Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 24, 2018, 08:46:56 AM
-
Very odd case, if serious accusations, then why no police, and why would arbitration be involved?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45287672
-
I vaguely remember hearing about the Salmond allegations at the time. The police should always investigate, I can't imagine why anyone would wish to make up stories of this nature.
My parents didn't believe me when I told them the pastor of the Pentecostal church we attended had touched me inappropriately when I was 14. They didn't confront the guy about it. :o
-
This is the first publicity these allegations have received. Since there have been cases of false allegations of sexual assault in the past, your inability to imagine the motivation of why people might do so is irrelevant to the need for this to be pursued through the proper channels with Salmond being innocent till proven guilty.
-
In addition to there being no police involvement as far as is known, and if the matter is a stage of investigation that is prior to any police investigation being considered, it reads as if Salmond himself has brought this into the public domain and, according to the BBC website, is prepared to be interviewed.
This seems even odder, since the Scottish Government isn't commenting other than to acknowledge his legal case, since anything he does say seems likely to be prejudicial - but then again he has legal advise, so perhaps we just have to be await developments.
-
He's now been reported to the police apparently.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/snp/news/97766/alex-salmond-reported-police-over-sexual-assault
-
This is the first publicity these allegations have received. Since there have been cases of false allegations of sexual assault in the past, your inability to imagine the motivation of why people might do so is irrelevant to the need for this to be pursued through the proper channels with Salmond being innocent till proven guilty.
Strange, because I thought I had heard about them a few years ago.
-
Strange, because I thought I had heard about them a few years ago.
Memory is a fickle mistress
-
Memory is a fickle mistress
Apparently so, especially when you are as old and senile as my wonderful kids tell me I am. ;D
-
Not really, I have vague recollections of hearing something similar(not actually hearing,must've been an internet news report), but didn't take much notice as allegations seemed to be unsubstantiated. Oh where will it all end?
-
Not really, I have vague recollections of hearing something similar(not actually hearing,must've been an internet news report), but didn't take much notice as allegations seemed to be unsubstantiated. Oh where will it all end?
There haven't been allegations of sexual assault against Salmond previously. I think that possibly what you and Floo might be misremembering is 'Solero girl'
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13413843._Solero_girl__snap_landed_me_in_hot_water__admits_Salmond/
-
There haven't been allegations of sexual assault against Salmond previously. I think that possibly what you and Floo might be misremembering is 'Solero girl'
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13413843._Solero_girl__snap_landed_me_in_hot_water__admits_Salmond/
Could be, I don't remember the details.
-
Could be, I don't remember the details.
Which has, of course, got nothing to do with sexual assault. The issue here is that if people mistakenly think it relates to something that they have heard before, then they are more likely to give something credence. In addition if they then report their wrong memory it can become for others a confirmation of some similar incorrect memory.
-
Which has, of course, got nothing to do with sexual assault. The issue here is that if people mistakenly think it relates to something that they have heard before, then they are more likely to give something credence. In addition if they then report their wrong memory it can become for others a confirmation of some similar incorrect memory.
If you say so, I am sitting to attention, like good girl. ;D
-
I won't think about it again* until the allegations are disproven/proven. Anyone in public life is fair game for accusations. I'm sorry it's him though but he may well not have anything at all to worry about. *Not that I was thinking about it, didn't know until saw this threadwhich seemed to strike a chord but no, I imagined that. Didn't know about the Solero business either.
-
Anyone in public life is fair game for accusations.
Why? That sounds rather cruel to me. Do we not have it within our power to reserve judgement and treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, rather than thinking it is somehow OK that because you are in the public domain you are "fair game".
In the long run that will put off decent people wanting to be involved in public life, and you will end up with the lunatics running the asylum.
-
My reading is that Robbie was wanting to imply 'seems to be' fair game rather than 'should be' fair game.
-
My reading is that Robbie was wanting to imply 'seems to be' fair game rather than 'should be' fair game.
Yes that makes more sense - it didn't sound like Robbie's usually measured approach to issues!
-
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, apparently faced a similar situation to Salmond.
" I too was accused of hideous offences under a civil service disciplinary code and barred from taking any action to defend myself. I was not allowed to speak to anybody at all about the charges, and particularly not allowed to know the identity of my accusers, or to organise witnesses in my defence – which appears the exact procedure which Alex Salmond now, with absolute justice, complains of. These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth....
...The charges against me were entirely fake and entirely vexatious, even malicious, issued after I had objected to British complicity in torture in the “War on Terror”, which the government denied at the time, calling me a liar, though now admits. The charges were designed to destroy my reputation. "
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/08/when-they-decide-to-get-you/
Murray says the government leaked the charges to the Daily Mail to ruin his reputation and he suffered a mental breakdown at not being allowed to defend himself. He said he repeatedly asked the Foreign Office to refer the matter to the police so he could get a fairer investigation, but the FCO refused. Eventually he was cleared.
-
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, apparently faced a similar situation to Salmond.
" I too was accused of hideous offences under a civil service disciplinary code and barred from taking any action to defend myself. I was not allowed to speak to anybody at all about the charges, and particularly not allowed to know the identity of my accusers, or to organise witnesses in my defence – which appears the exact procedure which Alex Salmond now, with absolute justice, complains of. These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth....
...The charges against me were entirely fake and entirely vexatious, even malicious, issued after I had objected to British complicity in torture in the “War on Terror”, which the government denied at the time, calling me a liar, though now admits. The charges were designed to destroy my reputation. "
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/08/when-they-decide-to-get-you/
Murray says the government leaked the charges to the Daily Mail to ruin his reputation and he suffered a mental breakdown at not being allowed to defend himself. He said he repeatedly asked the Foreign Office to refer the matter to the police so he could get a fairer investigation, but the FCO refused. Eventually he was cleared.
Given the lack of information any claims to this being similar are specious.
-
Given the lack of information any claims to this being similar are specious.
The lack of information during the official complaints procedure and the claim that the disciplinary process is unjust are precisely what makes the claims similar.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Salmond accused the permanent secretary to the Scottish government of “behaving unlawfully” in applying official complaints procedures.
He claimed he had been unable to see documentation in order to challenge complaints, adding he refuted all allegations made against him, branding some of them “patently ridiculous”.
The former first minister said he would “answer to the complaints both comprehensively and publicly” if a judicial review found procedures used against him had been unlawful.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-latest-sexual-misconduct-allegations-sues-scottish-government-a8505586.html
ETA: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/24/alex-salmond-calls-sexual-misconduct-claims-ridiculous
"In an extensive round of media interviews on Friday, Salmond vigorously denied the accusations and repeatedly accused Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary to the Scottish government, of mishandling the investigation.
It was “flawed and bereft of natural justice”, he told a press conference near Linlithgow, claiming he had been assured by government officials from the beginning that it would remain confidential but had never been allowed to see the detailed complaints or evidence against him."
-
The lack of information during the official complaints procedure and the claim that the disciplinary process is unjust are precisely what makes the claims similar.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Mr Salmond accused the permanent secretary to the Scottish government of “behaving unlawfully” in applying official complaints procedures.
He claimed he had been unable to see documentation in order to challenge complaints, adding he refuted all allegations made against him, branding some of them “patently ridiculous”.
The former first minister said he would “answer to the complaints both comprehensively and publicly” if a judicial review found procedures used against him had been unlawful.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-latest-sexual-misconduct-allegations-sues-scottish-government-a8505586.html
ETA: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/24/alex-salmond-calls-sexual-misconduct-claims-ridiculous
"In an extensive round of media interviews on Friday, Salmond vigorously denied the accusations and repeatedly accused Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary to the Scottish government, of mishandling the investigation.
It was “flawed and bereft of natural justice”, he told a press conference near Linlithgow, claiming he had been assured by government officials from the beginning that it would remain confidential but had never been allowed to see the detailed complaints or evidence against him."
Except it isn't clear for example that Salmond does not know who his accusers are. Indeed it would appear from the reports that he does, so that similarity is wrong. Further the official complaints procedure was established for Scotland last year following the #metoo campaign. Now it may mirror earlier British civil service procedures but it is the Scottish govt Salmond is suing not the British civil service.
-
Except it isn't clear for example that Salmond does not know who his accusers are. Indeed it would appear from the reports that he does, so that similarity is wrong. Further the official complaints procedure was established for Scotland last year following the #metoo campaign. Now it may mirror earlier British civil service procedures but it is the Scottish govt Salmond is suing not the British civil service.
The similarity is that Salmond is saying a civil service disciplinary procedure into sexual misconduct allegations lacks natural justice. Craig Murray also said "These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth...."
I don't think it's relevant if the civil service is British or Scottish, since Murray is focusing on the issue of alleged lack of justice in Civil Service disciplinary procedures due to the difficulty in defending yourself against allegations .
-
The similarity is that Salmond is saying a civil service disciplinary procedure into sexual misconduct allegations lacks natural justice. Craig Murray also said "These Civil Service disciplinary investigations are contrary to all rules of natural justice, and designed to facilitate executive stitch-ups, not to uncover the truth...."
I don't think it's relevant if the civil service is British or Scottish, since Murray is focusing on the issue of alleged lack of justice in Civil Service disciplinary procedures due to the difficulty in defending yourself against allegations .
Why did you just ignore the point about knowing the who the complainants are? Or that the procedures here were agreed by the Scottish govt, not the civil service last year?
-
Why did you just ignore the point about knowing the who the complainants are? Or that the procedures here were agreed by the Scottish govt, not the civil service last year?
Because I don't see it as relevant to the issue of the similarities in the complaint about lack of confidentiality and lack of justice for those accused of sexual misconduct in disciplinary procedures, whether carried out by government or civil service, whether Scottish or British, and how the tarnishing of reputations could be for political gain.
That there might be differences in the detail of the two cases doesn't negate the similarities about the bigger principles being complained about.
-
Why? That sounds rather cruel to me. Do we not have it within our power to reserve judgement and treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated, rather than thinking it is somehow OK that because you are in the public domain you are "fair game".
I don't think it's right Trent, on the contrary, it's appalling and fills me with something akin to despair.
Just saw Mr Salmond on the news & he came across very well indeed.
-
Because I don't see it as relevant to the issue of the similarities in the complaint about lack of confidentiality and lack of justice for those accused of sexual misconduct in disciplinary procedures, whether carried out by government or civil service, whether Scottish or British, and how the tarnishing of reputations could be for political gain.
That there might be differences in the detail of the two cases doesn't negate the similarities about the bigger principles being complained about.
That's not true because you quoted Craig talking about not knowing who the complainants were in a post talking about similarities. Up till now this has been entirely confidential so that's just wrong . That there might be similarities between the two cases tells you nothing about whether the differences are insignificant about claims that the motivation.
-
That's not true because you quoted Craig talking about not knowing who the complainants were in a post talking about similarities. Up till now this has been entirely confidential so that's just wrong . That there might be similarities between the two cases tells you nothing about whether the differences are insignificant about claims that the motivation.
Incorrect. I quoted the whole paragraph - why are you focusing on the detail about not knowing who the complainant was and ignoring the much bigger similarities about allegations of a flawed, unjust disciplinary procedure that did not keep the sexual misconduct allegations against Salmond and Craig Murray confidential and has as a result smeared their reputation. Murray alleges that the smears are for political reasons. That could be true or it could just be incompetence. Either scenario is plausible.
-
I'm working this morning, just about to leave. Someone coming to see me about 0810 (I work locally, ten minute drive if I'm lucky). Just wanted to say last night I dreamed about Alex Salmond, woke up once - and I'm a heavy sleeper, difficult to wake - had drink of water and returned to bed. Dreamed about him again! Can't remember the details but he was crying and so was I. His quite elderly wife was in the background and she too was piping her eye.
Poor bloke. So now I'm biased. Well I always do try to think the best of people until proved otherwise. Not looked at any news this morning and dreading doing so.
-
I'm working this morning, just about to leave. Someone coming to see me about 0810 (I work locally, ten minute drive if I'm lucky). Just wanted to say last night I dreamed about Alex Salmond, woke up once - and I'm a heavy sleeper, difficult to wake - had drink of water and returned to bed. Dreamed about him again! Can't remember the details but he was crying and so was I. His quite elderly wife was in the background and she too was piping her eye.
Poor bloke. So now I'm biased. Well I always do try to think the best of people until proved otherwise. Not looked at any news this morning and dreading doing so.
Blimey what a nightmare! :o
-
Interesting commentary from Craig Murray, who went through a similar judicial procedure to the one Alec Salmond is now undergoing. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/08/when-they-decide-to-get-you/
-
Thanks for that Anchor. I haven't read any more news & don't intend to. I honestly want Salmond to be innocent of these charges but nothing surprises me. People are innocent until proven guilty though and I don't intend to dwell.
LR - not really a nightmare but one of those dreams that make you feel confused and uneasy on waking. It was interesting at the time. Got over it though and carried on as normal. I feel so sorry for A Salmond's wife, poor soul.
-
It is inappropriate and, given the lack of facts, impossible to discuss Salmod's guilt or innocence of any allegations (if they exist).
What we could discuss is whether the complaint and disciplinary processes are fair and reasonable or resistant to abuse - that is, if they were actually accessible in the public domain!
-
Good piece by Dani Garavelli
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-why-should-salmond-be-treated-any-differently-1-4789829
-
It is inappropriate and, given the lack of facts, impossible to discuss Salmod's guilt or innocence of any allegations (if they exist).
What we could discuss is whether the complaint and disciplinary processes are fair and reasonable or resistant to abuse - that is, if they were actually accessible in the public domain!
True - I don't have a lot of confidence in the system/ process. There has been a lot of evidence recently that the process for investigating offences, including sexual offences, is flawed e.g. lack of disclosure of evidence to the defence team in a timely manner. Not sure what has been done to improve things or introduce safeguards.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/dec/22/liam-allan-and-isaac-itiary-trial-collapses-should-lead-to-much-needed-reform
-
True - I don't have a lot of confidence in the system/ process. There has been a lot of evidence recently that the process for investigating offences, including sexual offences, is flawed e.g. lack of disclosure of evidence to the defence team in a timely manner. Not sure what has been done to improve things or introduce safeguards.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/dec/22/liam-allan-and-isaac-itiary-trial-collapses-should-lead-to-much-needed-reform
This doesn't relate to the civil service investigation, which is as part of the case Salmond is arguing new, and is about a criminal case in a different legal system. Now that doesn't mean that the process either in the civil service investigation or any possible crimimal investigation aren't flawed but the citation is irrelevant .
-
This doesn't relate to the civil service investigation, which is as part of the case Salmond is arguing new, and is about a criminal case in a different legal system. Now that doesn't mean that the process either in the civil service investigation or any possible crimimal investigation aren't flawed but the citation is irrelevant .
It's not irrelevant as one of the issues in the civil service disciplinary process is that there is a lack of disclosure of evidence in a timely fashion to help prepare a defence against the allegations. This together with the lack of confidentiality seems to be major flaws in any process that seeks to achieve a just outcome.
-
It's not irrelevant as one of the issues in the civil service disciplinary process is that there is a lack of disclosure of evidence in a timely fashion to help prepare a defence against the allegations. This together with the lack of confidentiality seems to be major flaws in any process that seeks to achieve a just outcome.
And a criminal prosecution in a different legislative area is irrelevant to all of that.
-
Crowdfunding his legal fees...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45350594
-
Crowdfunding his legal fees...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45350594
Yep and resigned from the party. A number of my friends who are members of the SNP feel very uncomfortable about the crowdfunding. That said, I think some of the rhetoric from other parties is problematic
-
Yep and resigned from the party. A number of my friends who are members of the SNP feel very uncomfortable about the crowdfunding. That said, I think some of the rhetoric from other parties is problematic
Agree with this.
The crowdfunding really isn’t good though.
-
Agree with this.
The crowdfunding really isn’t good though.
Yes, even though it's for the judicial review of the complaints process, it is unavoidable that it feels like an attempt to silence. The whole set of events is indicative of our various prejudices.
-
I note the Tory who replaced Salmond as MP for Banff and Buchan is still beating his gums out...trying to wring political capital by accusing Sturgeon of being biased in not suspending Salmond (dspite the fact that there was no legal justification for doing so), and being a coward in waiting for him to jump himself. Yes, the crowdfunding is tawdry. I'm not an SNP member, though I support their primasry aim - but people should note that SNP kicked Salmond out once before...and that resulted in his return and SNP achieving power in Holyrood. If he is cleared of these accusations, I would never dare write him off as a loose cannon in Scots politics.
-
And a criminal prosecution in a different legislative area is irrelevant to all of that.
Clearly to you it’s irrelevant. I explained why it’s relevant from my perspective and am happy to do so again.
It isn’t about the legislative area these cases are in but it is about whether any process involving judging someone for alleged sexual misconduct can be fair if they are not given sufficient information about the allegations against them in a timely manner to prepare a defence and if there is a lack of confidentiality before the proceedings, which means their reputation is tarnished before there has been a judgement made.
This principle applies to criminal cases as well as disciplinary cases, even more so if there are a lack of witnesses. I don’t know if there are any witnesses in this case, but if there aren’t and it is another case of ‘his word against hers’, then it is in the interests of natural justice and therefore in the interests of everyone that the process is scrutinised to see if it was fair or if changes to the process need to be made to make it fairer.
-
Clearly to you it’s irrelevant. I explained why it’s relevant from my perspective and am happy to do so again.
It isn’t about the legislative area these cases are in but it is about whether any process involving judging someone for alleged sexual misconduct can be fair if they are not given sufficient information about the allegations against them in a timely manner to prepare a defence and if there is a lack of confidentiality before the proceedings, which means their reputation is tarnished before there has been a judgement made.
This principle applies to criminal cases as well as disciplinary cases, even more so if there are a lack of witnesses. I don’t know if there are any witnesses in this case, but if there aren’t and it is another case of ‘his word against hers’, then it is in the interests of natural justice and therefore in the interests of everyone that the process is scrutinised to see if it was fair or if changes to the process need to be made to make it fairer.
Which is still irrelevant to what actually happened in this case as it's not a criminal procedure, and it's a different legislative area. It tells you nothing about what happened here. It's not a statement on workplace investigations.
-
Crowdfunding his legal fees...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45350594
Seems ok to me - I tend to think it’s unfair and against the principles of justice if people can’t defend allegations against them due to a lack of money, whether it is allegations of sexual misconduct or if they want to bring defamation proceedings against an accuser. It seems fair that allegations should have the weight of evidence behind them if a process seeks to uphold the principle “innocent until proven guilty.”
It’s unfortunate for the accused that as soon as an allegation is made they face suspension. As Salmond said "For my part I have always thought it a very poor idea to suspend any party member on the basis of complaints and allegations. Innocent until proven guilty is central to our concept of justice."
-
Seems ok to me - I tend to think it’s unfair and against the principles of justice if people can’t defend allegations against them due to a lack of money, whether it is allegations of sexual misconduct or if they want to bring defamation proceedings against an accuser. It seems fair that allegations should have the weight of evidence behind them if a process seeks to uphold the principle “innocent until proven guilty.”
It’s unfortunate for the accused that as soon as an allegation is made they face suspension. As Salmond said "For my part I have always thought it a very poor idea to suspend any party member on the basis of complaints and allegations. Innocent until proven guilty is central to our concept of justice."
Salmond can afford though. And he is suing the govt here, it's not a question of innocent till proven guilty.
-
Which is still irrelevant to what actually happened in this case as it's not a criminal procedure, and it's a different legislative area. It tells you nothing about what happened here. It's not a statement on workplace investigations.
It may be irrelevant to you but clearly I think it is relevant and I explained why I think it doesn’t matter if it is in a different legislative area as there is a principle common to the different areas in terms of fairness of the process.
-
Salmond can afford though. And he is suing the govt here, it's not a question of innocent till proven guilty.
Leaving aside your unevidenced statement about Salmond’s current and future cashflow commitments, why should he have to “afford” a judicial review of a process if the government has applied it incorrectly against him as he claims? The government has more resources than he does, and they got those resources from the public, amongst other things.
-
It may be irrelevant to you but clearly I think it is relevant and I explained why I think it doesn’t matter if it is in a different legislative area as there is a principle common to the different areas in terms of fairness of the process.
No, it's not irrelevant 'to me'. It's just irrelevant. To take a simple part of your comments, in the case of a workplace investigation there isn't a question of a 'defence being prepared'.
-
Leaving aside your unevidenced statement about Salmond’s current and future cashflow commitments, why should he have to “afford” a judicial review of a process if the government has applied it incorrectly against him as he claims? The government has more resources than he does, and they got those resources from the public, amongst other things.
Salmond has made clear that he can afford it but the crowdfund is set up to allowpeople who have expressed a desire to support him to do so.
Are you suggesting that every member of the electorate should be given unlimited legal aid to sue the govt in all circumstances.?
Presumably you have accepted that your point about innocent till proven guilty here was irrelevant?
-
No, it's not irrelevant 'to me'. It's just irrelevant. To take a simple part of your comments, in the case of a workplace investigation there isn't a question of a 'defence being prepared'.
Incorrect. It’s not irrelevant. And please explain how you think people do not try to prepare a defence for disciplinary procedures against them. The principle that if you know the detail of what you are defending yourself from, and evidentiary information in relation to the alleged offence, you can defend yourself better seems pretty sound to me. Looking forward to an explanation from you rather than assertions.
