Alistair will win through, and I think they know it - that the case is not very sound. So I’m confident that Alistair will win through. Because he’s a good guy.” He added, however, that Mr Carmichael deeply regretted his part in the scandal. Willie Rennie is a waste of DNA, elected with less than 6% of the vote last time, get this tosser out of Holyrood ASAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 As much as I would love to see him shown up. I agree with rennie, he'll "win" simply because he has not broken any law against another candidate. Watching it live though, hardly OJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weekevie04 Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Rennie is probably right, but he's still a fud. Everytime I see him smiling he looks like a bairn in his primary class photo. How did he get to be leader? McInnes and McArthur are more more states(woooo)man like than him. Not that I care, I hope they expire in 2016 - the Libs, not the people who represent them of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 What vote percentage do the lib dems need to get any list MSPs? I can see them getting 4-5% nationally next year. Though I would expect them to get at least one of Orkney or Shetland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 As much as I would love to see him shown up. I agree with rennie, he'll "win" simply because he has not broken any law against another candidate. Watching it live though, hardly OJ. I don't think the case is based on what he has done to another candidate. I think their case is based on the possibility that he misrepresented himself by lying about his involvement in Frenchgate. They are saying that he lied to the public about himself and he was a candidate. Not convinced it will work but it sounds like quite a clever idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 What vote percentage do the lib dems need to get any list MSPs? I can see them getting 4-5% nationally next year. Though I would expect them to get at least one of Orkney or Shetland. I'd say Carmichael has scuppered Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur's chances of being re-elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) Carmichael case is to go ahead. AS far as I understand the initial ruling, the judges have ruled that that the act applies to the candidate talking about themselves, as well as talking about other candidates. So his defence of not standing against Nicola Sturgeon is irrelevant - it's the fact he's made himself out to be innocent of the leak when in fact he was the one who leaked it that matters. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1490/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan Key questions 1. Is section 106 of the 1983 Act engaged by “self-talking”, as opposed to attacking another?; 2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact … in relation to the personal character or conduct” of Mr Carmichael, within the meaning of section 106?; and 3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, do the averments in the petition disclose a relevant offer to prove that the words complained of were uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”? They've ruled that the answer to 1. is yes, it does, and they want to hear more evidence about 2 and 3. Edited September 29, 2015 by biffer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Call me a cynic if you want but, to me, the real question is "Is Carmichael still considered to be part of the establishment or are they quite happy to see him hung oot to dry?". Time will tell, maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 That thing Herr Bongo posted about independence reflection sums that up. Some English Tory saying Scotland's a basket case, and he replies "Indeed". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Carmichael case is to go ahead. AS far as I understand the initial ruling, the judges have ruled that that the act applies to the candidate talking about themselves, as well as talking about other candidates. So his defence of not standing against Nicola Sturgeon is irrelevant - it's the fact he's made himself out to be innocent of the leak when in fact he was the one who leaked it that matters. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1490/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan Key questions 1. Is section 106 of the 1983 Act engaged by “self-talking”, as opposed to attacking another?; 2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact … in relation to the personal character or conduct” of Mr Carmichael, within the meaning of section 106?; and 3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, do the averments in the petition disclose a relevant offer to prove that the words complained of were uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”? They've ruled that the answer to 1. is yes, it does, and they want to hear more evidence about 2 and 3. Wasn't number one the stumbling block ? 2 and 3 seem to be strong yes answers. If that is the case then it's popcorn time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Wasn't number one the stumbling block ? 2 and 3 seem to be strong yes answers. If that is the case then it's popcorn time It would seem to me that question 3 is the main stumbling block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Date set for next stage of Alistair Carmichael legal challenge http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34507791 = four days from 9 November Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bzzzz Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Carmichael case is to go ahead. AS far as I understand the initial ruling, the judges have ruled that that the act applies to the candidate talking about themselves, as well as talking about other candidates. So his defence of not standing against Nicola Sturgeon is irrelevant - it's the fact he's made himself out to be innocent of the leak when in fact he was the one who leaked it that matters. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/1490/Timothy-Morrison-and-others-v-Alistair-Carmichael-MP-and-Alistair-Buchan Key questions 1. Is section 106 of the 1983 Act engaged by “self-talking”, as opposed to attacking another?; 2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact … in relation to the personal character or conduct” of Mr Carmichael, within the meaning of section 106?; and 3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, do the averments in the petition disclose a relevant offer to prove that the words complained of were uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”? They've ruled that the answer to 1. is yes, it does, and they want to hear more evidence about 2 and 3. I was wondering if the actual action against Carmichael was not quite leveled in the right way. He deliberately lied about being responsible for leaking a fabricated story, the motive being of affecting the outcome of an election. This not being enough of a disgrace he then allowed an investigation to take place at the taxpayers cost. I fail to understand why this is not enough to have him removed from his position at a party level alone nevermind for it to have got this far. Can you imagine the reaction if an SNP MP had been found to have behaved in this kind of manner? If this court case can be won then I will be shocked and of course genuinely delighted, the man's a damned disgrace as are the Lib Dems for allowing him to get away with it and attempting to brush it off in a "everyone makes mistakes", "everyone deserves a second chance" kind of way. Also I find it absolutely astounding that in a so called democracy, it is not illegal for an MP to lie. Sometimes this damned union really does disgust me, as do some of the vermin that infest it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Shetland MSP Tavish Scott, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, told the election court it was a "political show trial". He said: "It's being funded by people, principally the nationalists, who don't like opposition." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Shetland MSP Tavish Scott, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, told the election court it was a "political show trial". He said: "It's being funded by people, principally the nationalists, who don't like opposition." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810 Saw that. He seemed perturbed to be called by the plaintiffs and ruining his Monday. Idiot of a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Saw that. He seemed perturbed to be called by the plaintiffs and ruining his Monday. Idiot of a man. I think he is just worried about being smeared with some of Carmichael's shyte, which is quite understandable, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.