re’
Presumably his lawyers were in agreement and forfeit any obligation to defend a presumption of innocence, despite their unstable client’s confession, on ethical grounds – ie lest the corroborating evidence required to prove guilt at trial was rendered inadmissible by discrepancies in the charge sheet (as originally reported).’
Sorry Stuart, I’m not sure if I explained things very well. Any accused has a presumption of innocence, but at the start of any trial, they are given the opportunity to plead guilty, or not guilty. Pleading Guilty gets to the finish line quickly, the presumption of innocence remains throughout the process if they plead Not Guilty.
The point I was making earlier, is at what time and date was he first charged with the sexual offence. I think it highly unlikely it was not at the same time as the other offences… in which case either the Police failed to tell the Press about the sex offences, or they did tell the Press and the Press decided Nikla was having a bad enough week of it, and kept that one from the public to save her blushes. Or Police and Press decided to keep quiet about that one, until it came out later, once the dust had settled.
The time and date, and officers who charged him with the sexual offence should come out in the trial. If it does, and if the time and date is the same as the other offences, then the public have been served very poorly by whoever delayed this information being made public. And I see no other reason for doing so, other than to assist the Transgender narrative, and the SNP Government.
One other way of perhaps identifying the time and date of the sexual offence charge being libelled, is the aforesaid Service on accused that they need to have legal representation at trial and cannot do it themselves.
There may have been a delay in charging accused with the sexual offence, pending receiving the results of forensic analysis, in which case this service of notice on accused would have been carried out on a later date.
However, it’s rare to postpone caution and charge of an accused with ALL the offences, when you have them in custody, for the simple reason that the Fiscal can change or drop charges prior to court attendence if the forensic evidence does not pan out and insufficient evidence comes to light from outstanding enquiry to substantiate the charge.
If it was the Press who did the censoring, Police Scotland will have no qualms about disclosing the full details of the press release they provided them.
]]>The singer with Pickettywitch, Polly Brown, “browned up” as half of the duo Sweet Dreams in 1974.
]]>“I was trying to be nice”
No, he wasn’t. Being nice would have been giving the little girl a lift to HER home, not to this paedo’s bed.
“I put her in bed with me to warm up”
No, he didn’t. If you want a child to get warm you give them a hot chocolate, a blanket and put the heating on. You do not undress yourself and jump in the bed with the child.
“Her phone went under a heater”
No it didn’t. That is an attempt to antromorphise the phone. The phone did not go anywhere by itself. It does not have legs. Somebody threw it there.
“accidentally melted”
There is no accident about it. It is the law of physics. If plastic gets too close to an open fire or a source of intense heat, it will melt. Somebody may have accidentally dropped/threw the phone too close to the radiator. But the phone melted as you would expect if too close to the radiator.
What a load of bullshit this guy was telling. Just as much bullshit as we have been force-fed since the SNP decided to become the willing wooden armour of whatever entity is behind this transgender political trojan horse.
Shona Robison must resign. We cannot have as Deputy FM such an incompetent who is either totally deluded and completely detached from reality, or expect the people of Scotland to behave as if we were.
]]>I like you’re’s and Northcodes posts, both very logical in assesment.
]]>Precisely that, Ruby. Self-id crap. The concept of self-id is in my view crap. In the same way you cannot demand to be seen as black when you are white covered in fake tan or you cannot demand to be hired as a mathematician when you haven’t even learnt to count, a man cannot demand the right to be seen and treated as a a woman simply because they are wearing knickers and make up.
Self-ID, just like the concept of transphobia, are in my opinion far too generic words to ever be meaningful. They are comfort terms to give baseless concepts a veneer of credibility. A castle in the air. Something that looks legit only on the surface.
For instance, let’s look at the word “transphobia”. Trans is a prefix which means across, beyond SOMETHING. Phobia is a suffix, which means fear or adversion to SOMETHING.
Where is that “something” in the word transphobia?
trans-what-phobia? What is missing in that fabricated word is the element that would define what you have phobia towards. The word “transphobia” is therefore a castle in the air kept deliberately meaningless so you can include all sort of fetishes there that have absolutely nothing to do with gender dysphoria.
Where does the concept of “self-identification” end? There are many dimensions to the concept of identification. Can you “self-id” as your neighbour and demand access to their house and bank account? When can you self-id and when can you not and who decides this and on basis of what?
“The root cause of all the problems with transgenderism is that people accept that a man can be a woman”
I couldn’t disagree more, Ruby. In my opinion, the problem with “transgenderism” is that it is a fabricated term to give credibility to a toxic movement determined to force people to deny reality.
People is being forced to block the information their own senses are sending to their brains in order to accept a man can be a woman or a male can be a female.
Our senses are innate to us and our first and most powerful barrier of protection acquired on evolution. Self-ID and transgenderism is all about neutralising and blocking that protective barrier. It is dumbing us down and making us vulnerable.
How deluded somebody has to be to not see that allowing males to compete in females’ sports is sentencing that sports category to the grave? How many of those claiming this to be possible are not deluded at all but are cowards or self-serving hypocrites?
Calling those males “woman” or “she” helps to mask the fact they are males and should therefore never have been competing in females’ categories.
That is denying reality.
Why this toxic, divisive ideology has been deployed to such scale and what is acting as trojan horse for is what we really should be asking ourselves.
“I do not accept that whether it’s done by ‘self-id’ or a group of experts saying a man can be a woman”
There are no experts in “gender” because gender is a fabricated concept. Sex is what is biological and measurable.
To be honest, I personally think we would be much better off by getting rid of the concept of gender altogether, and certainly getting rid of it from every official document and go only by sex. Male/female Sports, male/female prisons, male/female toilets and changing rooms. Sex is binary and measurable. Gender is not.
Just imagine how much less red tape we would have and how much taxpayers’ money we could save if the SGov were not subsididing so many quangos to create a false pretence of “democracy” or “public consultation”.
]]>Thanks, Achnababan.
]]>James. I feel I was a tad rude to you in my reply to your comment. I apologise.
You are entitled to your view like anyone else on here.
]]>I see you too have a keen eye for fake artwork,
The painting is not owned by colonised Scots, But it was suggested to them that it was, and they are responsible for it, that was enough for them to believe it was genuine.
Which they would be unlikely to accept that info with any other antiquity. It seems it may be awhile before Scots realise it is not theirs to own.
I’ll be honest with you, John.
I still haven’t forgiven you yet for slating my (pseudo)code. But I will. Eventually. Probably.
And I’m not a 100% sure if you’re referring to Hatuey the WoS commenter, or Hatuey, Chief of the Hispaniola province, Guahaba (you’re not channeling Spain, are you?)
]]>Scas, say it all,
The drawing and brush strokes behind the veneer painting of The Scottish government that is meant to depict a artists impression of Scotland from far away.
As you refer to it the Scots do not own the painting, while others imply and wish to pretend that we the (Scots) are responsible for its insurance payments.
It will take a long time before Scotland realise the picture and framework is a fake.
However Minds under Colonial control never question the bigger picture and take it at face value as a picture of Scotland owned by Scots.
Nothing is further from the truth. At the end of the day it is a fake painted in Westminster.
]]>