-
I note the Tory who replaced Salmond as MP for Banff and Buchan is still beating his gums out...trying to wring political capital by accusing Sturgeon of being biased in not suspending Salmond (dspite the fact that there was no legal justification for doing so), and being a coward in waiting for him to jump himself. Yes, the crowdfunding is tawdry. I'm not an SNP member, though I support their primasry aim - but people should note that SNP kicked Salmond out once before...and that resulted in his return and SNP achieving power in Holyrood. If he is cleared of these accusations, I would never dare write him off as a loose cannon in Scots politics.
I don't know here. Obviously no matter what lese you think of Salmond. he's a very able politician. But by time this is over, he will have been out of mainstream politics for 5 years. say? It's also not the only issue that some in the SNP have had with him, see the RT programme, and then there are his opponents gleefully publishing photos of him looking the worse for wear on a train, and the folks, who even if his legal challenge to the govt gets upheld, and no case is brought forward for criminal proceedings, or any such case results in a not guilty verdict. will think 'no smoke without fire'.
Though not quite in his league, Jim Sillars was once the comet streaking through the darks skies of Scottish politics, and now he has taken up the role from Gordon Wilson of the odd uncle shouting sexist and racist comments from underneath his tartan blanket. There is already a level of discomfort in the friends I have in the SNP over him in his actions here, and elsewhere, that I cannot rule out the same fate for him.
-
Incorrect. It’s not irrelevant. And please explain how you think people do not try to prepare a defence for disciplinary procedures against them. The principle that if you know the detail of what you are defending yourself from, and evidentiary information in relation to the alleged offence, you can defend yourself better seems pretty sound to me. Looking forward to an explanation from you rather than assertions.
Because in disciplinary proceedings, it isn't prosecutorial, so there isn't a defence in the sense there is in a criminal case.
ETA - it's not actually clear that we can call the investigation as carried out as 'disciplinary proceedings'
-
Salmond has made clear that he can afford it but the crowdfund is set up to allowpeople who have expressed a desire to support him to do so.
Are you suggesting that every member of the electorate should be given unlimited legal aid to sue the govt in all circumstances.?
What’s legal aid got to do with it? Crowdfunding seems to work if people support the action and want to hold the government accountable for alleged misconduct. Are you against the principle of judicial review of government actions?
Presumably you have accepted that your point about innocent till proven guilty here was irrelevant?
Why is it irrelevant? You just asserting it is irrelevant is...well, irrelevant. The lack of confidentiality in the process together with media coverage plus Salmond not being able to contimue in his role means accused people find themselves treated as if they are guilty by some of the public. From a natural justice/ procedural fairness perspective this is not upholding the principle of presumption of innocence.
-
Salmond denies allegations - Salmond shunted everything?
https://youtu.be/cbskoBOHyc8
-
Because in disciplinary proceedings, it isn't prosecutorial, so there isn't a defence in the sense there is in a criminal case.
ETA - it's not actually clear that we can call the investigation as carried out as 'disciplinary proceedings'
I am not using the term “defence” as in a criminal case, since I have already stated many times that it doesn’t matter about the difference between criminal cases and disciplinary hearings when it comes to the principle of fair procedure that you should be given sufficient information in a timely manner to defend yourself against allegations in official proceedings.
ETA: If an investigation is taking place, I think the person under investigation should have a right to respond and it’s a bit difficult to respond if you haven’t seen the evidence or witness statements or details of the allegations that you need to respond to.
-
What’s legal aid got to do with it? Crowdfunding seems to work if people support the action and want to hold the government accountable for alleged misconduct. Are you against the principle of judicial review of government actions?
Why is it irrelevant? You just asserting it is irrelevant is...well, irrelevant. The lack of confidentiality in the process together with media coverage plus Salmond not being able to contimue in his role means accused people find themselves treated as if they are guilty by some of the public. From a natural justice/ procedural fairness perspective this is not upholding the principle of presumption of innocence.
Because you think that people shouldn't be stopped from suing the govt because of cost. Not everyone will be able to raise the costs via crowdfund, so in principle you would seem to be arguing for that to be paid for by legal aid.
The process was confidential. The case is not a criminal one, so the idea of innocence is irrelevant, even if some members of the public don't understand that. The crowdfunded case has nothing to do with whether Salmond did or did not sexual harass/assault anyone
-
I am not using the term “defence” as in a criminal case, since I have already stated many times that it doesn’t matter about the difference between criminal cases and disciplinary hearings when it comes to the principle of fair procedure that you should be given sufficient information in a timely manner to defend yourself against allegations in official proceedings.
It's your imprecise use of a legal term that makes all what you have said on it by citing a criminal case for another jursidiction in a legal sense irrelevant.
-
Because you think that people shouldn't be stopped from suing the govt because of cost. Not everyone will be able to raise the costs via crowdfund, so in principle you would seem to be arguing for that to be paid for by legal aid.
You seem to be misrepresenting my position and I suggest you look at what I actually posted, which was that I thought crowdfunding was ok. I did not mention legal aid. I think crowdfunding is a great way to raise money. If people believe in your cause they are free to show their support by donating. Your attempt to link my opinion about crowd-funding to some principle involving legal aid is your over-active imagination I am afraid. Giving everyone legal aid is unaffordable, lawyers’ fees are often prohibitively expensive, so crowdfunding is a practical solution to the issue of lack of funds for legal cases.
The process was confidential.
They may well find that it was not confidential if the civil servant handling the investigation leaked some details of the investigation to the Press as alleged by Salmond.
The case is not a criminal one, so the idea of innocence is irrelevant, even if some members of the public don't understand that.
Incorrect - the presumption of innocence applies in any official proceedings or investigation, not just in criminal cases.
The crowdfunded case has nothing to do with whether Salmond did or did not sexual harass/assault anyone
Agreed. I never said it did. The crowdfunded case is about whether procedures were fairly carried out by the government, including whether the principle of presumption of innocence was applied to the process as it should have been.
-
It's your imprecise use of a legal term that makes all what you have said on it by citing a criminal case for another jursidiction in a legal sense irrelevant.
Incorrect. Drawing attention to an unfairness in legal proceedings to better illustrate the need to uphold similar principles of fairness in non-criminal proceedings is not irrelevant. Being able to defend yourself from allegations by preparing a defence is very relevant in disciplinary investigations and proceedings. I know because I prepared one for someone, which I packaged up in a black ring binder with a Contents page and stickies and passed to their lawyer for review. You are wrong if you think I was using a term imprecisely and moreover you arguing about the term I used is irrelevant to the issue of alleged civil service/ government misconduct during the investigation.
https://lincslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/employee-guide-defending-a-disciplinary-allegation-of-misconduct.pdf
-
You seem to be misrepresenting my position and I suggest you look at what I actually posted, which was that I thought crowdfunding was ok. I did not mention legal aid. I think crowdfunding is a great way to raise money. If people believe in your cause they are free to show their support by donating. Your attempt to link my opinion about crowd-funding to some principle involving legal aid is your over-active imagination I am afraid. Giving everyone legal aid is unaffordable, lawyers’ fees are often prohibitively expensive, so crowdfunding is a practical solution to the issue of lack of funds for legal cases.
They may well find that it was not confidential if the civil servant handling the investigation leaked some details of the investigation to the Press as alleged by Salmond.
Incorrect - the presumption of innocence applies in any official proceedings or investigation, not just in criminal cases.Agreed. I never said it did. The crowdfunded case is about whether procedures were fairly carried out by the government, including whether the principle of presumption of innocence was applied to the process as it should have been.
If you think that costs shouldn't be barrier to suing the govt, then crowdfunding isn't a reliable way round it. Your simply changing the group of those who can afford it, not dealing with the principle.
That someone leaks does not mean the process isn't confidential.
There is no presumption of guilt or innocence in the judicial review.
-
Incorrect. Drawing attention to an unfairness in legal proceedings to better illustrate the need to uphold similar principles of fairness in non-criminal proceedings is not irrelevant. Being able to defend yourself from allegations by preparing a defence is very relevant in disciplinary investigations and proceedings. I know because I prepared one for someone, which I packaged up in a black ring binder with a Contents page and stickies and passed to their lawyer for review. You are wrong if you think I was using a term imprecisely and moreover you arguing about the term I used is irrelevant to the issue of alleged civil service/ government misconduct during the investigation.
https://lincslaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/employee-guide-defending-a-disciplinary-allegation-of-misconduct.pdf
And the principles in a case in a different jurisdiction as to how criminal proceedings are conducted will not be seen as relevant to the judicial review here. As for disciplinary proceedings, as I said there isn't a defence in the same sense as in a criminal case, and it isn't clear that there was actual disciplinary proceedings here as yet
-
If you think that costs shouldn't be barrier to suing the govt, then crowdfunding isn't a reliable way round it. Your simply changing the group of those who can afford it, not dealing with the principle.
I can’t think of an affordable way to get around the principle so crowdfunding is the practical option. Legal aid for everyone is not feasible so I don’t even consider that an option. I have already explained this to you so why are you arguing for legal aid and trying to pass it off as my argument? I thought you normally object when other posters do this.
That someone leaks does not mean the process isn't confidential.
True. An investigation may identify who leaked and if it was a civil servant involved in the investigation then the process was not confidential.
There is no presumption of guilt or innocence in the judicial review.
Which is not something I have said. I said there should be a presumption of innocence in any disciplinary investigation or action process. The judicial review is about whether there was a government misconduct during the process. Do you have an objection to judicial reviews of alleged government misconduct?
-
And the principles in a case in a different jurisdiction as to how criminal proceedings are conducted will not be seen as relevant to the judicial review here.
Your point is irrelevant. I already explained that I mentioned criminal proceedings to illustrate the principle of fairness in defending yourself against allegations in any official proceedings - criminal or otherwise. That is a general point about fairness in official proceedings, not about the detail of how criminal proceedings compare to non-criminal proceedings.. As for disciplinary proceedings, as I said there isn't a defence in the same sense as in a criminal case, and it isn't clear that there was actual disciplinary proceedings here as yet
And as I said, the issue of criminal or non-criminal defences is still irrelevant.
And as I also said - even during an official investigation there is a principle of fairness and a person should be given enough information to prepare a defence to allegations made against them.
-
Why did you just ignore the point about knowing the who the complainants are? Or that the procedures here were agreed by the Scottish govt, not the civil service last year?
Why do you ignore all the other points?
-
I don't know here. Obviously no matter what lese you think of Salmond. he's a very able politician. But by time this is over, he will have been out of mainstream politics for 5 years. say? It's also not the only issue that some in the SNP have had with him, see the RT programme, and then there are his opponents gleefully publishing photos of him looking the worse for wear on a train, and the folks, who even if his legal challenge to the govt gets upheld, and no case is brought forward for criminal proceedings, or any such case results in a not guilty verdict. will think 'no smoke without fire'.
Though not quite in his league, Jim Sillars was once the comet streaking through the darks skies of Scottish politics, and now he has taken up the role from Gordon Wilson of the odd uncle shouting sexist and racist comments from underneath his tartan blanket. There is already a level of discomfort in the friends I have in the SNP over him in his actions here, and elsewhere, that I cannot rule out the same fate for him.
That's why I said 'loose cannon', NS.
Of course 'Eck will never have the power or influence that he once had - but that's not going to stop him mouthing off - nor taking a substantive buch of Yessers with him.
Mind you, to equate Sillars - who was my constituancy MP when he was a Labour stalwart - with GordonWilson, hey, there I'd draw the line.
I knew Gordon - didn't always agree with him, but I did respect him.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/30/alex-salmond-crowdfunding-scottish-independence
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/30/alex-salmond-crowdfunding-scottish-independence
I am not sure I understand the argument. I would think it is in all women's interests to support a fair investigation process and discourage government misconduct in this process. Women can also be subject to disciplinary investigations and I doubt a man would get much support if they wrote an article suggesting a woman keeps silent if she feels a civil servant is abusing the process. Sounds sexist and discriminatory to expect a man to keep silent if he thinks an investigation process has been carried out incorrectly - almost as though a man should consider his own life as having less worth compared to the feelings of the complainant.
Crowdfunding is a good way for the public to show support. For example for judicial reviews that hold a government or civil servant accountable for ensuring a fair process for men and women under investigation. It sends a message to officials carrying out these processes.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/30/alex-salmond-crowdfunding-scottish-independence
I can think of many more worthy causes to which I would donate money rather than helping to pay for Salmond's defence.
-
I can think of many more worthy causes to which I would donate money rather than helping to pay for Salmond's defence.
Just to be clear, it isn't his defence that the crowdfunding is raising money for.
-
Just to be clear, it isn't his defence that the crowdfunding is raising money for.
So what is it for then?
-
So what is it for then?
Judicial review of the complaints process - see link for what it covers.
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/columnists/16609766.the-court-of-session-wont-clear-salmonds-name-heres-the-facts/
-
Just to be clear, it isn't his defence that the crowdfunding is raising money for.
That isn't how Salmond sees it in his crowdfunding request - to quote:
'My entire focus for the next few weeks is preparing for Judicial Review, against the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, the initial stages of which began yesterday. My intention is to secure fairness because that is necessary to clear my name.' - my emphasis.
Clearing his name is a key part of the process for which he is requesting the crowdfunding.
-
That isn't how Salmond sees it in his crowdfunding request - to quote:
'My entire focus for the next few weeks is preparing for Judicial Review, against the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, the initial stages of which began yesterday. My intention is to secure fairness because that is necessary to clear my name.' - my emphasis.
Clearing his name is a key part of the process for which he is requesting the crowdfunding.
Except the crowdfunding is only for, and can only be for the judicial review. Salmond's language is incorrect, and I would suggest deliberately so. People may well think they are contributing to his defence for some as yet non existent criminal trial and they would be wrong. There's a case to made that any such crowdfunding description needs to be much clearer about what can actually be achieved by what the money is being raised for.
-
Except the crowdfunding is only for, and can only be for the judicial review. Salmond's language is incorrect, and I would suggest deliberately so. People may well think they are contributing to his defence for some as yet non existent criminal trial and they would be wrong. There's a case to made that any such crowdfunding description needs to be much clearer about what can actually be achieved by what the money is being raised for.
But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.
-
But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.
So you believe what he's written? It looks like spin, nothing more.
-
But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.
Yes, and he's wrong. It has nothing to do with any legal defence in any criminal case. It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money. As Andrew Tickell in the link I provided makes clear, it can do nothing to clear his name.
-
So you believe what he's written? It looks like spin, nothing more.
I believe that he will only use the money for the judicial review costs - having stated that clearly he'd be in really hot water if he did otherwise. I also think that his reason for triggering the judicial review is that, if successful, it will result in his name being clearer. Not directly, because the judicial review cannot do that, but indirectly as a judicial review can determine that a process was unfair and request that the process is changed, and/or, prior outcomes of cases conducted under that process should be reviewed or re-examined.
Indeed, in 'moral' victory terms, simply having the process declared unfair provides him with that moral victory - a kind of, 'sure they found my guilty but the process was unfair than there is no a legal judgement to confirm that the process was unfair'.
What is interesting in his statement on the crowdfunding page is that it is all about himself. Often people trigger a judicial review to benefit others in the future who otherwise would be subject to an unfair process - no suggestion that to be the motivation for Salmond.
-
Yes, and he's wrong. It has nothing to do with any legal defence in any criminal case. It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money. As Andrew Tickell in the link I provided makes clear, it can do nothing to clear his name.
Then why does he specifically state that it is 'necessary to clear my name'.
-
Then why does he specifically state that it is 'necessary to clear my name'.
To repeat ;It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money'. It's also an attempt to make the judicial review which might agree that the process was technically flawed, can then be spun as a 'clearing of his name' when it isn't anything of the sort. That Salmond is playing politics and misrepresenting the law, doesn't make him correct.
The judicial review also has nothing to do with independence but he wraps that in to the crowdfund statement as well,
-
But it is incorrect to imply that this is nothing to do with his defence - in other words clearing his name. Salmond clearly thinks (rightly or wrongly) that the judicial review is critical for him clearing his name. How do I know this - because he has told us on his crowdfunding page.
I read it as him saying that if the judicial review results in an investigation process that is fair, he is confident that he will be able to clear his name, as a fair process will, in his opinion, give him the opportunity and tools to clear his name by allowing him to have all the information he needs about the allegations to successfully defend himself.
Of course that’s his opinion- it may be that after what is deemed to be a fair disciplinary investigation or criminal investigation (separate processes from the judicial review) the findings of those investigations will be that there is enough to justify holding a disciplinary hearing and/or a criminal prosecution against Salmond. But he may still be able to successfully defend himself against these or he may not.
-
The judicial review also has nothing to do with independence but he wraps that in to the crowdfund statement as well,
He never claims that the judicial review has anything to do with independence. He does, however, state unequivocally, that the judicial review is key to clearing his name. And I'd agree for the reasons stated in a previous post.
Don't forget that he is an incredibly powerful, establishment figure in Scotland - much of this is about welding that 'soft' power to his advantage.
-
He never claims that the judicial review has anything to do with independence. He does, however, state unequivocally, that the judicial review is key to clearing his name. And I'd agree for the reasons stated in a previous post.
Don't forget that he is an incredibly powerful, establishment figure in Scotland - much of this is about welding that 'soft' power to his advantage.
The crowd funding statement finished with
'It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'
That's wrapping up what is good for him with what is good for independence.
That you agree with him when he and you are factually wrong is of no consequence. The legal details are laid out in the Tickell column.
I have no idea why you are telling me not to forget something that I I have been making clear.
-
And the odds of there being a fair trial, should it come it it, after this are what, exactly?
-
it can do nothing to clear his name.
Alec Salmond believes it can. He wants the judicial review because, at the moment, he is being denied access to the evidence against him. Without knowing the evidence, he cannot defend himself except in the broadest terms.
-
The crowd funding statement finished with
'It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'
Nice bit of selected quoting - which you regularly accuse other of.
His statement is top and tailed by paragraphs about him and his career etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the case and the judicial review - including the first paragraph and also the last one, which you fail to quote in full, but I will.
'Finally, I will continue to serve the independence movement in whatever role and whatever capacity I can. It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'
All he is saying is that regardless of the judicial review etc he will still campaign for independence. Rather than implying the the judicial review is linked to, or necessary for, him being able to campaign for independence, he is making the opposite point - that he wont be distracted from that campaign despite the judicial review.
-
Nice bit of selected quoting - which you regularly accuse other of.
His statement is top and tailed by paragraphs about him and his career etc, that have absolutely nothing to do with the case and the judicial review - including the first paragraph and also the last one, which you fail to quote in full, but I will.
'Finally, I will continue to serve the independence movement in whatever role and whatever capacity I can. It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'
All he is saying is that regardless of the judicial review etc he will still campaign for independence. Rather than implying the the judicial review is linked to, or necessary for, him being able to campaign for independence, he is making the opposite point - that he wont be distracted from that campaign despite the judicial review.
It's quoting the relevant bit in the statement which wraps it up in it. It makes clear tat his 'intention now' i.e. the action he is taking is about independence. It precisely makes the opposite point to your claim.
-
Alec Salmond believes it can. He wants the judicial review because, at the moment, he is being denied access to the evidence against him. Without knowing the evidence, he cannot defend himself except in the broadest terms.
Indeed, and the judicial review can also declare the decision 'irrational' or could 'reduce the decision' meaning they send it back to the government to revisit. Now neither of these requires the government to change its decision, but if a judicial review has ruled as such there is extremely strong pressure on the original decision makers to amend their decision.
-
Alec Salmond believes it can. He wants the judicial review because, at the moment, he is being denied access to the evidence against him. Without knowing the evidence, he cannot defend himself except in the broadest terms.
That's his case in part for the judicial review but at this stage we don't know the truth. That he thinks it can clear his name doesn't make him right, and that he may have reasons for portraying it that way even if he thinks it's incorrect needs to be understood. Agani I'll take the Tickell column as a better statement of the law than Salmond's attempt at crowdfunding
-
Indeed, and the judicial review can also declare the decision 'irrational' or could 'reduce the decision' meaning they send it back to the government to revisit. Now neither of these requires the government to change its decision, but if a judicial review has ruled as such there is extremely strong pressure on the original decision makers to amend their decision.
Which does nothing with the facts of either case, as Tickell makes clear.
-
It's quoting the relevant bit in the statement which wraps it up in it. It makes clear tat his 'intention now' i.e. the action he is taking is about independence. It precisely makes the opposite point to your claim.
No it isn't, because you fail to include the part which tells us what the 'cause' you are referring to is. In the final paragraph the 'cause' is independence, not justice via the judicial review.
No-where does he claim that success in the judicial review is important for the cause of independence - he does, however in the final paragraph make clear that despite being in a legal quagmire and in dispute with his own party, an independence supporting SNP government and his own cherry-picked successor as first minister that he will still campaign for independence. So it is 'despite' not 'because of'.
-
Which does nothing with the facts of either case, as Tickell makes clear.
The outcome of any judicial process is a combination of facts and procedure, leading to a decision. If the judicial review rules that either the procedure was flawed or the decision irrational and refers back to the Scottish ~Government, that would provide strong pressure for the decision to be reviewed (indeed it might have to be by law) and changed, regardless of the facts of the case. Judicial review is all about procedure, and a new process using the same facts but amended procedure can easily come to a different conclusion.
