General Election 2015

[viberunner]

Who knows? Murdoch only provided one half (and perhaps not even all of that half) of the emails .... while Salmond decided to keep the emails in his possession to himself - ever wondered why?

I was expect you to know as you're the one making the repeated allegation as if it were a matter of fact. Instead you have, at best an evidence-free allegation and at worse a conspiracy theory.

You have made the allegation of corruption and quid-pro-quo deals. And when asked for details you say WHO KNOWS?

You're a fucking joke old son.

My own suspicion is that Murdoch has been promised the role of Scottish state broadcaster.

Your suspicion?

The post I responded to said:

Murdoch is the only media owner who has been 100% caught corrupting elected govt office holders - and the only one he's certain to have corrupted is Salmond. He sold Scotland to Murdoch. This is proven beyond all doubt.

And now you say you only have "suspicion" of it?

Salmond agreed to break the ministerial code to lobby at Westminster for Murdoch, to the benefit of his business interests and to the detriment of competitors, and as unfair competition. it's [salmond's corruption] already been proven in a court of law. [the proof is] Leveson. [no cited paragraph or conclusion]

I'm going to need you to back that up because you don't know the difference between "your suspicions" and "proven beyond doubt".

And I'll just point out that your own attempts at what you're requesting of me are laughable. For instance, the stats you provided for Salmond/Murdoch meetings - wrong (cos Salmond has since been caught having lied about the number of meetings), and exceedingly out of date. If you wish to comment on current affairs, it helps if you follow current affairs - or even stuff from 4 years ago.

I did a google research at least. But you haven't linked your proof. Or suspicions. Or anything. Please do so?

Bitter Together indeed.

[eFestivals]

You are entitled to your suspicion. I suspect that Salmond was hoping that SKY would base themselves here, call centre jobs etc.

there's a million other businesses in Scotland Salmond could be licking the arse of, but he's only licking Murdoch and Souter. Why is that?

As far as I have seen no-one on here has ever " defended " Salmond or given him a free pass on Murdoch ( feel free to prove me wrong with a quote or two ). His relationship with Murdoch has never been described in a positive way be anyone has it ? I remember suggesting that you start your own thread about Murdoch where we can all agree with you about him. You really don`t like Salmond and his continuing success is clearly getting to you. All I have ever done is point out that Salmond is not alone and that even Labour have had a seedy relationship with him ( atleast you now admit to knowing about Blair the godfather )

so you think taking him to task is allowing the man who's been proven corrupt to stay in Scotland's highest office?

> His relationship with Murdoch has never been described in a positive way be anyone has it ?

I can remember someone here (tho I forget who) saying there was absolutely nothing wrong with what he'd done, as it was about Scottish jobs - exactly as you've done above, as it happens.

And yet he doesn't go to the same extent for other employers or potential in Scotland. Why is that?

It " bugged " me that the Sun came out AFTER the SNP were polled as winning all the seats but I accept that is the business that Murdoch is in, just as he previously ran with a front page of Salmonds SNP logo in a noose ( classy ).

did it also bug you that Sturgeon welcomed the support of the UK's corrupter?

I`m not defending Slamond`s relationship with Murdoch , I 100% agree with you that it involved many mistakes and errors of judgement but I was happy to let the people of Gordon take the decision on Salmond. You obviously disagree with them having that right to choose.

I agree with their right to choose.

I also agree with my right to call them morons for electing someone who has been proven as corrupt.

Do *YOU* think it's a good idea to elect someone to public office who has already been proven as open to corruption?

Salmond has said that Murdoch is a " remarkable man " he also said this..............

"As the correspondence shows, our engagement with News International executives has been focused on boosting jobs, investment and economic activity in Scotland — exactly the same approach as we take towards all employers. Quite a contrast with the hypocrisy of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems," said a spokesman for the First Minister.

"Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have all met Rebekah Brooks more often in one year — including at the oyster and champagne garden parties — than Alex Salmond has in four years."

I am not defending Salmonds relationship with, or admiration for, Murdoch but I suspect the last part of the quote above may also be true

Salmond also said "I'm innocent". And so did Greville Janner.

> exactly the same approach as we take towards all employers

then isn't it funny that he's not producing evidence of doing the same things for other employers? in fact, the evidence proves beyond all doubt he doesn't do the same for other - often bigger - employers.

It's one thing to end up at the same soicial occasion as these sorts of snakes. It's another thing entirely entirely tpo fly to the USA at Scottish taxpayers expense, to have private meetings with Murdoch in Murdoch's private home, and then to lie about those meetings to the Scottish people who paid for it.

