Alex Salmond cleared of all sexual assault charges

You can't, that's why it's innocent until proven guilty. I am confused by the point of your post.

Well the Alex Salmond has been proven not guilty therefore the women could have lied... Also why do my fellow women decide to dig up this nonsense 20-40 years later (and it's always the same cr*p: "ahh politican/celebrity/royal X/Y/Z raped me") why not say it earlier say 10-20 years ago why wait until they hold some power to tell the police. Say it earlier

Also why do my fellow women decide to dig up this nonsense 20-40 years later (and it's always the same cr*p: "ahh politican/celebrity/royal X/Y/Z raped me") why not say it earlier say 10-20 years ago why wait until they hold some power to tell the police. Say it earlier

I volunteer with charities that support survivors of rape and honour abuse- men and women.
I have encountered female rape liars and individuals that falsely alleged sexual assaults.
One of whom was a woman I once shared accommodation with; spitefully lying about a man to punish him for laughing at her being too drunk to walk in heels without injuring herself.

Often the alleged rapists/other sexual offenders are not famous or wealthy.
Sometime it is an adult biological relation that raped a pre-pubescent child.

Some people do tell at the time; are not believed by their families because the accused is in a position of power/trusted family member and threatened with violence or being disowned unless they shut up.
Many people blame themselves and decide not to report to the police; try to forget and do not make any allegations for years or decades.
Then they encounter the alleged predator again after many years, the police suddenly get in touch with questions about the culprit or another event triggers a desire to reveal their version of events.

I think there is definitely something in this. given the current climate around men and sexual harassment, i believe if he really had done this he would have been found guilty. The SNP is the real nasty party, up there with the tories.

A lot of people are guilty of the crime but are found not guilty, just simply not enough evidence or other reasons.
I wouldn't have too much faith in the system

Seems though there was a fair bit given more than one alleged "victim".
That's why I found it incredulous he was not found guilty, though i dont know the background, when he mentioned a conspiracy and looked into it i began to realise there was more to this than alluded.

Just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he was innocent and it doesn't mean they were lying.

As far as the law is concerned thats exactly what it means though..

First, it's important to note that what you have written, particularly regarding "the courts have ruled that all 9 lied about being raped", is fallacious. The courts did not rule regarding any lying - instead, they ruled explicitly that Salmond was 'not guilty'. This 'not guilty' verdict is not the same as complete innocence, with Salmond himself admitting that some of his conduct is regrettable. However, let's assume innocence for a moment. If a precedent was set that in a rape case, a 'not guilty' verdict should result in the female being locked up for lying, is this not a huge disincentive for women to come forward and report rape cases? It is incredibly hard to prove rape or sexual assault because it is about consent, which is difficult to conclude in a he-said-she-said argument that lacks substantive evidence. Therefore, we shouldn't punish women unless they obviously and clearly lied. A not guilty verdict is not innocence, and whilst it is a shame that Salmond will be socially punished because this will leave a question mark over his credibility, we shouldn't be punishing the women. Not guilty is not the same as squeaky clean innocence.

You call it garbage but then you say its right?

Isnt that precisely why the Scots have 'not proven' as a potential verdict?
I mean guilty and not guilty are crystal clear in their implications with the latter firmly pointing to, in the eyes of the law, the accuser not having a leg to stand on.

I said one of the statements they made was right. I also quoted a statement that I felt was garbage.

Someone's post isn't necessarily 100% correct or 100% wrong...

Not guilty means simply that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged is guilty.
Does not mean that the accuser doesn't have a leg to stand on, could mean that but it could also mean that there was a lack of evidence. Or in fact that the evidence was compromised. Or the legal team was lacking.

And thus within the eyes of the law the party is innocent.
Indeed it can, but that is simply par for the course in our legal system. Although i'm not sure the first example you gave is the best for the case you're making? A lack of evidence being itself fairly indicative of the point i made.

No, because people would disagree with what is suitable enough evidence, one jury would vote different to another.

Indeed, another interesting quirk of the British legal system having a jury of random people judge your innocence.
However, the point still stands that from a legal, and indeed moral, perspective the judgement should carry through - whether the person was found not guilty due to a lack of suitable evidence or whatnot is quite immaterial when we look at the big picture. Refusing to acknowledge the verdict just because we don't like it or the person is not exactly ideal for our justice system. Nor, indeed, to the possibility that the person is indeed innocent and the accusers could well have been fibbing.

Saying "garbage like this" does make it seem like you disagree with the entire post