-
No it isn't, because you fail to include the part which tells us what the 'cause' you are referring to is. In the final paragraph the 'cause' is independence, not justice via the judicial review.
No-where does he claim that success in the judicial review is important for the cause of independence - he does, however in the final paragraph make clear that despite being in a legal quagmire and in dispute with his own party, an independence supporting SNP government and his own cherry-picked successor as first minister that he will still campaign for independence. So it is 'despite' not 'because of'.
And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence. That covers the actoin that he is taking. Also if you want to look at some of the comments on the crowdfunding page, and indeed his support across social media, you will see that many see the judicial review as part of the fight for independence, and I would suggest that Salmpnd, being as ever a canny operator when needed, is using this exactly to his advantage with that statement - as you say, much of this is about using that 'soft' power to his advantage which is precisely why he makes this to do with independence
-
And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence. That covers the actoin that he is taking. Also if you want to look at some of the comments on the crowdfunding page, and indeed his support across social media, you will see that many see the judicial review as part of the fight for independence, and I would suggest that Salmpnd, being as ever a canny operator when needed, is using this exactly to his advantage with that statement - as you say, much of this is about using that 'soft' power to his advantage which is precisely why he makes this to do with independence
Yes, this is what I'm seeing too. Comments about donating to 'show Westminster', calls for the 'hounding' of the two complainants...
-
The outcome of any judicial process is a combination of facts and procedure, leading to a decision. If the judicial review rules that either the procedure was flawed or the decision irrational and refers back to the Scottish ~Government, that would provide strong pressure for the decision to be reviewed (indeed it might have to be by law) and changed, regardless of the facts of the case. Judicial review is all about procedure, and a new process using the same facts but amended procedure can easily come to a different conclusion.
And yet, in terms of the legal position, there is nothing in that review that takes a position on the decision being different. Again, I'll take Tickell's statement on the law as more definitive than yours.
-
Yes, this is what I'm seeing too. Comments about donating to 'show Westminster', calls for the 'hounding' of the two complainants...
Yep. Though it's a fair few years since I met 'Eck, I know that he can skew everything round to the fight for indepencence if he has a mind to it.
I'm not sure divorcing him from the SNP will shut him up...far from it; he's now a loose cannon with no restraints, for better or worse.
-
And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence.
I agree
That covers the actoin that he is taking.
I disagree - his current action has nothing whatsoever to do with serving the cause of independence. Indeed taking the Scottish Government (who support independence) to court is likely to distract them from the cause of independence. That is the point he is making - that this SNP on SNP spat wont distract him from continuing to pursue the cause of independence.
In what way could it possibly be argued that him talking the SNP Government to court over its disciplinary procedures is somehow advancing the cause of independence.
-
I agree
I disagree - his current action has nothing whatsoever to do with serving the cause of independence. Indeed taking the Scottish Government (who support independence) to court is likely to distract them from the cause of independence. That is the point he is making - that this SNP on SNP spat wont distract him from continuing to pursue the cause of independence.
In what way could it possibly be argued that him talking the SNP Government to court over its disciplinary procedures is somehow advancing the cause of independence.
Because many of his supporters see him and the cause as inextricably linked. Any blow to Salmond can only be orchestrated by Westminster. That it is his own party in government who devised the harassment rules is less relevant to them than the cult of the man. We see it with Corbyn (for better or worse), Trump, Obama, even Blair back in the day.
Salmond has very deftly made this about politics and not sexual harassment. That's clever.
-
That's his case in part for the judicial review but at this stage we don't know the truth.
Well he's said that he thinks he should be able to see the evidence. In the absence of any mind reading ability, it seems reasonable to assume that it is (at least part of) his reasons for asking for a judicial review.
That he thinks it can clear his name doesn't make him right, and that he may have reasons for portraying it that way even if he thinks it's incorrect needs to be understood. Agani I'll take the Tickell column as a better statement of the law than Salmond's attempt at crowdfunding
This is not about the law though, it's about the fairness or otherwise of the Scottish government's complaint process. As your Mr Tickell says:
If he wins permission to bring the case, the court will have to ask itself three key questions about the Scottish Government process. Firstly: has the civil service followed its own rules and procedures? Has it operated within its powers or strayed beyond them? Secondly, is the decision irrational? Is it so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it? Lastly, we come to the likely nub of this case: fairness. Did the rules afford Mr Salmond a fair hearing?
[my italics]
So step 1 is to get the court to rule that the complaints process is unfair. Step 2 would then be to make them release the evidence against Mr Salmond to Mr Salmond so he can defend himself.
-
And yet, in terms of the legal position, there is nothing in that review that takes a position on the decision being different. Again, I'll take Tickell's statement on the law as more definitive than yours.
Do you have any legal background NS?
If you are subject to a judicial review as a organisation and that review determines that:
1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair
And they refer your decision back to you for review, sure you can say 'yup, we've reviewed it and we agree with the original decision', but you'd have to be a pretty tough cookie to do so. You will certainly have to review your original procedure and likely with independent people different to those who made the original decision. Under those circumstances it is likely, and indeed, extremely common in review process of this type (there are many) that when sent back for review a different decision is taken.
-
Yep. Though it's a fair few years since I met 'Eck, I know that he can skew everything round to the fight for indepencence if he has a mind to it.
I'm not sure divorcing him from the SNP will shut him up...far from it; he's now a loose cannon with no restraints, for better or worse.
I'm not Scots and my knowledge of Scottish politics and the battle for independence is largely thanks to you, NS, Gordon and the information and links that you provide, all with differing opinions and experiences.
I bow to your judgement and that of the other Scots on the board far more than I do people who don't have direct experience of the personalities and politics involved.
-
Because many of his supporters see him and the cause as inextricably linked. Any blow to Salmond can only be orchestrated by Westminster. That it is his own party in government who devised the harassment rules is less relevant to them than the cult of the man. We see it with Corbyn (for better or worse), Trump, Obama, even Blair back in the day.
Salmond has very deftly made this about politics and not sexual harassment. That's clever.
He has weaved in the politics, which he will always do, but I don't think anyone really sees that the judicial review (which lets face it is him vs Nicola Sturgeon) advances the independence cause whatsoever. I think he is reassuring independence supporters that this SNP on SNP action wont harm that cause.
What I really don't like and what worries me most about all this, is the soft pressure from him (and possibly harder pressure) from his supporters on those making the allegations. Effectively a 'don't mess with me' message to them. Currently they are anonymous, but if you were one of the women I imagine you'd be living in fear as to what would happen if (or when) there names become public. And this is where it is so similar to other powerful establishment men facing allegations from less powerful women cases. I can easily image one or both of those women wondering whether they'd done the right thing by raising the allegations. Worried that their names will become public and they will suffer abuse on social media, be ostracised within the workplace by Salmond supporters etc etc.
The notion that Salmond can snap his fingers and raise a hundred thousand from thousands of supporters in hours could well send a chill down the spine of those women.
-
He has weaved in the politics, which he will always do, but I don't think anyone really sees that the judicial review (which lets face it is him vs Nicola Sturgeon) advances the independence cause whatsoever. I think he is reassuring independence supporters that this SNP on SNP action wont harm that cause.
What I really don't like and what worries me most about all this, is the soft pressure from him (and possibly harder pressure) from his supporters on those making the allegations. Effectively a 'don't mess with me' message to them. Currently they are anonymous, but if you were one of the women I imagine you'd be living in fear as to what would happen if (or when) there names become public. And this is where it is so similar to other powerful establishment men facing allegations from less powerful women cases. I can easily image one or both of those women wondering whether they'd done the right thing by raising the allegations. Worried that their names will become public and they will suffer abuse on social media, be ostracised within the workplace by Salmond supporters etc etc.
The notion that Salmond can snap his fingers and raise a hundred thousand from thousands of supporters in hours could well send a chill down the spine of those women.
Which is why he did it, at least in part. Look at the comments online. How long before they decide to drop charges?
-
And the odds of there being a fair trial, should it come it it, after this are what, exactly?
In a criminal trial, if there is enough evidence to have one, I hope people will just focus on considering the evidence they are presented with and decide if the evidence persuades them about guilt, innocence or in Scotland I believe there is a 3rd outcome of not proven?
It's an imperfect system and not sure what can be done to determine the truth in trials, as it is usually about what can be proved rather than what is true. Due to the principle of presumption of innocence it is considered just to not punish someone if there is reasonable doubt about their guilt due to lack of credible evidence - that includes if witnesses against Salmond do not appear sufficiently credible and Salmond appears more credible in their accounts of what occurred. They have to first establish that the act occurred, that Salmond committed the act, and then that Salmond could not have reasonably believed that the other person consented.
I think in Scotland the prosecution places importance on corroboration of each crucial fact and for sexual offences where there are no eye witnesses to corroborate the offence took place, they look at whether there has been a course of conduct e.g. allegations from many people of similar sexual offences with similar characteristics and circumstances, not separated by significant time gaps.
Pure speculation on my part but not sure that 2 complaints is sufficient to establish a course of conduct, if there are no eye witnesses. Let's see what the police decide to do with the allegations as they have actually seen whatever evidence there is.
-
Which is why he did it, at least in part. Look at the comments online. How long before they decide to drop charges?
Indeed - and that's what stinks in my view.
I have no problem with people using crowdfund for all sorts of reasons, but the notion that someone being able to drum up £100k in hours on the basis of their existing power and establishment status to support them fighting people who have no such ability (and putting very clear pressure on the accusers in the process) seems very wrong to me.
-
Indeed - and that's what stinks in my view.
I have no problem with people using crowdfund for all sorts of reasons, but the notion that someone being able to drum up £100k in hours on the basis of their existing power and establishment status to support them fighting people who have no such ability (and putting very clear pressure on the accusers in the process) seems very wrong to me.
I'm confused. I thought the funds were for the judicial review. In that case he will be fighting the Scottish government.
-
What I really don't like and what worries me most about all this, is the soft pressure from him (and possibly harder pressure) from his supporters on those making the allegations. Effectively a 'don't mess with me' message to them. Currently they are anonymous, but if you were one of the women I imagine you'd be living in fear as to what would happen if (or when) there names become public. And this is where it is so similar to other powerful establishment men facing allegations from less powerful women cases. I can easily image one or both of those women wondering whether they'd done the right thing by raising the allegations. Worried that their names will become public and they will suffer abuse on social media, be ostracised within the workplace by Salmond supporters etc etc.
The notion that Salmond can snap his fingers and raise a hundred thousand from thousands of supporters in hours could well send a chill down the spine of those women.
Yes it could. But despite this I still think it is more important to establish that an investigation process is fair and to find out who leaked the story to the papers. I think the need to protect innocent people from abuse of process is more important than the feelings of complainants. Whoever leaked the story could out the women who complained. It is important to show that people will be held accountable if a breach of confidentiality has taken place. I think the crowdfunding is a good way of publicising the issue that a process needs to be fair.
The judicial review may find that the process has been fair and this is all a smokescreen by Salmond to try to buy time.
-
I'm confused. I thought the funds were for the judicial review. In that case he will be fighting the Scottish government.
The judicial process is him vs Scottish Government. But he is clearly flexing his muscles here and demonstrating that he retains power and influence in being able to raise such substantial funds in hours. That means he will be a formidable opponent to the accusers if and when and further process takes place (whether that is review of the original decision or perhaps criminal charges).
You haver to consider this from the perspective of the accused - I'd be very concerned, and although I've not read them it would appear that some of the comments on the crowdfunding site are extremely negative towards the accusers. Now one of the issues at stake is who has details of the accusations, and that links to the anonymity aspect. Currently the accusers names have not been revealed but if the judicial review suggests that it was unfair for details not to be revealed (even to all sides in the process) then there becomes a much greater likelihood that their names will become public, either directly or via a leak. I'd be very worried about that if I was one of those accusers, and might be contemplating whether I'd be prepared to take the complaint further or simply drop it for fear of horrific on-line (or otherwise) abuse.
-
I think the need to protect innocent people from abuse of process is more important than the feelings of complainants.
Don't forget that the heart of these accusation is the need to protect innocent people from abuse of power (as is the case in so many of these sexual harassment etc cases).
So regardless of the opinion on the matter what you are suggesting is that there is a conflict between:
The need to protect innocent people from abuse of process and
The need to protect innocent people from abuse of power
-
The judicial process is him vs Scottish Government. But he is clearly flexing his muscles here and demonstrating that he retains power and influence in being able to raise such substantial funds in hours. That means he will be a formidable opponent to the accusers if and when and further process takes place (whether that is review of the original decision or perhaps criminal charges).
You haver to consider this from the perspective of the accused - I'd be very concerned, and although I've not read them it would appear that some of the comments on the crowdfunding site are extremely negative towards the accusers. Now one of the issues at stake is who has details of the accusations, and that links to the anonymity aspect. Currently the accusers names have not been revealed but if the judicial review suggests that it was unfair for details not to be revealed (even to all sides in the process) then there becomes a much greater likelihood that their names will become public, either directly or via a leak. I'd be very worried about that if I was one of those accusers, and might be contemplating whether I'd be prepared to take the complaint further or simply drop it for fear of horrific on-line (or otherwise) abuse.
Exactly.
-
Do you have any legal background NS?
If you are subject to a judicial review as a organisation and that review determines that:
1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair
And they refer your decision back to you for review, sure you can say 'yup, we've reviewed it and we agree with the original decision', but you'd have to be a pretty tough cookie to do so. You will certainly have to review your original procedure and likely with independent people different to those who made the original decision. Under those circumstances it is likely, and indeed, extremely common in review process of this type (there are many) that when sent back for review a different decision is taken.
Surely the question as regards whether I accept Tickell's view is his expertise?
https://www.gcu.ac.uk/gsbs/staff/tickellandrew/
-
Surely the question as regards whether I accept Tickell's view is his expertise?
https://www.gcu.ac.uk/gsbs/staff/tickellandrew/
And I haven't said anything that conflicts with his view. Indeed I have clearly reflected the possible outcomes of the judicial review. What he doesn't address is what happens next. If you lose a judicial review for any of the reasons stated, e.g.
1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair
And they refer your decision back to you for review - you cannot simply do nothing. You are required to review your decision in light of the judicial review findings. You are not required to change your decision, but you may do and in many cases organisations that lose judicial reviews do.
So Tickell is correct in the purest terms that a judicial review cannot change a decision, however it is not the case that a judicial review does not ultimately change the decision - when a judicial review is lost by an organisation the ultimate consequence is very often that the original decision is changed when that organisation reviews its decision as they may be required to do by the judicial review.
-
I agree
I disagree - his current action has nothing whatsoever to do with serving the cause of independence. Indeed taking the Scottish Government (who support independence) to court is likely to distract them from the cause of independence. That is the point he is making - that this SNP on SNP spat wont distract him from continuing to pursue the cause of independence.
In what way could it possibly be argued that him talking the SNP Government to court over its disciplinary procedures is somehow advancing the cause of independence.
I think this is where you may be missing the political nuance going on . Let:s start with what we agree on. Salmond's statement is a self serving one designed to raise a wodge of dosh. He doesn't actually need it,, it's a statement of power. And yes you are absolutely right that that power may intimidate any accusers.
But, and here's the nuance, there has been for some time a movement in the SNP that Sturgeon isn't pushing the case for independence strongly enough, l lunatic shouts for UDI. At the same time Salmond's show on RT , following on his previous pash for Putin, has alienated some who are it as likely to win over previous No voters. Salmond, rather like Blair, has made various comments about returning to mainstream politics. The anti gradualists see this as an opportunity. Neither Salmon d, nor Sturgeon would have chosen this as a battlefield but it begins to feel increasingly like that. For anyone understanding this Salmond's 'intention now' to serve independence in that paragraph is a loud dog whistle. r
Equally when Sturgeon replied that she and Salmond were in agreement that independence was bigger than any one person, the sound of the sucking of teeth amongst those involved in Scottish politics was deafening, as it effectively translated into 'Get your tanks off my lawn, old man!'
This then translated into the various posts on social media amongst those taking either side yesterday as to whether they linked or referred to with seeming approbation to the viewfinder for Salmond,or the one for Rape Crisis against the rape clause.
-
And I haven't said anything that conflicts with his view. Indeed I have clearly reflected the possible outcomes of the judicial review. What he doesn't address is what happens next. If you lose a judicial review for any of the reasons stated, e.g.
1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair
And they refer your decision back to you for review - you cannot simply do nothing. You are required to review your decision in light of the judicial review findings. You are not required to change your decision, but you may do and in many cases organisations that lose judicial reviews do.
So Tickell is correct in the purest terms that a judicial review cannot change a decision, however it is not the case that a judicial review does not ultimately change the decision - when a judicial review is lost by an organisation the ultimate consequence is very often that the original decision is changed when that organisation reviews its decision as they may be required to do by the judicial review.
As I said I take his opinion as more definitive than yours.The judicial review does nothing about Salmond clearing his name and you and Salmond are incorrect on that. By the way, I am struggling to understand why if you think Salmond is acting deviously that you take the words in the statement actually true rather than a deliberate manipulation?
-
You haver to consider this from the perspective of the accused
You mean the accusers.
I'd be very concerned, and although I've not read them it would appear that some of the comments on the crowdfunding site are extremely negative towards the accusers. Now one of the issues at stake is who has details of the accusations, and that links to the anonymity aspect. Currently the accusers names have not been revealed but if the judicial review suggests that it was unfair for details not to be revealed (even to all sides in the process) then there becomes a much greater likelihood that their names will become public, either directly or via a leak. I'd be very worried about that if I was one of those accusers, and might be contemplating whether I'd be prepared to take the complaint further or simply drop it for fear of horrific on-line (or otherwise) abuse.
I take the point, but Alec Salmond has denied the complaints as far as he knows what they are. From his point of view and those people that believe him, the accusers are lying. If they are lying, he surely has the right to use whatever means that are available within the law to defend his name.
Personally I find what he has done as highly distasteful, especially as he can afford the legal action without crowdfunding and it confirms my opinion of him, but I don't see how we can stop it.
-
As I said I take his opinion as more definitive than yours.The judicial review does nothing about Salmond clearing his name and you and Salmond are incorrect on that. By the way, I am struggling to understand why if you think Salmond is acting deviously that you take the words in the statement actually true rather than a deliberate manipulation?
From Tickell's own article:
"They might just declare the process to be unfair. They might reduce the decision and send it back to the Scottish Government to revisit."
Tickell is correct that a Judicial Review can require the original decision making body to review its decision - that may, or may not result in them changing their decision - however if they have lost a judicial review on the grounds of:
1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair
it is not uncommon that when the organisation (in this case the Scottish Government) reviews its decision as required by a Judicial review that the review results in a change to the original decision. And were they to do that Salmond's name would be cleared. That's what I have said all along and is entirely consistent with Tickell's article.
-
Don't forget that the heart of these accusation is the need to protect innocent people from abuse of power (as is the case in so many of these sexual harassment etc cases).
So regardless of the opinion on the matter what you are suggesting is that there is a conflict between:
The need to protect innocent people from abuse of process and
The need to protect innocent people from abuse of power
I think it is possible to do both without there being a conflict. But if there has been an abuse of process such as breach of confidentiality and not conducting the process fairly, whoever did that is responsible for the chill running down the spines of the complainants.
It appears that one of Salmond's complaints was that the investigation into the allegations against him had been leaked to the press, and this means it is equally possible that the complainants names could be made public.
Presumably Salmond would not have crowd-funded a judicial review, thereby outing himself to the public, if his name had not already been made public in connection with the investigation. That puts him in a position of having to publicly clear his name, and opened the doors to the negative comments against the complainants.
I can't imagine any sane person choosing to have their reputation publicly trashed without defending themselves if they thought they were innocent. And if they thought they were innocent why would they consider the feelings of people whom they perceive as making false allegations against them?
ETA: Unless of course this is some double-bluff and Salmond leaked to the Press in order to have an excuse to create publicity to try to pressure the complainants into withdrawing their complaint, but I would be surprised if anyone would choose to go through this public criticism, humiliation and pressure as some kind of tactic.
If the judicial review find that the investigation process was fair, this will backfire on Salmond. And if it finds that the process was unfair, then it is good to hold someone accountable for abuse of process and to make the process as fair as it should be. A fair process may still not end well for Salmond.
-
From Tickell's own article:
"They might just declare the process to be unfair. They might reduce the decision and send it back to the Scottish Government to revisit."
Tickell is correct that a Judicial Review can require the original decision making body to review its decision - that may, or may not result in them changing their decision - however if they have lost a judicial review on the grounds of:
1. Your procedures were not followed, or
2. Your decision was irrational, or
3. Your process was unfair
it is not uncommon that when the organisation (in this case the Scottish Government) reviews its decision as required by a Judicial review that the review results in a change to the original decision. And were they to do that Salmond's name would be cleared. That's what I have said all along and is entirely consistent with Tickell's article.
Which says that it says nothing about Salmond's clearing of his name.
-
I think it is possible to do both without there being a conflict. But if there has been an abuse of process such as breach of confidentiality and not conducting the process fairly, whoever did that is responsible for the chill running down the spines of the complainants.
It appears that one of Salmond's complaints was that the investigation into the allegations against him had been leaked to the press, and this means it is equally possible that the complainants names could be made public.
Presumably Salmond would not have crowd-funded a judicial review, thereby outing himself to the public, if his name had not already been made public in connection with the investigation. That puts him in a position of having to publicly clear his name, and opened the doors to the negative comments against the complainants.