Also, that "4 years" in the quote is the four years prior to 2011, when Murdoch wasn't as unacceptable as he is today .. in the 4 years since that quote, Salmond or his lackies have had more-than monthly meetings with Murdoch or his top execs*, while all of the other major parties have steered well clear .... tho not the SNP's doppleganger, who calls him 'boss'.

* fancy showing me the monthly meetings - or even 6-monbthly meetings - with other Scottish employers?

[viberunner]

no no no, it's radical politics to force Skinner from the seat he's sat in for 30 years.

Not true. He gave up that seat when Labour were in power, so he has NOT had it continuously for 30 years.

[eFestivals]

I was expect you to know as you're the one making the repeated allegation as if it were a matter of fact. Instead you have, at best an evidence-free allegation and at worse a conspiracy theory.

that's because it IS a "matter of fact", proven in a court.

You have made the allegation of corruption and quid-pro-quo deals. And when asked for details you say WHO KNOWS?

You're a fucking joke old son.

The allegation of corruption is proven. What do you think thye ministerial code is there for?

We only know one side of what went on, via the emails that Murdoch provided. Salmond refuses to show the other half of the emails, not the conduct of a man with nothing to hide.

Salmond is the fucking joke, as are you. Why are you asking me to provide what Salmond has, and not Salmond?

Your suspicion?

We don't know what the terms where of the deal that was cut.

We DO know there was deal.

We do know that Salmond agreed to act corruptly as part of that deal.

And now you say you only have "suspicion" of it?

We don't know what the terms where of the deal that was cut.

We DO know there was deal.

We do know that Salmond agreed to act corruptly as part of that deal.

I'm going to need you to back that up because you don't know the difference between "your suspicions" and "proven beyond doubt".

My suspicions are about what Salmond agree as 'payment', which Salmond refuses to disclose. The wording of the emails clearly shows there was a deal.

The deal was corrupt. It's proven beyond doubt.

I did a google research at least. But you haven't linked your proof. Or suspicions. Or anything. Please do so?

Bitter Together indeed.

Leveson.

Or are you determined to stay ignorant so that you can keep on giving a corrupt man a free pass?

[The Nal]

Voting on gay marriage today in Ireland!

Hopefully will pass easy enough but you never know.

[Comfy Bean]

I have no problem with the candidate with the most votes showing up to Parlaiment. Although I would hold her working class cred in slight question, as not sure she's actually had a job.

I realised your original post was tongue in cheek mate. Wasn`t meaning to get into a bun fight and I was also being tongue in cheek suggesting that you would be wound up by them clapping etc

Would like to point out that she has in fact had a previous job. She worked in a " chippie ". Not surprised that this has not been reported down your way. I`ll stick with don`t believe the hype

[eFestivals]

You`ve made that up haven`t you. Skinner is still sitting where he has always sat. Don`t believe the hype. The right wing media will " attack " the SNP at every opportunity. I`m disappointed you are acting as their cheer leader and promoting guff like this. They want to keep the establishment and union in place. Progressive is the last thing they want to see.

No, I haven't made that bit up. They HAVE tried to force him from the seat he's sat in for 30 years.

The only reason he's not been forced from it is because he's a stubborn git (you might have noticed?) and basically sat on their laps till they let him sit on the bench.

The SNP have lots of things to say about their reasonings for doing what they've tried to do, but nothing of that negates the fact that they've tried to force him from the place he's sat for the last 30 years.

It *IS* a fact that they've tried to force him from his seat.

[Comfy Bean]

Salmond never ever courted any other big employer ever and never ever attempted to increase business, jobs or investment into Scotland unless their name was Rupert and they were not a bear oh and all this stuff is " beyond all doubt "

Brilliant stuff.

I am not defending Salmond`s relationship with Murdoch

[eFestivals]

Not true. He gave up that seat when Labour were in power, so he has NOT had it continuously for 30 years.

Isn't it funny how you can find the full facts when you need to stand up for the SNP, but can't find the full facts when those facts are about Salmond's corruption.

Yes, what you say here is true. I think that's the very first time I've seen you post something here which is factually true. Very well done, please try and keep it up.

He has had to swap sides when Labour were in power, true. But he sat in the same place on the opposite side.

And yes, the SNP are entitled to do what they've tried to do, but that doesn't mean they're doing something pleasant or reasonable.

What they'd doing is being pricks only for the purpose of being pricks - which is exactly what people suspected they'd do, and why plenty of people in England didn't want to see a Labour govt that was propped up by the duplicitous SNP.