I can't imagine any sane person choosing to have their reputation publicly trashed without defending themselves if they thought they were innocent. And if they thought they were innocent why would they consider the feelings of people whom they perceive as making false allegations against them?
Salmond said he was going for judicial review before any leak happened.
-
Salmond said he was going for judicial review before any leak happened.
Wouldn't the review have been confidential if the investigation was supposed to be confidential? I don't see how he could have crowd-funded the review if everyone wanted to keep the investigation confidential?
-
Which says that it says nothing about Salmond's clearing of his name.
So what will be the effect if the Scottish Government lose the Judicial Review (clearly a possibility indicated by Tickell), have the decision referred back to them by the Judicial Review for them to revisit (again clearly indicated by Tickell) and when they resist the decision they reverse it (an obvious outcome, but not the only one).
Were that to happen Salmond would have cleared his name.
-
Wouldn't the review have been confidential if the investigation was supposed to be confidential? I don't see how he could have crowd-funded the review if everyone wanted to keep the investigation confidential?
leaving aside any question of the rights and wrongs here, the sequence of events was that the Permanent Secretary said they were going to release the fact that there was an investigation publically. Salmond at first was going to go for some form of confidential injunction to stop that. He then decided against that, and went public with the both the investigation and his intention to go to judicial review on the process. After that there was leaking of some details of one allegation though we do not know who by.
-
So what will be the effect if the Scottish Government lose the Judicial Review (clearly a possibility indicated by Tickell), have the decision referred back to them by the Judicial Review for them to revisit (again clearly indicated by Tickell) and when they resist the decision they reverse it (an obvious outcome, but not the only one).
Were that to happen Salmond would have cleared his name.
Tickell, and I, are talking about the judicial review. I thought you said you agreed with him?
-
So what will be the effect if the Scottish Government lose the Judicial Review (clearly a possibility indicated by Tickell), have the decision referred back to them by the Judicial Review for them to revisit (again clearly indicated by Tickell) and when they resist the decision they reverse it (an obvious outcome, but not the only one).
Were that to happen Salmond would have cleared his name.
Oh and can I just ask again because I am finding it very hard to understand your thinking on this point
'By the way, I am struggling to understand why if you think Salmond is acting deviously that you take the words in the statement actually true rather than a deliberate manipulation?'
-
Tickell, and I, are talking about the judicial review. I thought you said you agreed with him?
The outcome of which (indirectly via revisiting of the decision by the Scottish Government required by the Judicial Review, rather than directly as in the case of an appeal) may be that the decision is reversed, in which case Salmond's name will be cleared.
A Judicial Review cannot reverse a decision directly, however the ultimate outcome of a Judicial Review is often that a decision is reversed.
-
Oh and can I just ask again because I am finding it very hard to understand your thinking on this point
'By the way, I am struggling to understand why if you think Salmond is acting deviously that you take the words in the statement actually true rather than a deliberate manipulation?'
I think he is using his power and establishment position to pull levers which are unlikely to be available to others.
Imagine a reverse situation.
Salmond is accused of misconduct - there is an investigation which clears him. The accusers think the decision to be wrong and the process flawed - they can go for a Judicial Review, but of course the cost is prohibitive. Do you think they'd be able to raise £100k in hours to take it to Judicial review. Of course not.
That's where there is an imbalance - options are open to Salmond due to his position and power that aren't open to others.
-
I think he is using his power and establishment position to pull levers which are unlikely to be available to others.
Imagine a reverse situation.
Salmond is accused of misconduct - there is an investigation which clears him. The accusers think the decision to be wrong and the process flawed - they can go for a Judicial Review, but of course the cost is prohibitive. Do you think they'd be able to raise £100k in hours to take it to Judicial review. Of course not.
That's where there is an imbalance - options are open to Salmond due to his position and power that aren't open to others.
Which I agree with but ignores the question asked.
-
The outcome of which (indirectly via revisiting of the decision by the Scottish Government required by the Judicial Review, rather than directly as in the case of an appeal) may be that the decision is reversed, in which case Salmond's name will be cleared.
A Judicial Review cannot reverse a decision directly, however the ultimate outcome of a Judicial Review is often that a decision is reversed.
There is no ultimate outcome in that sense legally which is the point that Tickell makes which you and Salmond disagree with.
-
There is no ultimate outcome in that sense legally which is the point that Tickell makes which you and Salmond disagree with.
Yes there is - a Judicial Review can legally require the organisation that has lost to revisit its decision - they might (or might not) come to the same decision, but they have to revisit it.
-
Yes there is - a Judicial Review can legally require the organisation that has lost to revisit its decision - they might (or might not) come to the same decision, but they have to revisit it.
No, there really isn't at this stage which is where you say you know better than Tickell and you agree with Salmond.
-
No, there really isn't at this stage which is where you say you know better than Tickell and you agree with Salmond.
Yes there is - Tickell recognises it, as he understands how Judicial Reviews work. I do too as I also do - clearly you don't understand the various outcome possibilities of a Judicial Review.
One is that the Judicial Review finds against the organisation making the original decision, refers it back to then requiring them to revisit the decision. When they revisit the decision they will need to justify their process and the new decision in light of the findings of the Judicial Review.
I'll ask again - do you have any legal background. I think I know the answer because if you did you would know that a Judicial Review can refer an original decision back to the losing organisation to be revisited.
-
Yes there is - Tickell recognises it, as he understands how Judicial Reviews work. I do too as I also do - clearly you don't understand the various outcome possibilities of a Judicial Review.
One is that the Judicial Review finds against the organisation making the original decision, refers it back to then requiring them to revisit the decision. When they revisit the decision they will need to justify their process and the new decision in light of the findings of the Judicial Review.
I'll ask again - do you have any legal background. I think I know the answer because if you did you would know that a Judicial Review can refer an original decision back to the losing organisation to be revisited.
And he says that the judicial review has nothing to do with clearing Salmond's, and you disagree with that and are with Salmond
-
And he says that the judicial review has nothing to do with clearing Salmond's, and you disagree with that and are with Salmond
Let's walk you through it shall we:
1. Do you accept that the outcome of a Judicial Review might be that the Scottish Government is required by law to take the decision again?
2. Do you accept that if this is the outcome of this Judicial Review that the Scottish Government, when taking the decision again (as required under law), may come to a different outcome, in other words to find in favour of Salmond?
3. If 1 and 2 occur (as is quite possible under Judicial Review) that Salmond will have cleared his name?
Not rocket science
-
Let's walk you through it shall we:
1. Do you accept that the outcome of a Judicial Review might be that the Scottish Government is required by law to take the decision again?
2. Do you accept that if this is the outcome of this Judicial Review that the Scottish Government, when taking the decision again (as required under law), may come to a different outcome, in other words to find in favour of Salmond?
3. If 1 and 2 occur (as is quite possible under Judicial Review) that Salmond will have cleared his name?
Not rocket science
You've got what he is asking for (a review) and then made up a lot of other stuff.
-
Let's walk you through it shall we:
1. Do you accept that the outcome of a Judicial Review might be that the Scottish Government is required by law to take the decision again?
2. Do you accept that if this is the outcome of this Judicial Review that the Scottish Government, when taking the decision again (as required under law), may come to a different outcome, in other words to find in favour of Salmond?
3. If 1 and 2 occur (as is quite possible under Judicial Review) that Salmond will have cleared his name?
Not rocket science
No, not rocket science, just in disagreement with Tickell's article that it has nothing to do with clearing his name in a legal sense.
-
No, not rocket science, just in disagreement with Tickell's article that it has nothing to do with clearing his name in a legal sense.
So you accept my step by step account of possible outcome of the Judicial Review?
-
So you accept my step by step account of possible outcome of the Judicial Review?
No, I am accepting Tickell's version, which you and Salmond disagree with.
-
You've got what he is asking for (a review) and then made up a lot of other stuff.
I'm not claiming this will happen, but that it is a reasonable possibility.
He may lose the Judicial Review - but if he wins the most common remedy of Judicial Review is a so called quashing order. Effectively the original decision is set aside as it was found to be unlawful. The court then directs the original decision making body (the Scottish Government in this case) to make a fresh decision in accordance with the judgment of the court.
If this happens then the Scottish Government will need to run the procedure afresh and will need to take account of any procedural issues deemed unlawful by the Judicial Review. The Scottish Government may come to the same decision again of course, but they may not.
-
No, I am accepting Tickell's version, which you and Salmond disagree with.
Where does Tickell make any comment on what happens next if Salmond wins and the outcome is that the decision is referred back to the Scottish Government who are required, under law, to take the decision again. He doesn't discuss this, but this is of course a necessary consequence of the things he does discuss - likely outcomes of a successful Judicial Review.
Whether or not Tickell discusses them in his article he well knows (as he is a legal academic) that were the outcomes he discussed to happen then the Scottish Government would be required by law to take the decision again. And he will know too, that there is no guarantee that were they to run the process again that the decision would be the same.
All he is saying is that, on a precise point of law, that a Judicial Review cannot reverse a decision (actually they can, but this is very rare and not really relevant here) but that doesn't mean that the ultimate outcome of a Judicial Review is that a decision is reversed. Were that not the case why would anyone apply for Judicial Review.
-
Where does Tickell make any comment on what happens next if Salmond wins and the outcome is that the decision is referred back to the Scottish Government who are required, under law, to take the decision again. He doesn't discuss this, but this is of course a necessary consequence of the things he does discuss - likely outcomes of a successful Judicial Review.
Whether or not Tickell discusses them in his article he well knows (as he is a legal academic) that were the outcomes he discussed to happen then the Scottish Government would be required by law to take the decision again. And he will know too, that there is no guarantee that were they to run the process again that the decision would be the same.
All he is saying is that, on a precise point of law, that a Judicial Review cannot reverse a decision (actually they can, but this is very rare and not really relevant here) but that doesn't mean that the ultimate outcome of a Judicial Review is that a decision is reversed. Were that not the case why would anyone apply for Judicial Review.
And yet you took the position of disagreeing with Tickell and agreeing with Salmond about what was covered by the judicial review. If you don't disagree with Tickell, then you would accept that in putting forward his case that Salmond was wrong is correct?
-
And yet you took the position of disagreeing with Tickell and agreeing with Salmond about what was covered by the judicial review. If you don't disagree with Tickell, then you would accept that in putting forward his case that Salmond was wrong is correct?
I've never disagreed with Tickell - I have merely pointed out that his article is merely about what a Judicial Review can and cannot do, rather than the secondary consequences of the Judicial Review findings one the decision making body.
I have no doubt that he and I both agree that the ultimate outcome of a quashing order from the Judicial Review (were that to happen) cold be that the Scottish Government reverses its original decision when it is revisited. All he is saying is that it wouldn't be the Judicial Review that reversed the decision (that isn't what they do) it would be the Scottish Government required, by law, to make a fresh decision in accordance with the judgment of the Judicial Review.
What he is doing in his article is articulating the distinction between and appeal (which can directly overturn an original decision) and a Judicial Review, which in criminal law terms can order a retrial but cannot determine what the outcome of that retrial would be.
-
Yes there is - Tickell recognises it, as he understands how Judicial Reviews work. I do too as I also do - clearly you don't understand the various outcome possibilities of a Judicial Review.
One is that the Judicial Review finds against the organisation making the original decision, refers it back to then requiring them to revisit the decision. When they revisit the decision they will need to justify their process and the new decision in light of the findings of the Judicial Review.
I'll ask again - do you have any legal background. I think I know the answer because if you did you would know that a Judicial Review can refer an original decision back to the losing organisation to be revisited.
I am confused - what decision are you referring to? What decision has the civil servant carrying out the investigation made?
-
I've never disagreed with Tickell - I have merely pointed out that his article is merely about what a Judicial Review can and cannot do, rather than the secondary consequences of the Judicial Review findings one the decision making body.
I have no doubt that he and I both agree that the ultimate outcome of a quashing order from the Judicial Review (were that to happen) cold be that the Scottish Government reverses its original decision when it is revisited. All he is saying is that it wouldn't be the Judicial Review that reversed the decision (that isn't what they do) it would be the Scottish Government required, by law, to make a fresh decision in accordance with the judgment of the Judicial Review.
You seem very confused. The point Tickell is making and that I posted the link for is that the crowdfunding has nothing to do with raising money for Salmond's defence , or clearing his name. You took issue with that and are hence disagreeing with Tickell. Toy cited as the reason for this Salmond's statement so are agreeing with Salmond. You still haven't addressed the question of why you think that Salmond might be being devious in his use of soft power here, but that you have to agree with him as regards the disagreement with Tickell because he is somehow obviously being honest - which in itself is irrelevant but shows confusion on your part.
-
I don't see how Salmond is fighting to clear his name, but I don't think he needs to. All he needs is for there to be doubt over the original process. Then he can cry foul, reapply to the party and the odds of the women sticking with the criminal investigation are hugely reduced, with little chance of success should it get to court.
-
I don't see how Salmond is fighting to clear his name, but I don't think he needs to. All he needs is for there to be doubt over the original process. Then he can cry foul, reapply to the party and the odds of the women sticking with the criminal investigation are hugely reduced, with little chance of success should it get to court.
As covered in #112, a lot of this needs to be seen with a more indepth knowledge of Scottish politics.
-
I am confused - what decision are you referring to? What decision has the civil servant carrying out the investigation made?
He is seeking Judicial Review of the complaints procedure used by the Scottish Government to investigate and determine whether there is a case to answer and the outcome of that investigation, being that there is a case to answer and that the matter should be referred to the police and made public.
There was an internal process in the Scottish Government with the investigation outcome providing to Nicola Sturgeon on 22nd Aug - the Judicial Review is on that investigation and he is, do doubt hoping, that the Judicial Review quashes the outcome of that investigation requiring it to be rerun, and potentially requiring changes to the procedure used if that is the verdict of the Judicial Review.
-
I don't see how Salmond is fighting to clear his name, but I don't think he needs to. All he needs is for there to be doubt over the original process. Then he can cry foul, reapply to the party and the odds of the women sticking with the criminal investigation are hugely reduced, with little chance of success should it get to court.
If the judicial review finds in his favour, Salmond seems to think this will result in the Permanent Secretary having to give Salmond the details of the complaints against him. This may then enable him to clear his name if he can come up with something to discredit the allegations against him.
Can he reapply to join the party before there is an outcome to the investigation and before that outcome is that there is no case for Salmond to answer?
-
You mean the accusers.
I take the point, but Alec Salmond has denied the complaints as far as he knows what they are. From his point of view and those people that believe him, the accusers are lying. If they are lying, he surely has the right to use whatever means that are available within the law to defend his name.
He of course has the right to defend himself.
But alternatively it may be that his accusers are right and he is lying and that he is using whatever means he has (which are considerable given his power and establishment position) to get the accusers to shut up and go away. That Salmond is able to mobilise thousands of supports with cash (and dubious comments) in hours could just be enough to make the women drop their claims regardless of their validity, knowing that they cannot be guaranteed not to have their identities leaked if the case proceeds.
I don't like the power politics here - it seems inbalanced.
-
If the judicial review finds in his favour, Salmond seems to think this will result in the Permanent Secretary having to give Salmond the details of the complaints against him. This may then enable him to clear his name if he can come up with something to discredit the allegations against him.
Can he reapply to join the party before there is an outcome to the investigation and before that outcome is that there is no case for Salmond to answer?
It's not clear what any decision of the judicial review might be, so it isn't clear what any result of it would address.
He could reapply to the party at any time here. The application to join a party is not part of the legal process.
-
If the judicial review finds in his favour, Salmond seems to think this will result in the Permanent Secretary having to give Salmond the details of the complaints against him. This may then enable him to clear his name if he can come up with something to discredit the allegations against him.
Yes it may do and also it may require the process to be rerun under different rules. You can see how this may significantly advantage Salmond and also may deter the accusers of engaging with the revisited process as it is likely that their names may become public.
So a win may advantage Salmond in 3 ways.
First the initial outcome would be quashed and the process run again
Secondly that he may have a greater ability to defend himself in a rerun (or just result in a different outcome)
Thirdly that the women may decide not to engage in the process if their anonymity cannot be guaranteed
-
He could reapply to the party at any time here. The application to join a party is not part of the legal process.
I agree - I don't think his ability to reapply to join the party is subject to the legal process. However if he remains under investigation of found guilty then they might refuse to accept him back into the party. Actually I suspect one of the reasons he resigned may have been that had he not he might have been suspended anyhow, and this way resulted in less embarrassment to the SNP.
-
He is seeking Judicial Review of the complaints procedure used by the Scottish Government to investigate and determine whether there is a case to answer and the outcome of that investigation, being that there is a case to answer and that the matter should be referred to the police and made public.
There was an internal process in the Scottish Government with the investigation outcome providing to Nicola Sturgeon on 22nd Aug - the Judicial Review is on that investigation and he is, do doubt hoping, that the Judicial Review quashes the outcome of that investigation requiring it to be rerun, and potentially requiring changes to the procedure used if that is the verdict of the Judicial Review.
So if I understand you correctly, the decision that you are referring to is the decision by the Permanent Secretary to make public the fact that 2 complaints had been made against Salmond and to make public the fact that an investigation into the complaints were under way? I don't see how this decision to make public can be reversed. And they can't decide not to investigate the allegations, unless there is some compelling evidence without an investigation that the allegations were complete fabrications.
I don't know that the Permanent Secretary had any choice about handing the details of the complaint to the police, without risking allegations of a cover-up. And that decision can't be reversed either.
-
Yes it may do and also it may require the process to be rerun under different rules. You can see how this may significantly advantage Salmond and also may deter the accusers of engaging with the revisited process as it is likely that their names may become public.
So a win may advantage Salmond in 3 ways.
First the initial outcome would be quashed and the process run again
Secondly that he may have a greater ability to defend himself in a rerun (or just result in a different outcome)
Thirdly that the women may decide not to engage in the process if their anonymity cannot be guaranteed
I don't think there has been an outcome has there? There has been no disciplinary action yet, only an investigation into the allegations.
Sure I can see the potential advantages for Salmond. But I don't see any of those as an unfair advantage to him - it didn't seem as if he wanted to go public either and apparently the decision to go public was made by the Permanent Secretary. I think it's a good thing if he has a greater ability to defend himself than he had if the process of investigation was unfair.
-
I agree - I don't think his ability to reapply to join the party is subject to the legal process. However if he remains under investigation of found guilty then they might refuse to accept him back into the party. Actually I suspect one of the reasons he resigned may have been that had he not he might have been suspended anyhow, and this way resulted in less embarrassment to the SNP.
And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.
-
So if I understand you correctly, the decision that you are referring to is the decision by the Permanent Secretary to make public the fact that 2 complaints had been made against Salmond and to make public the fact that an investigation into the complaints were under way?
No - as far as I am aware the allegations were raised in January and Salmond was informed of them in March (presumably there was an early pre-investigation to assess the initial claim (Jan - March). An investigation took place from March onward under the defined procedure, which reported in August (22nd) with the report details provided to Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the assurers. The outcome of that investigation being that there was a case to answer and that the details were passed over to the police.
As far as I'm aware the Judicial Review is on those aspects.
The issue of the allegations being made public is separate - Salmond planned to apply for a separate court order (an interdict) to prevent the details being made public, but I gather this was dropped as it was too late and the allegations had been made public.
-
I don't think there has been an outcome has there?
Yes there has - see above.
-
No - as far as I am aware the allegations were raised in January and Salmond was informed of them in March (presumably there was an early pre-investigation to assess the initial claim (Jan - March). An investigation took place from March onward under the defined procedure, which reported in August (22nd) with the report details provided to Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the assurers. The outcome of that investigation being that there was a case to answer and that the details were passed over to the police.
As far as I'm aware the Judicial Review is on those aspects.
The issue of the allegations being made public is separate - Salmond planned to apply for a separate court order (an interdict) to prevent the details being made public, but I gather this was dropped as it was too late and the allegations had been made public.
Nope, the investigation. not the allegations, were made public by Salmond. The allegations, or the detail that we have, was after this,
-
Nope, the investigation. not the allegations, were made public by Salmond. The allegations, or the detail that we have, was after this,
I'm taking this timeline from here:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmond-sexual-harassment-claims-what-we-know-so-far-1-4789193
You are probably correct in that details of the allegations weren't made known to Salmond (that's one of his gripes with the process) but in March he was informed that there were allegations and that he was under investigation.
-
I'm taking this timeline from here:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmond-sexual-harassment-claims-what-we-know-so-far-1-4789193
You are probably correct in that details of the allegations weren't made known to Salmond (that's one of his gripes with the process) but in March he was informed that there were allegations and that he was under investigation.
Then I was wrong in that I thought that Salmond effectively withdrew the interdiction to go public before the investigation rather than any detail on the allegations were made.
-
And less embarrassment to him.
Indeed.
-
Then I was wrong in that I thought that Salmond effectively withdrew the interdiction to go public before the investigation rather than any detail on the allegations were made.
I think the block to going public was only mooted in August when the investigation reached its conclusions and Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, Leslie Evans indicated that limited details of the case would be made public in the public interest. I think it had been made public prior to Salmond being able to act.
-
Indeed.
Do you accept then the rest of the post you were replying too i.e.
'And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.'
-
I think the block to going public was only mooted in August when the investigation reached its conclusions and Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government, Leslie Evans indicated that limited details of the case would be made public in the public interest. I think it had been made public prior to Salmond being able to act.
We have no issue about all of this being happening in August. Indeed it's last week that is the crucial time. The issue is what was revealed by who on the 23rd. Again what seems to have been made open is the investigation, not any of the detail of al allegations
-
Do you accept then the rest of the post you were replying too i.e.
'And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.'
When I meant all about Salmond I meant that his statement didn't imply that he was calling for Judicial Review to help others who might also be facing the same procedures. That's what is often the case when people take action or call for inquiries (including judicial review) - it isn't about themselves personally, but to prevent anyone else going through the same thing.
I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on that matter, but maybe it is because Salmond-the-man/the SNP/Independence are one and the same in many people's minds so anything aimed at enhancing (or not harming) him/the SNP/independence are, in effect, all about Salmond.
-
When I meant all about Salmond I meant that his statement didn't imply that he was calling for Judicial Review to help others who might also be facing the same procedures. That's what is often the case when people take action or call for inquiries (including judicial review) - it isn't about themselves personally, but to prevent anyone else going through the same thing.
I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on that matter, but maybe it is because Salmond-the-man/the SNP/Independence are one and the same in many people's minds so anything aimed at enhancing (or not harming) him/the SNP/independence are, in effect, all about Salmond.
Sorry, I don't see where your post addresses the question. It's about your opinion of Salmond which seems to think that while being self serving, you somehow don't think that he might use people by implying that Independence is wrapped up.in how he his treated. Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic. See#112
-
Paul Kavanagh's blogs can be ascerbic, witty, provocative and hard hitting. They are never boring. This one hits the nail on the head, and is definately worth a read. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/the-rush-to-judgement/ By the way, Kavanagh is not a member of any political party.
-
We have no issue about all of this being happening in August. Indeed it's last week that is the crucial time. The issue is what was revealed by who on the 23rd. Again what seems to have been made open is the investigation, not any of the detail of al allegations
Which will be considered in the Judicial Review - that will look at whether the Scottish Government's procedures were followed, and also will look at whether they are fundamentally unfair or unlawful.
That said I think this isn't uncommon in processes in the public sector. I'm aware of other potential harassment cases involving a senior figure where they were given very little detail of the allegations nor were those making the allegations revealed (although they might have worked it out). The usual reason being to protect the accusers, where it would be extremely difficult to make allegations against very senior figures if your identity was revealed. Not saying I agree with this, but it is common and I can see the argument that it is probably extremely difficult for a low level employee to make allegations against a senior executive without some significant t protection.
-
Sorry, I don't see where your post addresses the question. It's about your opinion of Salmond which seems to think that while being self serving, you somehow don't think that he might use people by implying that Independence is wrapped up.in how he his treated. Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic. See#112
Let me explain again.
His crowdfunding statement reads to me all about himself personally, and his passions (SNP/independence), which are part of him personally.
What I don't see is the common type of statement for people making legal challenges, particularly inquiries and Judicial reviews. Largely that they have been treated unfairly and by taking this action they will prevent any future person from similarly being subjected to such unfair processes.
-
Paul Kavanagh's blogs can be ascerbic, witty, provocative and hard hitting. They are never boring. This one hits the nail on the head, and is definately worth a read. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/the-rush-to-judgement/ By the way, Kavanagh is not a member of any political party.
This reads as if every women I know in the Yes movement who has questioned Salmond's action and some of the support, including McWhirter who tweeted about Salmond's reputation being lost for a couple of tawdry front pages' and thereby undermining any person making the allegations, is part of the establishment trying to do Salmond down. And while that is a acerbic, it's way off nail on the head.
-
This reads as if every women I know in the Yes movement who has questioned Salmond's action and some of the support, including McWhirter who tweeted about Salmond's reputation being lost for a couple of tawdry front pages' and thereby undermining any person making the allegations, is part of the establishment trying to do Salmond down. And while that is a acerbic, it's way off nail on the head.
Agreed.
-
Let me explain again.
His crowdfunding statement reads to me all about himself personally, and his passions (SNP/independence), which are part of him personally.
What I don't see is the common type of statement for people making legal challenges, particularly inquiries and Judicial reviews. Largely that they have been treated unfairly and by taking this action they will prevent any future person from similarly being subjected to such unfair processes.
And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.
-
Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic. See#112
Explain please.
I would certainly accept that SNP/Independence aren't indivisible from Salmond - in other words that there are all sorts of independence voices, including within the SNP that aren't inextricably linked with Salmond.
However I would argue that Salmond is indivisible from SNP/Independence - I struggle to understand how the very notion and purpose of Salmond can be uncoupled from independence and the SNP. They run through him like Blackpool Rock.
-
And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.
Or perhaps I have a level of detachment to be able to see the wood from the trees.
-
And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.
What I am saying is there isn't one iota of evidence from his crowdfunding statement that his main (or even secondary purpose) in calling for Judicial Review is to prevent other people being subjected to what he thinks is an unfair process. That's my point - that was my point when I first made it and in case I wasn't clear enough then I have reiterated it several times.
I'm struggling to see why an in depth knowledge of Scottish politics is required to take a view on this - all you need to do is read his statement.
-
What I am saying is there isn't one iota of evidence from his crowdfunding statement that his main (or even secondary purpose) in calling for Judicial Review is to prevent other people being subjected to what he thinks is an unfair process. That's my point - that was my point when I first made it and in case I wasn't clear enough then I have reiterated it several times.
I'm struggling to see why an in depth knowledge of Scottish politics is required to take a view on this - all you need to do is read his statement.
Without knowing the man, the context? Just accept it at face value?
-
Without knowing the man, the context? Just accept it at face value?
And do you know the man - in other words personally, rather than through just a slightly different media veil.
-
And do you know the man - in other words personally, rather than through just a slightly different media veil.
No, but posters here have met him or certainly have a much closer involvement than you or I. I think they probably know more than I do about how Scottish politics works.
-
No, but posters here have met him or certainly have a much closer involvement than you or I. I think they probably know more than I do about how Scottish politics works.
But this isn't about how Scottish politics works - Salmond is entirely in control of what he put on his crowdfunding statement - that doesn't come through any media prism. All I am doing is making a comment on what he has written, and actually more importantly what he hasn't written.
It comes across to me as all being about himself (including the indivisible issues of independence/SNP) and nothing about calling for Judicial Review to prevent future individuals suffering from an unfair process. I completely understand that his statement isn't aimed at me, and that it probably ticks all the right boxes for its intended audience. But that doesn't alter how it comes across to me.
-
No, but posters here have met him or certainly have a much closer involvement than you or I. I think they probably know more than I do about how Scottish politics works.
I doubt there is anyone here who has any real knowledge of him as an individual, in other words knowing him well personally, having worked with him etc.
-
Broadening the discussion a little beyond the narrow point on crowdfunding.
There has been a lot of comment about the political context and whether or not it is understood by individual posters.
But it is interesting what the key political context is considered to be by individual posters. NS clearly sees the political context as being all about Scottish politics, independence etc. I don't see it this way - I agree there is a significant political context, but I'm struggling to see how that is primarily about Scottish politics, rather it seems to me politically that this is far more to do with the whole metoo global movement. This is about power relationships, sexual harassment/abuse and the ability (or otherwise) of women with limited power and influence to speak out against men with power and influence.
Sure it has happened in politics - to a former (male leader) at a time when the current incumbent is a female leader of the same party - but why is the Scottish nature of the location/people relevant. Surely this could just as easily have been David Cameron and Theresa May (note please I am making no suggestion that there are any allegations against our former PM) merely making the point that the geography seems rather irrelevant to the primary political context associated with a major shift in political awareness and refusal to accept sexual misconduct by men in powerful positions.
-
I disagree. Reading the online comments you can't divorce nationalism from this, and you can't ignore that a lot of Salmond's support has come from those who think this is Westminster's doing. Cameron would not have got the same kind of crowdfunding response. I think that Corbyn would, but he's another one that the conspiracy theorists love. In his case it wouldn't be the geography that mattered but the right/left divide. Salmond wouldn't have got the same response had he been a Westminster politician in a Labour government.
-
I disagree. Reading the online comments you can't divorce nationalism from this, and you can't ignore that a lot of Salmond's support has come from those who think this is Westminster's doing. Cameron would not have got the same kind of crowdfunding response. I think that Corbyn would, but he's another one that the conspiracy theorists love. In his case it wouldn't be the geography that mattered but the right/left divide. Salmond wouldn't have got the same response had he been a Westminster politician in a Labour government.
Which rather supports my point - you will always get conspiracists thinking this to be a huge plot - imagine rather than Cameron that it had been Farage. There would be those claiming it to be a huge anti-Brexit conspiracy.
But that seems to be missing the point - in the past few weeks we have had this, also another thread on a similar case involving a scientist (or anti-theist if you ask Vlad). We have also had the allegations against Gerard Depadieu. Each will have their conspiracy theorists, but surely the key political point here is the increasing confidence amongst individuals, with the support of systems to come forward and speak out against figures however rich or powerful where there is an allegation of sexual misconduct.
And I wasn't really talking about the narrow issue of the crowdfunding - I was broadening back to the basic case which has more to do with metoo than indyref2 (see what I did there!).
-
We also have this news story today
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/male-scientists-cut-me-off-after-i-stood-up-for-staff-says-top-biologist-fiona-watt-hbksqh373
Similar issues involving a scientist I know reasonably well, but not a hint of need to understand Scottish politics.
-
Broadening the discussion a little beyond the narrow point on crowdfunding.
There has been a lot of comment about the political context and whether or not it is understood by individual posters.
But it is interesting what the key political context is considered to be by individual posters. NS clearly sees the political context as being all about Scottish politics, independence etc. I don't see it this way - I agree there is a significant political context, but I'm struggling to see how that is primarily about Scottish politics, rather it seems to me politically that this is far more to do with the whole metoo global movement. This is about power relationships, sexual harassment/abuse and the ability (or otherwise) of women with limited power and influence to speak out against men with power and influence.
Sure it has happened in politics - to a former (male leader) at a time when the current incumbent is a female leader of the same party - but why is the Scottish nature of the location/people relevant. Surely this could just as easily have been David Cameron and Theresa May (note please I am making no suggestion that there are any allegations against our former PM) merely making the point that the geography seems rather irrelevant to the primary political context associated with a major shift in political awareness and refusal to accept sexual misconduct by men in powerful positions.
Dearie me! NS doesn't see it as purely about Scottish politics, but NS can understand why your lack of knowledge about it makes you so insecure that you have to misrepresent NS. I think that Salmond is indulging in an abuse of power here, a number of my posts make that clear. Thatthere is a nuance on how he is doing it makes no difference to that point. Kindly stop misrepresenting what is being said.
-
We also have this news story today
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/male-scientists-cut-me-off-after-i-stood-up-for-staff-says-top-biologist-fiona-watt-hbksqh373
Similar issues involving a scientist I know reasonably well, but not a hint of need to understand Scottish politics.
You do think that knowledge of a situation is significant though.
-
Good piece by Dani Garavelli
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-what-woman-would-put-herself-through-this-1-4793591/amp
-
Good piece by Dani Garavelli
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-what-woman-would-put-herself-through-this-1-4793591/amp
I agree.
-
Good piece by Dani Garavelli
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-what-woman-would-put-herself-through-this-1-4793591/amp
I agree. Sad state of affairs. Victims matter least.
-
I agree. Sad state of affairs. Victims matter least.
So Salmond is definitely guilty?
-
So Salmond is definitely guilty?
No. If you read the article is says that his show of power will demoralise victims - not just the women with allegations against him - regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent. I don't know if he is or not. I know how the crowdfunding makes me feel. If you read a lot of the comments on this most of them say things like 'he's gone up in my estimation now' and 'this is just a conspiracy'. To see so many people dismissing the words of two women because a powerful and charismatic man has acted in this way (the crowdfunding) is horrendous. And it protects powerful people against accusations in the future. As the article says, who in their right minds would come forward and face this?
-
All too often in the past victims of sexual abuse haven't been believe, especially if the person they have accused was well known. I doubt too many women make up this sort of allegation, it certainly isn't in their interests to do so as it could brand them for life.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/02/salmond-crowdfunding-could-put-off-victims-say-campaigners
-
I think once the allegations went public and the media got involved, which unfairly disadvantaged Salmond, crowdfunding was a good way of redressing the balance to make it more fair.
While we still uphold the principle innocent until proven guilty and no automatic right to be believed, I think it is doing victims a huge disservice to allow them to think that if they accuse someone there won’t be hurdles like publicity to jump in the current system.
I think the system needs changing to prevent unfairness against everyone involved, including victims and people who are accused of sexual misconduct. If women don’t want to feel intimidated by public support for the accused the press should not be allowed to disadvantage the accused by being allowed to report the allegations. While the system allows the accused to be named in the media, victims should expect it will continue to be like this in the interests of fairness.
-
All too often in the past victims of sexual abuse haven't been believe, especially if the person they have accused was well known. I doubt too many women make up this sort of allegation, it certainly isn't in their interests to do so as it could brand them for life.
It’s not always a question of making it up. As per the article Anchorman (I think) linked to, it could just be mistaken perceptions with one party thinking they have consent and the other party perceiving the situation (often years later) as they didn’t consent.
-
It’s not always a question of making it up. As per the article Anchorman (I think) linked to, it could just be mistaken perceptions with one party thinking they have consent and the other party perceiving the situation (often years later) as they didn’t consent.
No doubt the accused would allege that to be the case.
-
No doubt the accused would allege that to be the case.
If they honestly believed they had consent, it would probably be a bit daft for the accused to lie and say they didn't have consent. Our processes work on the basis that in situations like this it's up to the person making the accusation of wrongdoing to provide evidence that the accusation is true in order for the accused to be punished for wrongdoing.
ETA: Though privately we are of course free to believe what we want and act accordingly, within the law.
-
You do think that knowledge of a situation is significant though.
Not really in the way you are inferring (i.e. that you cannot understand the Salmond case without intimate knowledge of Scottish politics) - you don't need to understand cell biology research to understand the situation Fiona Watt is describing, likewise you don't need to understand French cinema to understand the Gerard Depadeau case, nor the inner workings of the BBC to understand the various cases from there.
The point is that the key features of all these cases are similar, involving powerful men allegedly having harassed or abused less powerful women and the challenges faced by the women in bringing forward those allegations, largely due to the power wielded by the men. That is the point. To think that you cannot understand the Salmond case without understanding Sottish politics (or the Fiona Watt case without understand cell biology research) is missing the point - the Salmond case is fundamentally and primarily another 'MeToo' case - that's the relevant issue, not the Scottish politics.
-
It’s not always a question of making it up. As per the article Anchorman (I think) linked to, it could just be mistaken perceptions with one party thinking they have consent and the other party perceiving the situation (often years later) as they didn’t consent.
I think that's right - and there is a further issue. I think in some cases the men involved don't feel that what they did needed clear consent - meaning that they felt that a little squeeze of a bottom or a deliberate rub against a breast was just what happens and not something requiring consent. That is of course wrong, but I think there are plenty of examples where the man knows darned well that the women hadn't consented, but he didn't think that consent was necessary.
-
No. If you read the article is says that his show of power will demoralise victims - not just the women with allegations against him - regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent. I don't know if he is or not. I know how the crowdfunding makes me feel. If you read a lot of the comments on this most of them say things like 'he's gone up in my estimation now' and 'this is just a conspiracy'. To see so many people dismissing the words of two women because a powerful and charismatic man has acted in this way (the crowdfunding) is horrendous. And it protects powerful people against accusations in the future. As the article says, who in their right minds would come forward and face this?
I really hate how we, as a society, obsess over random comments on the Internet. There are bound to be haters vomiting bile on social media in sexual misconduct cases. They probably represent a pretty small minority of people but they get limelight they do not deserve.
I think people should be counseling the accusers in such cases to regard the anonymous Twitterati as insignificant pond scum to be ignored.
-
Good piece by Dani Garavelli
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-what-woman-would-put-herself-through-this-1-4793591/amp
I agree - a good article and makes, far better than I ever could, many of the points I was trying to make upthread.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/02/salmond-crowdfunding-could-put-off-victims-say-campaigners
Yes this worried me.
I've also been thinking about yours comments earlier that, had it been Cameron rather than Salmond, that he wouldn't have been able to raise funds by crowdfunding (although Corbyn might). You are right, but I think this is just one of a range of tactics that those with power and influence might use to tip the scales in their direction, which deliberately or otherwise, will deter women from coming forward or from continuing to pursue claims of abuse. So Cameron (note please again this is totally hypothetical example) would be unlikely to resort to crowdfunding to demonstrate his power and influence, rather he would likely resort to his astonishingly powerful network of 'chums'.
Others would simply rely on wealth, effectively to outspend accusers who simply don't have the resources. Others again will use their influence (as we saw in Weinstein pre-MeToo) and power to freeze out accusers from their careers.
-
I really hate how we, as a society, obsess over random comments on the Internet. There are bound to be haters vomiting bile on social media in sexual misconduct cases. They probably represent a pretty small minority of people but they get limelight they do not deserve.
I think people should be counseling the accusers in such cases to regard the anonymous Twitterati as insignificant pond scum to be ignored.
Read some of these comments.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/alex-salmond-resigns-from-snp/
-
I really hate how we, as a society, obsess over random comments on the Internet. There are bound to be haters vomiting bile on social media in sexual misconduct cases. They probably represent a pretty small minority of people but they get limelight they do not deserve.
I think people should be counseling the accusers in such cases to regard the anonymous Twitterati as insignificant pond scum to be ignored.
That's all well and fine to say in the abstract. But if you are an ordinary woman caught up in this you might feel very different - it's all very well to say 'hey just ignore it, it's only twitter-trolling', but if it were you and you had no experience of this kind of thing you might be genuinely concerned that maybe just one of those making the comments might just put a brick through your window if your anonymity were compromised. I can see very easily how this would deter others from coming forward, or those already having made accusation from dropping them.
-
That's all well and fine to say in the abstract. But if you are an ordinary woman caught up in this you might feel very different - it's all very well to say 'hey just ignore it, it's only twitter-trolling', but if it were you and you had no experience of this kind of thing you might be genuinely concerned that maybe just one of those making the comments might just put a brick through your window if your anonymity were compromised. I can see very easily how this would deter others from coming forward, or those already having made accusation from dropping them.
The amount of money raised alone sends the message that victims won't be believed, without anything else.
-
Read some of these comments.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/alex-salmond-resigns-from-snp/
I read them but can't see what the problem is.
Lots of comments about it being something whipped up by the media because they are against an independent Scotland or an Establishment set-up and a couple of comments that the women who made the allegations are being used as pawns. Lots of comments about it being unfair that it was leaked. For example:
"Honestly, the anti-independence people raging and asking why give money for a rich man’s legal costs: it is not about the money, it is a sign of support, respect and principle.
I am not in the least surprised that the target was reached within 2.5 hours. Scots are generally known for their abhorrence of unfair treatment and this man has been pilloried before he has even been charged with anything. If this does not go to court, he will carry this stigma for the rest of his life.
What a nightmare for a respected statesman. I feel sick to my stomach that there are so many bitter, twisted people in my beloved country."
-
The amount of money raised alone sends the message that victims won't be believed, without anything else.
Not sure I agree that it means that they wont be believed by the general public or in a court. Why it is somewhat chilling is the notion that Salmond can effectively snap his finger and mobilise thousands of supporters, who are, let's face it talking Salmond's side against theirs. All it takes is one nutter in those thousands, and a compromise to anonymity and who knows what might happen. Of course it probably wont but I fully understand why the women would fear the possibility.
-
That's all well and fine to say in the abstract. But if you are an ordinary woman caught up in this you might feel very different - it's all very well to say 'hey just ignore it, it's only twitter-trolling', but if it were you and you had no experience of this kind of thing you might be genuinely concerned that maybe just one of those making the comments might just put a brick through your window if your anonymity were compromised. I can see very easily how this would deter others from coming forward, or those already having made accusation from dropping them.
IMO a fair process takes priority over the feelings of any individual.
Once it was leaked to the press and the accusations were out there in the public domain, there were undoubtedly lots of negative comments written against Salmond. Not surprising he needed to redress the balance by getting publicity for positive comments about him in the public domain. Crowdfunding his legal fees for the judicial review seems a fair move in the circumstances.
-
The amount of money raised alone sends the message that victims won't be believed, without anything else.
That has always been the situation though - there is no automatic right to be believed. Without direct knowledge of the incident the situation for most of us is that either there is evidence that points to guilt or a lack of evidence, which points to innocence. And until that evidence is evaluated and a decision reached by some kind of fair, independent process, Salmond remains innocent until proven guilty. The crowdfunding does not change the "innocent until proven guilty" principle - it just redresses the balance of the negative comments against Salmond when the story got leaked.
-
IMO a fair process takes priority over the feelings of any individual.
I don't disagree about the need for a fair process, but I'm not talking about people's feelings. I'm talking about an atmosphere that prevents women from coming forward in the first place, or drop allegations or refuse to continue to be involved in further investigations etc because they fear the consequences. If that happens how on earth is there a fair process.