[eFestivals]

Salmond never ever courted any other big employer ever and never ever attempted to increase business, jobs or investment into Scotland unless their name was Rupert and they were not a bear oh and all this stuff is " beyond all doubt "

Brilliant stuff.

I am not defending Salmond`s relationship with Murdoch

Salmond has never gone even 10% as far for any other employer.

Why does Murdoch rate as 10+ times more important than all other employers in Scotland?

The emails make 100% clear - beyond all doubt - that Salmond was prepared to act corruptly for Murdoch.

As ever, evidence isn't evidence and facts aren't facts to snippers.

Edited May 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Voting on gay marriage today in Ireland!

Hopefully will pass easy enough but you never know.

fingers crossed for you.

I'm guessing that if it goes thru, it's a clear indication that the Catholic Church is no longer pulling the strings in Ireland?

[Comfy Bean]

No, I haven't made that bit up. They HAVE tried to force him from the seat he's sat in for 30 years.

The only reason he's not been forced from it is because he's a stubborn git (you might have noticed?) and basically sat on their laps till they let him sit on the bench.

The SNP have lots of things to say about their reasonings for doing what they've tried to do, but nothing of that negates the fact that they've tried to force him from the place he's sat for the last 30 years.

It *IS* a fact that they've tried to force him from his seat.

Ahhh so now you accept they have " tried " to force him from " his " seat. Glad we cleared that up As i pointed out earlier, he IS still sitting in " his " ???? seat.

As you say, they had their reasons ( something to do with where the 3rd biggest party sits- I`m not sure ) but have all moved on. Don`t let that stop you bringing it up as a stick to beat the SNP with............... with your own twist of course

[TheGayTent]

I'd rather get some of what I'd like than none of what I'd like.

I think most of the voters agree with you.

The country voted to the right.

The country voted to ensure a party they don't trust with the economy didn't get in to run the economy.

[Comfy Bean]

Salmond has never gone even 10% as far for any other employer.

Why does Murdoch rate as 10+ times more important than all other employers in Scotland?

The emails make 100% clear - beyond all doubt - that Salmond was prepared to act corruptly for Murdoch.

As ever, evidence isn't evidence and facts aren't facts to snippers.

Do you want me to start listing employers in Scotland who Salmond has visited, met with, helped or provided support to over the years. Would it help if we then add them up and see if they make 10% of the meetings he had with Murdoch. I know for a fact that he has visited 3 in the town I live in. NS has visited more but she is a local lass. I live in a small town.

I am not defending Salmond`s relationship with Murdoch.

[The Nal]

fingers crossed for you.

I'm guessing that if it goes thru, it's a clear indication that the Catholic Church is no longer pulling the strings in Ireland?

Finally, yes.

Although their campaign has been typically ignorant and effective. My parents generation are still scared shitless of God. You wouldn't know it, meeting them, but when push comes to shove....

Edited May 22, 2015 by The Nal

[gary1979666]

I realised your original post was tongue in cheek mate. Wasn`t meaning to get into a bun fight and I was also being tongue in cheek suggesting that you would be wound up by them clapping etc

Would like to point out that she has in fact had a previous job. She worked in a " chippie ". Not surprised that this has not been reported down your way. I`ll stick with don`t believe the hype

I'm from the North East, you don't need to put chippie in " ", though would have gone for a y at the end!

Good that she has had a job - I only did a quick Wiki check and saw she was at uni, so took a punt. Still, can she be working class now she's on an MP's salary? I used to work in a bar, does that mean I'm working class?

As for the clapping and stuff, if they're not familiar with the protocol there, then fair do's, they can learn. If they're doing it to be subversive, then it's a bit immature.

[Comfy Bean]

The country voted to ensure a party they don't trust with the economy didn't get in to run the economy.

Don`t see how anyone can argue with that TGT. I`m still amazed the Tories got a majority off the back of the previous 5 years

Tedious as it may be, It`s also worth pointing out that they only got one seat from my " region " so I don`t think that you can argue that our political union isn`t a busted flush ( see the Maggie Simpson map - again ). People in England clearly " trust " the Tories as you say, fair enough. people in Scotland clearly don`t ( 1 seat ). It`s like that - and it`s the way it is.

[eFestivals]

Ahhh so now you accept they have " tried " to force him from " his " seat.

yep, they're incompetent even at their silly games.