It is easy to talk about fair process and indeed relatively easy to provide fair process under circumstances where the accused and accuser are similar in their levels of power and influence. Problems occur when the accused has very little power and influence and the accused is exceptional powerful and influential (or indeed vice versa). That inherent inbalance means the process starts off being unbalanced and therefore unfair, unless other things are put in place to rebalance that unfairness. And, indeed, that is one of the reasons for the anonymity etc in these types of cases - to try to rebalance the system. But once that anonymity is broken, or a woman fears it will be broken, then that rebalancing is lost.
It takes an exceptionally strong character in an ordinary member of the public (or just someone lacking power and influence) to go up against a hugely powerful and influential person without those rebalancing factors, knowing that your opponent can readily mobilise support and influence that you can only dream of.
-
I wouldn’t want an atmosphere where people feel it’s easy to make allegations without worrying about the consequences- I don’t trust people to be fair. That’s why a fair process is important. So it is important that there is evidence to support the allegations as well as opportunity and timely information about the allegations available to the accused to provide a defence to the allegations.
I agree that anonymity is important. Once Salmond lost his anonymity and faced comments presuming his guilt and if his complaint that the investigation process was unfair is upheld by the judicial review, then it was unfairly prejudicial against the accused, regardless of his power and influence.
I have no interest in supporting a system if it is unjust and presumably there is little interest in supporting an abuse of power to prevent an abuse of power?
I assume powerful people have feelings too and it’s not just their lives that are affected by allegations leaked to the Press but also the lives of family members, which could also include women, children, the elderly. Not seeing why the concern for justice should not include them too.
I would think the fairest option is anonymity for the accusers and the accused. Once one side loses their anonymity and faces negative comments presuming their guilt I think it’s fair for the person who has lost their anonymity to try to repair the unfair damage by getting positive public comments presuming their innocence. This might also help discourage people from making false accusations against powerful people, not that I am suggesting that that is what has happened here. Of course we have to wait for the outcome of investigations and the judicial review and the evaluation of evidence before forming an opinion on what the truth might be.
-
I think that's right - and there is a further issue. I think in some cases the men involved don't feel that what they did needed clear consent - meaning that they felt that a little squeeze of a bottom or a deliberate rub against a breast was just what happens and not something requiring consent. That is of course wrong, but I think there are plenty of examples where the man knows darned well that the women hadn't consented, but he didn't think that consent was necessary.
Missed this. Yes I agree some men and women may well have become more educated recently on the importance of obtaining consent before even touching someone. The number of times I have seen a woman touch a man’s leg or shoulder or back or playfully pushing or punching them while talking to them, without asking permission first, but just assuming they have consent. The other day I witnessed a man playfully pretend to tweak his landlord’s (another man’s) nipple and they weren’t friends - they were in the middle of a discussion about the rental property they were standing in - an office. The person committing the “assault” seemed quite keen to hug people he barely knew as well.
In that sense I quite like people who recognise that people have their personal space and not to risk intruding by trying to initiate physical contact. It’s safer that way for all concerned as there is less likelihood of intentions being misinterpreted.
-
I wouldn’t want an atmosphere where people feel it’s easy to make allegations without worrying about the consequences
Nor would I want an atmosphere where people feel they cannot make legitimate accusations for fear of the consequences - and in the case of women and sexual harassment that has been the situation over decades. Sure the MeToo agenda has helped level the playing field somewhat, but I'm not convinced it is level yet, let alone tipped in favour of the victims, particularly where the accused are powerful and influential. It think we both agree that a fair process is important - we just differ in our opinions on which way the process is unbalanced at present.
I agree that anonymity is important. Once Salmond lost his anonymity and faced comments presuming his guilt ...
The inference being that once the allegations were made public that all comments presumed guilt. That isn't the case - sure there may have been some comments presuming guilt and others merely having a go at someone they don't like. But that is balanced by plenty of comments (see the wingsoverscotland link) opining that they cannot believe he is guilty, implying some great conspiracy and generally being supportive of Salmond. Plus there are plenty of others more measured - effectively (and quite rightly) reserving judgement until the due process is complete.
I assume powerful people have feelings too ...
Of course they do, but in many cases they will be much better prepared for a media storm - in this case Salmond has been in the public eye for decades, he is well used to dealing with the kind of media storm raging at present, and may indeed have a raft of public relations support to help. For an ordinary member of the public this will be completely new territory for them and they may be completely unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with what it to come if anonymity is compromised. Remember the case of the nurse you fell for a press hoax when one of William/Kate's kids were born.
I would think the fairest option is anonymity for the accusers and the accused.
But that doesn't level the playing field when one of the parties is powerful and influential. Sure were anonymity to have been maintained for Salmond a crowdfunding campaign wouldn't have been possible, but remember Salmond probably has be greatest network of contacts with exceptional influence in Scotland. Even with anonymity he has the opportunity to thumb through his address book, have a few conversations/meetings with others with power and influence able to pull strings if required. The accused have none of that.
-
Nor would I want an atmosphere where people feel they cannot make legitimate accusations for fear of the consequences - and in the case of women and sexual harassment that has been the situation over decades. Sure the MeToo agenda has helped level the playing field somewhat, but I'm not convinced it is level yet, let alone tipped in favour of the victims, particularly where the accused are powerful and influential. It think we both agree that a fair process is important - we just differ in our opinions on which way the process is unbalanced at present.
Agreed. I think making the accusations public tipped the balance too much against the accused in a system that is based on innocent until proven guilty.
The inference being that once the allegations were made public that all comments presumed guilt.
Not all comments but certainly enough to make it very detrimental to a person's reputation, and I don't think that is a price that influential, powerful people should have to pay until a judgement through a fair process has been reached.
That isn't the case - sure there may have been some comments presuming guilt and others merely having a go at someone they don't like. But that is balanced by plenty of comments (see the wingsoverscotland link) opining that they cannot believe he is guilty, implying some great conspiracy and generally being supportive of Salmond. Plus there are plenty of others more measured - effectively (and quite rightly) reserving judgement until the due process is complete.
That's why I support the crowdfunding - I doubt there would have been as good an opportunity to make or publicise the supportive comments without the crowdfunding page where ordinary people could balance the negativity from a very powerful media.
Of course they do, but in many cases they will be much better prepared for a media storm - in this case Salmond has been in the public eye for decades, he is well used to dealing with the kind of media storm raging at present, and may indeed have a raft of public relations support to help. For an ordinary member of the public this will be completely new territory for them and they may be completely unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with what it to come if anonymity is compromised. Remember the case of the nurse you fell for a press hoax when one of William/Kate's kids were born.
I agree that a public figure will be more prepared to deal with sexual misconduct allegations compared to an ordinary member of the public. And that's why I made the point about the feelings of the accused's family, who are ordinary members of the public. I don't see this as the price powerful public figures should just be expected to pay if they become successful in their field of work.
I think it is entirely reasonable for powerful people to fight back against a powerful media or lobby or against what they think is an unfair investigation process through tactics such as crowdfunding pages. It's unfortunate that this may discourage victims from reporting allegations, but I don't blame Salmond as I think it's a reasonable tactic given the circumstances and it would not need to be employed if anonymity had been maintained. He has a right to defend himself.
But that doesn't level the playing field when one of the parties is powerful and influential. Sure were anonymity to have been maintained for Salmond a crowdfunding campaign wouldn't have been possible, but remember Salmond probably has be greatest network of contacts with exceptional influence in Scotland. Even with anonymity he has the opportunity to thumb through his address book, have a few conversations/meetings with others with power and influence able to pull strings if required. The accused have none of that.
I guess we shall see how much influence he has once the judicial review determines whether, despite all this influence, he was the victim of an abuse of power during the investigation process.
-
That's why I support the crowdfunding - I doubt there would have been as good an opportunity to make or publicise the supportive comments without the crowdfunding page where ordinary people could balance the negativity from a very powerful media.
Salmond was all over the media prior to launching his Crowdfunding page. Due to his prominence he was able to get media airtime etc that most people wouldn't be able to achieve. And of course with that media airtime he strongly denied the claims and also made his points about the unfairness of the system.
Sure the Crowdfunding page provided an additional opportunity to drum up support, but he had already used a range of other media outlets to put his case and drum up support, not least twitter. Don't forget that the wingoverscotland page with hundreds of supporting comments, Rhiannon linked to, is completely different to the crowdfunding page. Plus he posted several statements on twitter, again generating supporting comments straight after the accusations went public and days before the crowdfunding was launched.
-
Salmond was all over the media prior to launching his Crowdfunding page. Due to his prominence he was able to get media airtime etc that most people wouldn't be able to achieve. And of course with that media airtime he strongly denied the claims and also made his points about the unfairness of the system.
Sure the Crowdfunding page provided an additional opportunity to drum up support, but he had already used a range of other media outlets to put his case and drum up support, not least twitter. Don't forget that the wingoverscotland page with hundreds of supporting comments, Rhiannon linked to, is completely different to the crowdfunding page. Plus he posted several statements on twitter, again generating supporting comments straight after the accusations went public and days before the crowdfunding was launched.
I agree Salmond was in the media denying the allegations but once the allegations are repeated by the media, and the more times they are repeated, the tendency is for them to be in many people’s minds as more and more believable on the “no smoke without fire” basis. So it needed something more, such as donating to a crowdfunding page, to send a message that the media attempts to discredit Salmond or publicise the allegations as a juicy story weren't going to have as negative an impact as expected. I think it’s a clever tactic to employ and more effective than just the denials.
The WingsoverScotland comments page referenced the crowdfunding page, with people saying they donated as a way of showing support for fairness rather than because they thought Salmond needed the money. Many people on there are waiting for some evidence to be produced, and until then Salmond is innocent so entitled to defend himself as effectively as he can against media stories.
-
I agree Salmond was in the media denying the allegations but once the allegations are repeated by the media, and the more times they are repeated, the tendency is for them to be in many people’s minds as more and more believable on the “no smoke without fire” basis. So it needed something more, such as donating to a crowdfunding page, to send a message that the media attempts to discredit Salmond or publicise the allegations as a juicy story weren't going to have as negative an impact as expected. I think it’s a clever tactic to employ and more effective than just the denials.
The WingsoverScotland comments page referenced the crowdfunding page, with people saying they donated as a way of showing support for fairness rather than because they thought Salmond needed the money. Many people on there are waiting for some evidence to be produced, and until then Salmond is innocent so entitled to defend himself as effectively as he can against media stories.
I don't agree. Actually I think most of the coverage in the first few days was rather muted and carefully neutral, as the media have learned from previous examples with high profile figures where the allegations have come to nought. I certainly didn't feel any 'no smoke without fire' or presumption of guilt.
Actually the thing that has changed that is the crowdfunding approach - that has received extremely strong criticism across all sorts or parts of the media and beyond. Just look at the raft of negative publicity linked to his crowdfunding over the weekend. So if anything Salmond has rather shot himself in the foot, turning a broadly cautious and 'let's not rush to judgement' approach to one where the media and the public have turned against him due to his actions in using his power and influence to raise money via crowdfunding for his defence. I still don't see people rushing to a presumption of guilt, but they don't like his tactics one little bit.
-
I don't agree. Actually I think most of the coverage in the first few days was rather muted and carefully neutral, as the media have learned from previous examples with high profile figures where the allegations have come to nought. I certainly didn't feel any 'no smoke without fire' or presumption of guilt.
Actually the thing that has changed that is the crowdfunding approach - that has received extremely strong criticism across all sorts or parts of the media and beyond. Just look at the raft of negative publicity linked to his crowdfunding over the weekend. So if anything Salmond has rather shot himself in the foot, turning a broadly cautious and 'let's not rush to judgement' approach to one where the media and the public have turned against him due to his actions in using his power and influence to raise money via crowdfunding for his defence. I still don't see people rushing to a presumption of guilt, but they don't like his tactics one little bit.
My impression was that once the story was leaked to the Press there were many calls for Salmond's suspension from the SNP publicised by the media before the crowdfunding page appeared. Being suspended makes a person look guilty. There were also references to "sex pest" allegations. He then resigned from the SNP, and there were comments from some people asking why he was resigning if he was innocent.
The crowdfunding page gave the opportunity for people who wanted evidence of his guilt to show their support for a fair investigation and a presumption of his innocence until the evidence is produced. So clearly while some of the public turned against him, some did not.
-
Read some of these comments.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/alex-salmond-resigns-from-snp/
Why?
Seriously, they are just random people on the internet. Why should I give them a moment’s thought?
-
That's all well and fine to say in the abstract. But if you are an ordinary woman caught up in this you might feel very different - it's all very well to say 'hey just ignore it, it's only twitter-trolling', but if it were you and you had no experience of this kind of thing you might be genuinely concerned that maybe just one of those making the comments might just put a brick through your window if your anonymity were compromised. I can see very easily how this would deter others from coming forward, or those already having made accusation from dropping them.
You’ve ignored the second part of my post about the counseling.
Also, as a general rule, we need to spread the meme that internet comments can be really nasty, but they are not worth the effort of getting upset about. If one person in a thousand is an arsehole, it can look quite bad on Twitter, but it is still a very small number of people.
-
I read the wingsoverscotland comments. So the man has supporters, so what? He also has detractors, probably more.
We don't know what happened, we were not there. Hopefully the truth will out, sooner the better but unfortunately these things tend to take time.
-
The amount of money raised alone sends the message that victims won't be believed, without anything else.
What do you propose to do about it? Are you going to try to stop people accused of sexual assault from raising funds for their defence?
-
I read the wingsoverscotland comments. So the man has supporters, so what? He also has detractors, probably more.
We don't know what happened, we were not there. Hopefully the truth will out, sooner the better but unfortunately these things tend to take time.
If he has a thousand supporters all commenting on that article, that’s still out of about five million people in Scotland. You can’t stop Salmond from crowdfunding his legal challenge. You can’tr Stop his supporters from commenting on stories and you can’t make his detractors also comment if they don’t want to. All you can do, as far as I know, is educate people that random comments on the Internet mean fuck all.
-
I wouldn't stop them, that was not my point. I agree internet comments mean nothing. Do our comments on this thread count as internet comments? Apart from on here I've made no comments nor discussed it with anyone.
Nothing wrong with the crowdfunding imo.
-
I wouldn't stop them, that was not my point. I agree internet comments mean nothing. Do our comments on this thread count as internet comments? Apart from on here I've made no comments nor discussed it with anyone.
There you are. You responded to an internet comment in a combative way in spite of the fact that the commenter (me) was actually agreeing more or less with what you wrote. If you were offended, you’ll just brush it off and just put it down to my lack of skills at expressing myself clearly.
Nothing wrong with the crowdfunding imo.
I don’t actually agree with that. I think - given that Salmond has admitted he didn’t need to crowdfund the legal action - that it was quite a dickish move. Given the current climate, I think it will have a detrimental effect on sexual assault victims coming forward but what can we do about it? The only answer is to change the current climate so people do not get intimidated by arseholes on the Internet - at least that is my opinion.
-
There you are. You responded to an internet comment in a combative way in spite of the fact that the commenter (me) was actually agreeing more or less with what you wrote. If you were offended, you’ll just brush it off and just put it down to my lack of skills at expressing myself clearly.
I think there is a world of difference between how we might respond to each other's comments on this MB and how a person accusing one of the most powerful and influential figures in Scotland of sexual harassment might feel about comments made in support of that powerful and influential person, particularly if you aren't 100% confident that your anonymity can be assured.
-
I think there is a world of difference between how we might respond to each other's comments on this MB and how a person accusing one of the most powerful and influential figures in Scotland of sexual harassment might feel about comments made in support of that powerful and influential person, particularly if you aren't 100% confident that your anonymity can be assured.
Yes there is, but what are you going to do about it? The comments really don’t mean anything in the context of a country containing more than five million people. People generally need to understand that fact and those that already do need to help the rest towards that understanding.
-
Yes there is, but what are you going to do about it? The comments really don’t mean anything in the context of a country containing more than five million people. People generally need to understand that fact and those that already do need to help the rest towards that understanding.
It only takes one person.
But what is more important from the perspective of justice is whether the accuser might decide not to proceed with the allegations, or others decide not to raise them out of perceived threat.
-
I think - given that Salmond has admitted he didn’t need to crowdfund the legal action - that it was quite a dickish move.
I agree - Salmond is usually incredible sure-footed politically, but this seems to be an error on his part. Regardless of what Gabriella may opine I think the crowdfunding has back-fired, shifting public opinion against him. Prior to this the reporting was pretty balanced on him personally, largely the innocent until proven guilty, with most media attention on the intriguing politics. Over the weekend that has shifted with pretty broad condemnation of the approach.
Given the current climate, I think it will have a detrimental effect on sexual assault victims coming forward but what can we do about it? The only answer is to change the current climate so people do not get intimidated by arseholes on the Internet - at least that is my opinion.
Well don't forget that comments on-line are 'publications' and there are laws both against actions that are intimidatory to a witness or plaintiff, and also publications that prejudice and fair trial.
Now I've not read all the comments, so can't comment specifically in this case, but I would have thought that theoretically if a defendant acted in a manner to encourage positive comments being published, which may also be derogatory to witnesses or the plaintiff that this could constitute deliberately prejudicing a fair trial or alternatively could be deemed to be intimidatory to the plaintiff or witnesses.
And if the trial collapses it is the defendant who will benefit. Certainly mainstream media are very carefully these days about what they publish in relation to a trial (whether active or potentially pending) but clearly often less careful about comments they allow associated with that article, which would also be deemed to be publications. And this will apply to the crowdfunding page just as much as to the Daily Record.
-
I think - given that Salmond has admitted he didn’t need to crowdfund the legal action - that it was quite a dickish move.
The normal situation for crowdfunding in legal cases is that it allows David to fight Goliath. In this case it is be used to support Goliath fighting David - I think that is seems to many to be so inappropriate.
-
In this case it is be used to support Goliath fighting David.
The Scottish Government is David?
-
I agree - Salmond is usually incredible sure-footed politically, but this seems to be an error on his part. Regardless of what Gabriella may opine I think the crowdfunding has back-fired, shifting public opinion against him. Prior to this the reporting was pretty balanced on him personally, largely the innocent until proven guilty, with most media attention on the intriguing politics. Over the weekend that has shifted with pretty broad condemnation of the approach.
Well don't forget that comments on-line are 'publications' and there are laws both against actions that are intimidatory to a witness or plaintiff, and also publications that prejudice and fair trial.
Now I've not read all the comments, so can't comment specifically in this case, but I would have thought that theoretically if a defendant acted in a manner to encourage positive comments being published, which may also be derogatory to witnesses or the plaintiff that this could constitute deliberately prejudicing a fair trial or alternatively could be deemed to be intimidatory to the plaintiff or witnesses.
And if the trial collapses it is the defendant who will benefit. Certainly mainstream media are very carefully these days about what they publish in relation to a trial (whether active or potentially pending) but clearly often less careful about comments they allow associated with that article, which would also be deemed to be publications. And this will apply to the crowdfunding page just as much as to the Daily Record.
Don't forget that, in this case, there is no trial, at least not yet. Salmond is raising the money to support a legal action in which he is the plaintiff and the Scottish government is the defendant. As the action is about the process that the government employed, there's no reason for Salmond's accusers to get involved.
-
The Scottish Government is David?
As pointed out in the discussion with NS, Salmond sees the judicial review as a key factor in clearing his name. And indeed if he won it there is a strong likelihood that the original decision would be quashed, internal process would need to be re-run taking account of the judicial review findings. Under these circumstances there is a significant likelihood that the original decision would be reversed.
So although the judicial review is actually tabled against Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans (not the Scottish Government who aren't the primary respondent), this isn't some altruistic 'change the rules to prevent others suffering' case, the real target is to get the original allegations dismissed, in other words the accusers.
So it is very much Goliath against David.
-
Don't forget that, in this case, there is no trial, at least not yet. Salmond is raising the money to support a legal action in which he is the plaintiff and the Scottish government is the defendant. As the action is about the process that the government employed, there's no reason for Salmond's accusers to get involved.
If he wins his case it is likely that the original internal process, involving the accusers, will be required by law to be re-run.
-
Don't forget that, in this case, there is no trial, at least not yet. Salmond is raising the money to support a legal action in which he is the plaintiff and the Scottish government is the defendant. As the action is about the process that the government employed, there's no reason for Salmond's accusers to get involved.
Wrong terminology - Salmond is the applicant, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans is the primary respondent.
And in a judicial review, as in other types of tribunal, the applicant can call witnesses or request witness statements to be provided, and therefore could request the accusers to be witnesses in the case - specifically they'd be probed on how they made the allegations, how evidence was taken etc etc - so all about the process. I imagine they'd be required to provide evidence in the form of a written statement, and their anonymity would be maintained, but they might be required to be involved in the judicial review.
-
It's hard to say how traumatising Salmond's actions have been for the women in this case. But revisiting trauma in the context of a court situation or tribunal is traumatising in itself, and often retraumatising. I was talking to a key worker from Women's Aid who told me that during the legal processes surrounding a rape trial victims are encouraged not to get counselling because it can be used by the defence as evidence of coercion, poor mental health, you name it. So anyone dealing with abuse that could become a criminal matter may well not be getting psychological support. Retraumatising in the court arena, revisiting any kind of harassment or abuse, is horrendous.
If I were one of these women I'd walk away.
-
I agree - Salmond is usually incredible sure-footed politically, but this seems to be an error on his part. Regardless of what Gabriella may opine I think the crowdfunding has back-fired, shifting public opinion against him. Prior to this the reporting was pretty balanced on him personally, largely the innocent until proven guilty, with most media attention on the intriguing politics. Over the weekend that has shifted with pretty broad condemnation of the approach.
I think that's wishful thinking on your part - you have not addressed the issue that your same argument about "sending a message to victims" was used to call for him to be suspended from the SNP after the allegations were leaked to the Daily Record, which makes it sound like he is guilty of wrongdoing before any process had been carried out or judgement reached about whether he is actually guilty.
That some people are critical of Salmond for not just rolling over and going along with the unethical "sending a message" justification to punish a man simply on the basis of allegations is not really surprising - some people seem to either have a particular weakness for the "fragility of women" narrative and let their emotional reaction override their concern for a fair process, or it was just an opportunity to attack Salmond that they could not bring themselves to pass up.
-
As pointed out in the discussion with NS, Salmond sees the judicial review as a key factor in clearing his name. And indeed if he won it there is a strong likelihood that the original decision would be quashed, internal process would need to be re-run taking account of the judicial review findings. Under these circumstances there is a significant likelihood that the original decision would be reversed.
So although the judicial review is actually tabled against Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans (not the Scottish Government who aren't the primary respondent), this isn't some altruistic 'change the rules to prevent others suffering' case, the real target is to get the original allegations dismissed, in other words the accusers.
So it is very much Goliath against David.
No it very much isn't. It's an individual (Salmond) against the government. You can try to spin it into something else, but the crowdfunding page is evidence that a substantial number of people disagree with your view of who is David and who is Goliath for the purposes of a judicial review into a process that is alleged to have been carried out unfairly.
-
It's hard to say how traumatising Salmond's actions have been for the women in this case. But revisiting trauma in the context of a court situation or tribunal is traumatising in itself, and often retraumatising. I was talking to a key worker from Women's Aid who told me that during the legal processes surrounding a rape trial victims are encouraged not to get counselling because it can be used by the defence as evidence of coercion, poor mental health, you name it. So anyone dealing with abuse that could become a criminal matter may well not be getting psychological support. Retraumatising in the court arena, revisiting any kind of harassment or abuse, is horrendous.
If I were one of these women I'd walk away.
That makes it sound like you have already decided Salmond is guilty?
A lot of the articles linked to on here by people who are against the crowdfunding seem to just pay lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, rather than that they actually believe in that principle.
-
That makes it sound like you have already decided Salmond is guilty?
A lot of the articles linked to on here by people who are against the crowdfunding seem to just pay lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, rather than that they actually believe in that principle.
I accept that, and I haven't, but if the actions did happen, then then the point stands.
In terms of the crowdfunding, my objection is that he didn't need to do it. He has the money, so what is it other than a show of strength?
-
I think that's wishful thinking on your part - you have not addressed the issue that your same argument about "sending a message to victims" was used to call for him to be suspended from the SNP after the allegations were leaked to the Daily Record, which makes it sound like he is guilty of wrongdoing before any process had been carried out or judgement reached about whether he is actually guilty.
Calling for someone in politics to resign, be sacked, be suspended etc is part and parcel of the political machinations under circumstances where there are allegations. Sure as light follows day opposition parties will suggest this - this has nothing to do with Salmond per se as it has happened in pretty well every other case involving a politician of every party - I can think of recent examples involving Labour (Ken Livingston), the Tories (Damian Green), the LibDems (Chris Renard) etc etc - all occurred prior to completion of formal process, and certainly before any criminal charges (if any eventually happened) occurred or court procedure.
And actually it is very common for an individual to be suspended from their work or an organisation while an investigation is ongoing. You might not like it, but it is what regularly happens so there is no indication that Salmond has been treated any differently from the norm as a senior politician.
And just to correct your error - the story was not originally placed in the public domain due to a leak. Once the initial investigation was complete (22nd August) the details that Salmond was under investigation on 2 counts dating back to 2013 and that details had been passed on to the police was released into the public domain by the Scottish Parliament. There was a later leak, via the Daily Record which provided some more details, but the original release of information was planned and agreed and not a leak.
-
It's an individual (Salmond) against the government.
Once again you are incorrect factually, it is an individual (Alex Salmond - the applicant), against another individual (Leslie Evans - the respondent).
But the reality is that it is an individual acting with the clear intention of reversing a decision on accusations that were brought by two other individuals.
It is Goliath vs David.
-
It seems clearly in Salmonds interests to use crowd funding as, whether the case is won or lost or, if charged, he is convicted or not, it is seen as Salmond and an army fighting for a cause rather than a lonely perv avoiding responsibility. If the case is lost and a prosecution proceeds at least he won't have wasted his own money.
The advantages probably outweigh any increased criticism.
-
Calling for someone in politics to resign, be sacked, be suspended etc is part and parcel of the political machinations under circumstances where there are allegations. Sure as light follows day opposition parties will suggest this - this has nothing to do with Salmond per se as it has happened in pretty well every other case involving a politician of every party - I can think of recent examples involving Labour (Ken Livingston), the Tories (Damian Green), the LibDems (Chris Renard) etc etc - all occurred prior to completion of formal process, and certainly before any criminal charges (if any eventually happened) occurred or court procedure.
And actually it is very common for an individual to be suspended from their work or an organisation while an investigation is ongoing. You might not like it, but it is what regularly happens so there is no indication that Salmond has been treated any differently from the norm as a senior politician.
I did not say that Salmond has been treated differently. My point was that the treatment was unfair. That other people have also been treated unfairly before their guilt had been proved just means that Salmond was smart to find a way for people to show public support for him rather than just accept the unfair treatment.
And just to correct your error - the story was not originally placed in the public domain due to a leak. Once the initial investigation was complete (22nd August) the details that Salmond was under investigation on 2 counts dating back to 2013 and that details had been passed on to the police was released into the public domain by the Scottish Parliament. There was a later leak, via the Daily Record which provided some more details, but the original release of information was planned and agreed and not a leak.
You seem to have misread what I wrote or have trouble comprehending it. You are responding to my post where I wrote that the allegations had been leaked to the Daily Record by starting your sentence "the story was not originally placed in the public domain due to a leak" . If I wanted to discuss how the story was originally placed in the public domain I could just refer you back to Nearly Sane's reply #121 where he listed the sequence of events when he replied to one of my posts. That would have saved you the bother of needlessly parroting NS.
Now back to what I actually wrote - that the allegations were leaked to the Daily Record. Clearly preserving the anonymity of the 2 women or Salmond was not important to whoever leaked some of the details of the allegations.
Leaking details to the papers may well put people off from making allegations about sexual harassment or taking the matter further.
-
Once again you are incorrect factually, it is an individual (Alex Salmond - the applicant), against another individual (Leslie Evans - the respondent).
Firstly, that's not what you thought here:
The judicial process is him vs Scottish Government.
And secondly, you are being factually inaccurate - while the first respondent is Leslie Evans, the second respondent is the Scottish Government. And statements have been issued to say "The Scottish Government will defend its position vigorously."
https://beta.gov.scot/publications/permanent-secretary-statement-on-complaints-against-former-first-minister-alex-salmond/
A statement from solicitors Levy & McRae said: “We can confirm at 10am this morning, a petition for judicial review in the Court of Session by Mr Alex Salmond was served on the legal representatives of the Scottish Government.
“We can also confirm that first respondent is the Permanent Secretary, Ms Leslie Evans, who established the procedure which is the subject of challenge. The second respondent is the Scottish Government.
“Mr Salmond has no further comment to make but intends to leave the matter for the Court to determine.”
But the reality is that it is an individual acting with the clear intention of reversing a decision on accusations that were brought by two other individuals.
It is Goliath vs David.
The reality is that the Scottish government is Goliath.
-
The reality is that the Scottish government is Goliath.
This is all about getting the decision quashed through judicial review with Salmond's desired consequence being a reversal of the original decision when it is revisited. Leslie Evans and the Scottish Government are merely pawns in the game between Salmond and his intended target, being a decision not to accept the allegations made by the two women as having merit.
Goliath vs David.
-
... seem to just pay lip service to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, rather than that they actually believe in that principle.
I think you are confused - you are confusing the burden of proof in criminal proceedings with those in civil proceedings. Salmond has not been charged with any criminal offence. He has however been investigated in civil processes where the burden of proof is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but is 'on the balance of probabilities'. I civil proceedings the accused isn't considered innocent until proven guilty, nor guilty until proven innocent - the starting point is one of firm neutrality, neither presuming guilt nor innocence.
-
This is all about getting the decision quashed through judicial review with Salmond's desired consequence being a reversal of the original decision when it is revisited. Leslie Evans and the Scottish Government are merely pawns in the game between Salmond and his intended target, being a decision not to accept the allegations made by the two women as having merit.
If the civil servant's investigation process was carried out incorrectly, it is in everyone's interests that it should be reviewed and corrected. The process should have integrity and the civil servant carrying out the process should be seen to have not abused their own power against an individual with less power, otherwise what's the point of trying to investigate someone else's abuse of power? Are you against the principle of judicial reviews of government actions?
Whether the allegations of the two women have merit is something that can only be decided after a fair investigation process. Therefore it makes sense to establish the fairness of the investigation process.
Goliath vs David.
When it comes to the Judicial Review, the Scottish Government is Goliath.
-
Whether the allegations of the two women have merit is something that can only be decided after a fair investigation process. Therefore it makes sense to establish the fairness of the investigation process.
What makes you think the process is unfair? Should everyone challenge every decision under judicial review when they don't like the outcome, just in case the process hadn't been conducted properly.
An unfair process could have ended up deciding the allegations had no merit - do you think the women would have the power and influence to be able to raise the necessary funds to apply for judicial review in those circumstances? I somehow doubt it.
-
I think you are confused - you are confusing the burden of proof in criminal proceedings with those in civil proceedings. Salmond has not been charged with any criminal offence. He has however been investigated in civil processes where the burden of proof is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but is 'on the balance of probabilities'. I civil proceedings the accused isn't considered innocent until proven guilty, nor guilty until proven innocent - the starting point is one of firm neutrality, neither presuming guilt nor innocence.
You seem to have a very limited understanding of disciplinary investigations. The principle of innocent until proven guilty applies to disciplinary investigations and proceedings. The person carrying out the investigation is required to be impartial, which means not assuming that the person complained about is guilty. That is what the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" means. It does not mean the person making the complaint is lying, it just means you can't punish the the subject of the complaint without going through a fair process of investigation. People hire lawyers to advise them, both when they are the subject of a disciplinary complaint and when they want to make a complaint and companies sometimes get legal advice before they carry out an investigation of a complaint, as suspending someone prematurely could result in the company facing a claim for compensation later from the person who was suspended.
And wittering on about the burden of proof and beyond reasonable doubt isn't going to distract anyone from the errors you have been making in your posts.
-
What makes you think the process is unfair? Should everyone challenge every decision under judicial review when they don't like the outcome, just in case the process hadn't been conducted properly.
No point asking me a question until you have answered the question I asked you. Are you against judicial reviews of government actions?
An unfair process could have ended up deciding the allegations had no merit - do you think the women would have the power and influence to be able to raise the necessary funds to apply for judicial review in those circumstances? I somehow doubt it.
Most likely they would not have been able to raise the funds. Are you saying that because some people can't get the funds to pay legal fees, no one should have the right to fund legal fees? Who do you suggest should pay for everyone's lawyers instead?
-
You seem to have a very limited understanding of disciplinary investigations.
Weird that, because I could have sworn that I've been involved in conducting such investigations and procedures in a range of contexts. Indeed just last night I received the formal paperwork for a disciplinary hearing that I'm involved in as a panel members next week.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty applies to disciplinary investigations and proceedings.
Even the very terms 'innocent' and 'guilty' have no place in civil and disciplinary procedures and hearings. No-one is found guilty, allegations are deemed 'proven' or 'not proven', or are 'upheld' or 'dismissed' etc on the balance of probabilities. That you use these terms in the context of civil and disciplinary hearings suggests you don't understand them.
The person carrying out the investigation is required to be impartial ...
I agree, and in civil and disciplinary hearings where the burden of proof is 'balance of probabilities' that means they do no presume in either direction - they won't, of course, use the terms guilty or innocent (as they have no place in such hearings) but they will neither presume the allegations to be 'proven' or 'not proven' - so if you must use innocent and guilty the starting point is complete neutrality, neither a presumption of innocence, nor a presumption of guilt. This is, of course completely different to criminal proceeding (whether the terms are used) in which a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is aligned to a different burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Weird that, because I could have sworn that I've been involved in conducting such investigations and procedures in a range of contexts. Indeed just last night I received the formal paperwork for a disciplinary hearing that I'm involved in as a panel members next week.
Even the very terms 'innocent' and 'guilty' have no place in civil and disciplinary procedures and hearings. No-one is found guilty, allegations are deemed 'proven' or 'not proven', or are 'upheld' or 'dismissed' etc on the balance of probabilities. That you use these terms in the context of civil and disciplinary hearings suggests you don't understand them.
I agree, and in civil and disciplinary hearings where the balance of proof is 'balance of probabilities' that means they do no presume in either direction - they won't, of course, use the terms guilty or innocent (as they have no place in such hearings) but they will neither presume the allegations to be 'proven' or 'not proven' - so if you must use innocent and guilty the starting point is complete neutrality, neither a presumption of innocence, nor a presumption of guilt. This is, of course completely different to criminal proceeding (whether the terms are used) in which a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is aligned to a different burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt.
That you have been involved in disciplinary matters does not bode well for the people involved if you have a tendency to misunderstand what is written and leap to assumptions. I have also been involved in disciplinary investigations and hearings and I didn’t suggest that those terms are used
during the formal process. However the principle of innocence is upheld until guilt is proved. And notice I did not say anything about “beyond reasonable doubt”.
As an employer, I have been advised by lawyers not to do anything during the investigation process that suggests that I think an employee is guilty of the allegation made against them. As someone helping someone else who was the subject of a disciplinary process I have been advised that the allegation will be investigated without any assumption of guilt. I assume you are not going to try to correct conversations between people and their solicitors?
But rather than being distracted by legal terms, why not answer the question. What is your solution to someone making allegations that a government has acted unfairly?
-
If he wins his case it is likely that the original internal process, involving the accusers, will be required by law to be re-run.
If he wins it will be because the original process will be deemed not fit for purpose, so of course they'll have to redo it in accordance with the law.
You seem to be arguing that a flawed process should not be rerun on the grounds that the answer might be different. If the process was unfair to Salmond, surely it must be done again.
-
Wrong terminology - Salmond is the applicant, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans is the primary respondent.
Yeah, whatever. |Like it matters.
And in a judicial review, as in other types of tribunal, the applicant can call witnesses or request witness statements to be provided, and therefore could request the accusers to be witnesses in the case - specifically they'd be probed on how they made the allegations, how evidence was taken etc etc - so all about the process. I imagine they'd be required to provide evidence in the form of a written statement, and their anonymity would be maintained, but they might be required to be involved in the judicial review.
If Salmond genuinely thinks the process has been unfair to him and genuinely believes the wrong conclusion has been reached, what is he supposed to do if he can't challenge the decision and the means by which it was made?
-
The applicant in any proceedings has the upper hand. The respondent has to counter the allegations that the applicant makes. In that sense they can be on the back foot.
-
Once again you are incorrect factually, it is an individual (Alex Salmond - the applicant), against another individual (Leslie Evans - the respondent).
Leslie Evans was acting in her capacity as an employee ofd the Scottish government. She'll get their support.
But the reality is that it is an individual acting with the clear intention of reversing a decision on accusations that were brought by two other individuals.
It is Goliath vs David.
I have to ask you again: what is he supposed to do if he feels that Leslie Evans acting on behalf off the Scottish government has treated him unfairly. Is he supposed to roll over just because it might be unpleasant for his accusers? It might get quite unpleasant for him if he is branded a sex offender. Obviously, that doesn't matter if he is guilty, but if he is not guilty...
-
The applicant in any proceedings has the upper hand. The respondent has to counter the allegations that the applicant makes. In that sense they can be on the back foot.
If you mean the government need to defend themselves against allegations of abuse of power and carrying out unfair processes, that’s the case in any allegation of wrongdoing that goes to court
I still disagree with PD. If we are using the analogy, I think in the judicial review the Scottish government is “Goliath”, if we are talking about who has more power and access to bigger resources.
-
Leslie Evans was acting in her capacity as an employee ofd the Scottish government. She'll get their support.
I have to ask you again: what is he supposed to do if he feels that Leslie Evans acting on behalf off the Scottish government has treated him unfairly. Is he supposed to roll over just because it might be unpleasant for his accusers? It might get quite unpleasant for him if he is branded a sex offender. Obviously, that doesn't matter if he is guilty, but if he is not guilty...
Isn't the problem here how he's gone about it? He can self-fund it.
-
I still disagree with PD. If we are using the analogy, I think in the judicial review the Scottish government is “Goliath”, if we are talking about who has more power and access to bigger resources.
You are entitled to your opinion - I disagree - Salmond remains pretty well the biggest beast on the Scottish scene and his ultimate target isn't the Scottish Government or Leslie Evans, but the decision itself. He wants to use his very considerable power and influence to get the decision reversed via the judicial review and the pressure that will put on both the Scottish Government and the accusers if he wins. And in fact merely going through the process will delay matters considerably plus place the accused in a period of limbo or even drag them into the judicial review itself which could easily be sufficient to get them to walk away as Rhiannon indicates.
-
Isn't the problem here how he's gone about it? He can self-fund it.
And that the women don't have equivalent resources to challenge an unfair process if they perceive it to be. So imagine if Salmond wins the judicial review and the decision is quashed and re-run, with the finding that Salmond has no case to answer. The process might still be unfair, but the women are never going to be in a position to afford to challenge the new process under judicial review.
-
Isn't the problem here how he's gone about it? He can self-fund it.
Yes and I said so up thread, but PD’s arguments seem to be mostly about the fact he is doing it at all.
-
It might get quite unpleasant for him if he is branded a sex offender. Obviously, that doesn't matter if he is guilty, but if he is not guilty...
You are getting well ahead of yourself. In order for him to be branded a sex offender he would have to be convicted of a criminal offence of a sexual nature. From where we are now, for that to happen we'd need.
1. The police to conduct their investigation and decide that their is sufficient evidence for Salmond to be charged with a criminal offence of a sexual nature (once criminal charges are made the presumption of innocence kicks in).
2. For Salmond to be tried and found guilty (with the burden of proof being beyond reasonable doubt).
3. For Salmond to fail in any appeal he might bring against those criminal charges.
And that's without considering the judicial review - effectively he is hoping the judicial review simply makes the issue go away, but he has very many further stages that would need to go against him, with burden of proof firmly in his favour, before he could be branded a sex offender. He isn't close to being in the last chance saloon, indeed he has barely started the pub crawl.
-
And that the women don't have equivalent resources to challenge an unfair process if they perceive it to be. So imagine if Salmond wins the judicial review and the decision is quashed and re-run, with the finding that Salmond has no case to answer. The process might still be unfair, but the women are never going to be in a position to afford to challenge the new process under judicial review.
But if the courts find the process to be unfair and the new investigation exonerates Alec Salmond, perhaps justice will have been done.
-
You are getting well ahead of yourself. In order for him to be branded a sex offender he would have to be convicted of a criminal offence of a sexual nature. From where we are now, for that to happen we'd need.
Are you so naive as to believe that a person can’t be branded as a sex offender if they have not been convicted in a court?
-
Are you so naive as to believe that a person can’t be branded as a sex offender if they have not been convicted in a court?
Branded by whom? That famous court of tabloid-driven public opinion, or an actual court of law?*
* Which can and does still get things howlingly wrong. Enquire within for a long list of shameful details.
ETA: I may be arguing against the wrong person - because of the double negative of JeremyP's question. Happy to be informed and edumacationated.
-
But if the courts find the process to be unfair and the new investigation exonerates Alec Salmond, perhaps justice will have been done.
Or perhaps those running the process will feel cowed into finding in favour of Salmond under the weight of pressure of a judicial review defeat. While the review isn't about the decision, but the process, it is a brave organisation that has their decision quashed and sent back to them to re-run and simply come to the same conclusion again. Losing a judicial review provides no guarantee that the re-run process is any less flawed or the new decision is any safer.
-
Are you so naive as to believe that a person can’t be branded as a sex offender if they have not been convicted in a court?
If someone were to do that to Salmond without him having been convicted of a criminal offence of a sexual nature then I think he'd be bringing another type of case ... one for defamation (libel or slander), which he'd almost certainly win.
-
Isn't the problem here how he's gone about it? He can self-fund it.
He did the crowdfunding because he wanted to get a show of public support for his view that Leslie Evans acted unfairly during the investigation. It seems a reasonable way to me to counteract the damage to his reputation once the fact that there was an investigation became public knowledge and some of the details of the allegations were leaked and there were calls from opposition MPs and critics for the SNP to suspend him and he decided to resign, all of which would make some people assume his guilt. But obviously others disagree with me, which is fine.
If someone accused me of sexual harassment and I was in a position of power and in the public eye and I believed I was innocent and I believed I had been unfairly prevented from defending myself or having access to information and I thought some of the decisions being made were politically driven or in support of a particular agenda, and I knew people were forming their opinions of whether I was guilty or innocent, “no smoke without fire” etc etc because it was now all over the media, I would probably do what Salmond did as it was far more effective than just protesting his innocence and denying the allegations.