As you say, they had their reasons ( something to do with where the 3rd biggest party sits- I`m not sure ) but have all moved on. Don`t let that stop you bringing it up as a stick to beat the SNP with............... with your own twist of course

Nope, it's got fuck all to do with where the 3rd biggest party sits.

It's got everything to do with where the SNP think the 3rd biggest party should sit.

[eFestivals]

Tedious as it may be, It`s also worth pointing out that they only got one seat from my " region " so I don`t think that you can argue that our political union isn`t a busted flush ( see the Maggie Simpson map - again ).

[

Care to tell me where regionality is part of the UK govt set-up?

Is the SNP a busted flush because none of them were elected in Cornwall? It makes the same sense as what you've said.

People in England clearly " trust " the Tories as you say, fair enough. people in Scotland clearly don`t ( 1 seat ). It`s like that - and it`s the way it is.

If in doubt, invent an SNP-friendly version of the facts?

People in England only "clearly trust" the tories before they trust Labour with the SNP pulling Labour's strings.

While SNP people in Scotland trust their emotions and not their brain, which is why there can never be a sensible discussion over facts with snippers.

Edited May 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think most of the voters agree with you.

all except Labour supporters who want eternal opposition.

The country voted to ensure a party they don't trust with the economy didn't get in to run the economy.

Not quite.

The country voted to ensure that TWO PARTIES they don't trust with the economy didn't get in to run the economy.

[eFestivals]

Do you want me to start listing employers in Scotland who Salmond has visited, met with, helped or provided support to over the years.

I'm sure you could give me a list of those.

Just as I'm sure that I could give you list of just one name where there's been monthly meetings over many years.

Spot the difference?

Would it help if we then add them up and see if they make 10% of the meetings he had with Murdoch.

all other businesses in Scotland are equal to one Murdoch business? PMSL.

Does Salmond regularly fly overseas at the taxpayers expense for meetings with the owners of those other businesses, too?

Spot the difference?

I know for a fact that he has visited 3 in the town I live in. NS has visited more but she is a local lass. I live in a small town.

Visiting/supporting businesses is normal practice for someone in that role.

Corruptly supporting businesses is not.

Lying about the number of visits is not.

Feeling the need to have to hide those visits is not.

Spot the difference?

Edited May 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I realised your original post was tongue in cheek mate. Wasn`t meaning to get into a bun fight and I was also being tongue in cheek suggesting that you would be wound up by them clapping etc

Would like to point out that she has in fact had a previous job. She worked in a " chippie ". Not surprised that this has not been reported down your way. I`ll stick with don`t believe the hype

are you on about the 20 year old SNP MP?

The one who's very short on life experience and has not had a proper job and is now a professional politician, having (yet to complete) a politics degree?

The very things which make Labour so unacceptable to vote for, because they've not got the life experiences of real people?

It's yet another example of snippers now lauding the things they used to condemn.

How long till you're advocating England to have a nationalist party running it, comfy? That nasty English (non-existant) nationalism that caused the SNP's rise, that the SNP's rise is going to cause?

[viberunner]

that's because it IS a "matter of fact", proven in a court

The allegation of corruption is proven. What do you think thye ministerial code is there for?

We only know one side of what went on, via the emails that Murdoch provided. Salmond refuses to show the other half of the emails, not the conduct of a man with nothing to hide.

Salmond is the fucking joke, as are you. Why are you asking me to provide what Salmond has, and not Salmond?

We don't know what the terms where of the deal that was cut.

We DO know there was deal.

We do know that Salmond agreed to act corruptly as part of that deal.

We don't know what the terms where of the deal that was cut.

We DO know there was deal.

We do know that Salmond agreed to act corruptly as part of that deal.

My suspicions are about what Salmond agree as 'payment', which Salmond refuses to disclose. The wording of the emails clearly shows there was a deal.

The deal was corrupt. It's proven beyond doubt.

Leveson.

Or are you determined to stay ignorant so that you can keep on giving a corrupt man a free pass?

I'm asking you for a link that proves what you've said. Leveson is a word not a link to a specific ruling. (It was also an inquiry, not a court, but that's another matter).

[eFestivals]

I'm asking you for a link that proves what you've said. Leveson is a word not a link to a specific ruling. (It was also an inquiry, not a court, but that's another matter).

if you're too thick to google, you're too thick for me to discuss this with.

Ah well, it's you with the corrupt party running your country, not me.

[viberunner]

if you're too thick to google, you're too thick for me to discuss this with.

I did Google but I didn't readily find that which are you are alleging. Alleging as "proven" at that.

You made the allegations... but appear unable to justify them.

Bitter Together much?