Maybe Leslie Evans didn’t act unfairly, maybe she did - he obviously believes that she did but the two of them would be looking at it from different perspectives and have different agendas. The system is that the court is seen as independent and impartial and will make a decision as to which perspective and which agenda should prevail at this moment in time, based on their interpretation of the law after looking at the evidence.
I am not surprised that some people would turn the crowdfunding into an argument about intimidating all victims of sexual harassment while other people are supportive and donated. It goes with the territory of politics.
-
I have been thinking a little more overnight at to why I have such a difficulty with Salmond going for judicial review at this stage. Actually it goes beyond the issue of funding and of the message it sends to the accusers (both of these are still powerful issues).
No there is a broader issue - that it seems an inappropriate use of the court option. Judicial reviews are typically the option of last resort, the final in a series of checks and balances that are used when a decision with serious consequences of itself have been made. So it is often used when a decision to deport someone has been made, or a decision to remove care from a vulnerable person has been made, or to approve a planning application with major public consequences, or to remove public funding from an organisation. In every case the people taking the action are in the last chance saloon, so to speak - this is their final option to try to prevent the effect.
But this isn't the case for Salmond. As far as I can see he is challenging an initial finding of an inquiry, which has, of itself, no consequences. The initial decision appears to be that the Scottish Government has determined that the claims of the women have merit and if true that they might amount to criminal offences. Hence they have effectively suspended their inquiry and passed the issue to another, completely independent body - the police. This is a very early stage in the overall process and one that has absolutely no direct effect (ignoring political consequences) on Salmond - he hasn't been suspended, nor disciplined internally, nor charged let alone convicted by the police. Salmon has many , many further stages before their are any actual consequences arise.
So rather than challenge via judicial review simply the initial stage in the process he has the checks and balances already - if he feels the internal inquiry process was unfair, his case in now been considered by a completely independent body, why not trust that the police will fail to find sufficient evidence (they have a stricter burden of evidence than the internal inquiry) to be able to bring charges. And even if they were to press charges, why not trust the court procedures where he would need to be found guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) that he would be acquitted in a trial, or even win on appeal. Only if all of those further steps go against his are there real consequences.
So overall I think this is an inappropriate use of the judicial review approach, and it may be that the authorities refuse to allow him to go for judicial review. If judicial review were allowed in this case (effectively to challenge merely an initial stage in a process without any final consequences) then the flood gates would be opened (or at least would for those with deep enough pockets).
Just as an example - the case I'm hearing next week also had an earlier stage where the police were contacted and involved - in a Salmond world that should trigger a judicial review - that is ridiculous and to my my would be an abuse of the process.
-
I completely disagree. If I was in a serious fight for my reputation and I thought the initial investigation showed signs of unfairness I think it’s far more effective and less costly to try to nip it in the bud at the start with a judicial review, rather than wait to have a judicial review at the end of a long, drawn out, costly process which put my career on hold. If I thought the initial investigation was carried out unfairly I wouldn’t have much confidence in the rest of the process.
-
I completely disagree. If I was in a serious fight for my reputation and I thought the initial investigation showed signs of unfairness I think it’s far more effective and less costly to try to nip it in the bud at the start with a judicial review, rather than wait to have a judicial review at the end of a long, drawn out, costly process which put my career on hold.
Which would be a clear abuse of the process to try to use a judicial review to 'nip it in the bud'. Judicial review is a process of last resort and should not be used unless all alternative remedies have been exhausted.
This from the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland (my emphasis).
'Judicial review is the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker. It is only available where other effective remedies have been exhausted and where there is a recognised ground of challenge.'
-
Branded by whom?
It really doesn't matter. If Salmond is branded by "public opinion" he is finished.
-
Or perhaps those running the process will feel cowed into finding in favour of Salmond under the weight of pressure of a judicial review defeat.
Or perhaps they'll be even more determined to do a good job and (if he is guilty) make sure it sticks.
Losing a judicial review provides no guarantee that the re-run process is any less flawed or the new decision is any safer.
That's just speculation on your part. I could equally say it is more likely to be done carefully the second time and more likely to come to the right conclusion.
-
It really doesn't matter. If Salmond is branded by "public opinion" he is finished.
I actually think that whatever happens public opinion will be that he's the victim, at least north of the border.
-
If someone were to do that to Salmond without him having been convicted of a criminal offence of a sexual nature then I think he'd be bringing another type of case ... one for defamation (libel or slander), which he'd almost certainly win.
It doesn't matter. If the public thinks he is a sex offender, his career is over. Suing for libel is a dangerous game if you actually did it. And how do you sue social media?
-
I actually think that whatever happens public opinion will be that he's the victim, at least north of the border.
I think you are right and he is a wily old fox and understands this well.
Recognising that judicial review is supposed to be an option of last resort, I suspect that Salmond knows this all too well too. Accordingly he is probably expecting that the courts refuse his petition for judicial review (in other words they don't allow it to happen) and that will allow him to develop a narrative that not only was he hard done by by the process but that he wasn't allowed to challenge it. Most people wont understand judicial review, so wont recognise that until all stages of the process including any appeals have been completed that petitioning for judicial review is inappropriate under the law and therefore many will see him somehow as a victim.
-
I think you are right and he is a wily old fox and understands this well.
Recognising that judicial review is supposed to be an option of last resort, I suspect that Salmond knows this all too well too. Accordingly he is probably expecting that the courts refuse his petition for judicial review (in other words they don't allow it to happen) and that will allow him to develop a narrative that not only was he hard done by by the process but that he wasn't allowed to challenge it. Most people wont understand judicial review, so wont recognise that until all stages of the process including any appeals have been completed that petitioning for judicial review is inappropriate under the law and therefore many will see him somehow as a victim.
He wants a judicial review to strong-arm the Scottish Government into changing its decision. He doesn't want a judicial review because that will make him a martyr of the system.
Please try to get your story straight. Does he want a judicial review or not?
-
Which would be a clear abuse of the process to try to use a judicial review to 'nip it in the bud'. Judicial review is a process of last resort and should not be used unless all alternative remedies have been exhausted.
This from the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland (my emphasis).
'Judicial review is the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker. It is only available where other effective remedies have been exhausted and where there is a recognised ground of challenge.'
I disagree that it would be an abuse if I had tried repeatedly over a period of time to get details of the allegations against me and this had not been provided to me in order for me to put information together to show the investigator that the allegations had no merit and I had no case to answer for internal disciplinary purposes. If there are no other effective remedies to get the information that I had requested and was entitled to, then a judicial review would be the only other option.
-
He wants a judicial review to strong-arm the Scottish Government into changing its decision. He doesn't want a judicial review because that will make him a martyr of the system.
Please try to get your story straight. Does he want a judicial review or not?
I think he wants it to happen and to go in his favour but recognises that he in unlikely to be successful in his petition for judicial review, but that he can use that decision to refuse to allow a judicial review to support his narrative of being the victim.
His least favoured option, I guess, would be for the petition for judicial review to be successful, but for him to lose the review. However even that leaves him no worse off than he is now, but drags out the process and maintains the pressure on the accusers who probably just want the process over.
He is, without doubt, a canny political operator.
-
I disagree that it would be an abuse if I had tried repeatedly over a period of time to get details of the allegations against me and this had not been provided to me in order for me to put information together to show the investigator that the allegations had no merit and I had no case to answer for internal disciplinary purposes. If there are no other effective remedies to get the information that I had requested and was entitled to, then a judicial review would be the only other option.
Remember that a judicial review should be the last resort after all other options for remedy have been exhausted.
So if this is the case he should allow the internal inquiry to reach its ultimate conclusion (it is currently effectively stalled as matters have been passed to the police). If that internal inquiry, if it is restarted, finds that the disciplinary allegations are proven (they haven't considered that yet), then the process with no doubt allow an internal appeal stage. So he can appeal and if that is dismissed there are external legal processes he can opt for, specifically employment tribunal, which itself has its own appeal process. Only if all these have failed, can Salmond justifiably claim he has exhausted other options. As that stage judicial review seems appropriate, but not before.
-
A judicial review is time sensitive and needs to be brought promptly. In England you have 3 months from when the grounds on which the claim is based arose. Not sure if that’s the same timeframe for Scotland. If it is, them if the grounds for the judicial review are that Leslie Evans and the government acted unfairly or outside their powers or mishandled the administration of the investigation, Salmond has to ask for a review of the administration of the investigation within 3 months of the investigation process.
-
A judicial review is time sensitive and needs to be brought promptly. In England you have 3 months from when the grounds on which the claim is based arose. Not sure if that’s the same timeframe for Scotland. If it is, them if the grounds for the judicial review are that Leslie Evans and the government acted unfairly or outside their powers or mishandled the administration of the investigation, Salmond has to ask for a review within 3 months of the investigation process.
Yes that's right, but the 3 month period only starts ticking one all other options have been exhausted. So once Salmond has gone through the whole process of internal investigations, hearings, appeals and any external legal options, e.g. employment tribunals and their appeals processes, then he has 3 months.
-
Yes that's right, but the 3 month period only starts ticking one all other options have been exhausted. So once Salmond has gone through the whole process of internal investigations, hearings, appeals and any external legal options, e.g. employment tribunals and their appeals processes, then he has 3 months.
No - the 3 months start from the investigation process that Salmond alleges was unjust and unfair. The Scottish government has said in response to the petition for review that Salmond’s statement to the media regarding the grounds for his petition contain inaccuracies and that it will defend its procedures in court at the judicial review.
-
No - the 3 months start from the investigation process that Salmond alleges was unjust and unfair. The Scottish government has said in response to the petition for review that Salmond’s statement to the media regarding the grounds for his petition contain inaccuracies and that it will defend its procedures in court at the judicial review.
Nope - again from the Scottish courts official guidance:
'Where a suitable statutory right of appeal or review exists, a person will be expected to use it before seeking judicial review'
-
Nope - again from the Scottish courts official guidance:
'Where a suitable statutory right of appeal or review exists, a person will be expected to use it before seeking judicial review'
There isn’t an appeal as to how an investigation is carried by the government and whether they refuse to provide you with information about the allegations that you are entitled to have. You can appeal a decision made after a disciplinary hearing.
On a separate note, there should also be an independent review or investigation about how details of the allegations got into the paper, compromising the right to confidentiality of the 2 women and Salmond
-
I think you are right and he is a wily old fox and understands this well.
Recognising that judicial review is supposed to be an option of last resort, I suspect that Salmond knows this all too well too. Accordingly he is probably expecting that the courts refuse his petition for judicial review (in other words they don't allow it to happen) and that will allow him to develop a narrative that not only was he hard done by by the process but that he wasn't allowed to challenge it. Most people wont understand judicial review, so wont recognise that until all stages of the process including any appeals have been completed that petitioning for judicial review is inappropriate under the law and therefore many will see him somehow as a victim.
This speculation is very entertaining but as it’s short on evidence, it’s not very convincing, though you can believe it as true if you like. Without evidence for the allegations of sexual misconduct and without evidence for your theories about what Salmond might or might not be thinking, I prefer to keep an open mind.
Also, I would suggest it is better to be a wily old fox, if indeed that is what is happening here, rather than the alternative of being like a lamb to the slaughter.
-
There isn’t an appeal as to how an investigation is carried by the government and whether they refuse to provide you with information about the allegations that you are entitled to have. You can appeal a decision made after a disciplinary hearing.
A judicial review is 'the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker ...' (again from the official guidance). The judicial review looks into the process of decision making, but when you petition for judicial review it is based on a decision, act or failure to act. In this case I'm sure there is a clear appeals process embedded within the internal disciplinary procedures of the Scottish government (plus also further avenues for Salmond to explore if he loses the disciplinary case and an appeal is dismissed - that process has not been exhausted, indeed the investigation is yet to be completed.
It is clear that the expectation embedded within the judicial review process is that you are expected to see through the full options available to you to challenge any decision, act or failure to act before petitioning for judicial review.
So for example there is a recent case involving the whisky industry petitioning for judicial review of the decision of the Scottish Government to bring in minimum pricing on alcohol years ago. They only petitioned for judicial review once they had challenged that decision all the way through the court process including various appeals stages and ultimately the European court of justice. That has taken years from the original decision, but the 3 months applies from when the final alternative option for remedy (in this case EUCJ) was exhausted.
-
Without evidence for the allegations of sexual misconduct and without evidence for your theories about what Salmond might or might not be thinking, I prefer to keep an open mind.
You and I are not party to the evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence. The Scottish Government, via their inquiry, clearly believe there is sufficient evidence for them to take the decision to hand the matter over the the police.
Of course the presence of evidence doesn't mean that we should accept that Salmond has engaged in wrongdoing until the process is complete - so I'm not rushing to any form of judgement, but I think the due process needs to be followed through.
For the internal process (based on balance of probabilities) we should neither presume that the allegations are proven, nor unproven until that internal process is complete.
Were Salmond to be charged with a criminal offence, at that point we should apply the criminal standard of presumption of innocence, that applies only to criminal charges, until or unless he is found guilty (using beyond reasonable doubts as the standard of proof.
But all this requires the various processes to be allowed to proceed to their completion.
If once all of these eventualities have played out and all potential remedies exhausted and Salmond remains dissatisfied with the outcome, then he should consider petitioning for judicial review.
-
A judicial review is 'the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker ...' (again from the official guidance). The judicial review looks into the process of decision making, but when you petition for judicial review it is based on a decision, act or failure to act. In this case I'm sure there is a clear appeals process embedded within the internal disciplinary procedures of the Scottish government (plus also further avenues for Salmond to explore if he loses the disciplinary case and an appeal is dismissed - that process has not been exhausted, indeed the investigation is yet to be completed.
It is clear that the expectation embedded within the judicial review process is that you are expected to see through the full options available to you to challenge any decision, act or failure to act before petitioning for judicial review.
We”ll know once the courts make a decision on the judicial review.
-
We”ll know once the courts make a decision on the judicial review.
We will indeed - or rather we will know when they have considered whether to grant or not to grant the petition for judicial review which is the step before actually conducting a judicial review.
-
It would seem that the decision was taken on something not mentioned at the time of the original stushie. Things still up.I'm the air with both the police investigation, and possibility of a further investigation by the Scottish Govt, after the completion of the police investigation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
-
It would seem that the decision was taken on something not mentioned at the time of the original stushie. Things still up.I'm the air with both the police investigation, and possibility of a further investigation by the Scottish Govt, after the completion of the police investigation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
Indeed - it would appear that the sole reason for for judgement was that the investigating officer had had prior contact with the complainants, albeit there is no suggestion that she acted in anything other than an impartial manner in conducting the investigation. This, I gather, wasn't something Salmond had raised in his original complaint and would appear to have only become apparent last month.
Salmond's main complaint seems to have been that we wasn't told what the allegations were, nor who had made them. It would appear that the court was comfortable with the procedure in this respect.
Nonetheless this is now in the hands of the police and only once they have completed this investigation will the government determine whether or not to rerun the investigation (presumably using exactly the same procedure, albeit they will no doubt ensure that the investigating officer has had no interaction with anyone involved in the allegations).
Actually on that last part procedures that seem totally reasonable in principle can be almost impossible to deliver in practice. This is particularly the case with senior people where it isn't uncommon to expect the investigating officer or panel to be senior to the person under investigation. This can mean that a handful of people (or even just one) are suitable. Add to that the need for the investigating officer to have had no involvement with the allegations prior to being appointed and sometimes you can end up with no-one. The law of unintended consequences of procedures developed completely in good faith.
-
Indeed - it would appear that the sole reason for for judgement was that the investigating officer had had prior contact with the complainants, albeit there is no suggestion that she acted in anything other than an impartial manner in conducting the investigation. This, I gather, wasn't something Salmond had raised in his original complaint and would appear to have only become apparent last month.
Salmond's main complaint seems to have been that we wasn't told what the allegations were, nor who had made them. It would appear that the court was comfortable with the procedure in this respect.
I don't know where you - or Nicola Sturgeon - gets that from.
Judge Lord Pentland subsequently said that the government's actions had been "unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair" and had been "tainted with apparent bias".
The government admitted that one part of its procedure had been wrong and the trial collapsed. That doesn't mean that the court thought the bits Salmond was complaining about were perfectly fine.
Nonetheless this is now in the hands of the police and only once they have completed this investigation will the government determine whether or not to rerun the investigation (presumably using exactly the same procedure, albeit they will no doubt ensure that the investigating officer has had no interaction with anyone involved in the allegations).
I think it would be better to let the police investigation run its course to find out if Salmond is guilty or not.
-
Moderator:
Some recent posts that raised or discussed the issue of another public figure have been removed from this thread, which is about a specific person, and any of these posts that are relevant will be added to the 'Lawrence Krauss' thread, on the Theism and Atheism Board.
So, Vlad, if you wish to discuss Krauss please use the thread noted above (which was started by you).
-
I don't know where you - or Nicola Sturgeon - gets that from.
The government admitted that one part of its procedure had been wrong and the trial collapsed. That doesn't mean that the court thought the bits Salmond was complaining about were perfectly fine.
Presumably from the judgement itself. From the statement from the Scottish Government:
'All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed.'
I haven't read the judgement, but certainly the Scottish government think that all the other points raised by Salmond were considered and have been dismissed.
I think it would be better to let the police investigation run its course to find out if Salmond is guilty or not.
I agree. However if he is found not guilty in a criminal court it doesn't necessary rule out further investigation of the complaints in an employment/disciplinary context. This is because the standard of proof is different - being beyond reasonable doubt in the former and on the balance of probabilities in the latter.
-
Presumably from the judgement itself. From the statement from the Scottish Government:
'All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed.'
I haven't read the judgement, but certainly the Scottish government think that all the other points raised by Salmond were considered and have been dismissed.
I agree. However if he is found not guilty in a criminal court it doesn't necessary rule out further investigation of the complaints in an employment/disciplinary context. This is because the standard of proof is different - being beyond reasonable doubt in the former and on the balance of probabilities in the latter.
I'm finding the statements and reports unsatisfactory as the ruling does not seem to be currently available (and probably will not).
The case was raised and funded to examine some basic issues with investigation procedures that may not have been properly examined as the government conceded on a lesser point.
What about the various leaks to the press?
The main concern was not Salmond's actual behaviour (which can be dealt with by the police) but that abuse accusations and inadequate investigation procedures could be used to disgrace individuals for political reasons.
Are those points just dismissed because the case has been won on other grounds?
-
I'm finding the statements and reports unsatisfactory as the ruling does not seem to be currently available (and probably will not).
True it isn't available now, but presumably will be made available. There is already a video snippet of the judgement, presumably the rest of the judgement was also videod and I guess a written judgement will appear in time.
The case was raised and funded to examine some basic issues with investigation procedures that may not have been properly examined as the government conceded on a lesser point.
What about the various leaks to the press?
The main concern was not Salmond's actual behaviour (which can be dealt with by the police) but that abuse accusations and inadequate investigation procedures could be used to disgrace individuals for political reasons.
Are those points just dismissed because the case has been won on other grounds?
Interesting question and there is some lack of clarity. The Government statement clearly implies that the other points made by Salmond were dismissed (which could only happen if they were considered). We don't currently have definite clarity on this, although it would seem to be odd for the government to be so definitive on this in an official statement if it weren't the case.
So if it is the case that the other elements of the procedure (beyond appointing an inappropriate investigating officer) have been considered and determined to have been appropriate then the points you raised would have been addressed and a determination made.
-
The estimable Andrew Tickell's view
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias/
-
The estimable Andrew Tickell's view
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias/
Yes.
And Craig Murray is more forthright on his blog.
The Scottish Government statement is misleading and dishonest.
-
The Scottish Government statement is misleading and dishonest.
How do you know - have you seen the written judgement or watched the whole of the judge's decision in court.
What doesn't seem in dispute is that Salmond won his case on a single point relating to the application of the procedure. What appears unclear is whether his other claims were considered and dismissed (this is what the Scottish Government statement says), or weren't considered (I've seen nothing official to back that up).
To assume that the Scottish Government statement is misleading and dishonest is to indicate you know the answer to my previous paragraph - in which case please provide the evidence as I've not seen it.
-
...
To assume that the Scottish Government statement is misleading and dishonest is to indicate you know the answer to my previous paragraph - in which case please provide the evidence as I've not seen it.
I'm going by the views of Tickell (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias) and Craig Murray: (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/01/the-salmond-stitch-up-the-incredible-facts-and-why-mackinnon-and-evans-must-be-sacked)
" All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed"
I cannot understand this at all. There has been no judgement issued in the case. The Scottish Government caved in once it was ordered to reveal the incriminating emails and minutes that told the above story. The Scottish Government caved in and settled out of court; therefore the case was dismissed by the judge. It is totally false of Evans to claim that this amounts to Salmond’s other claims being “dismissed” in the sense she intends to convey, and indeed is the opposite of what the Scottish Government’s own QC specifically stated in court. He said that the Government disagreed with Salmond on the other points but that this was “now academic”.
No written opinion has been released. If there were any findings on the significant points why would they not be published? The court can remove any doubts by publishing them (redacted where required for anonymity).
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
Not all opinions are published. Generally, only decisions which involve a matter of principle, a particular point of general public importance or are delivered after a substantial hearing of evidence, will be contained in a written Opinion.
ETA:
See also: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46801338
None of the other issues has been considered, the case was not even due to held until the 15th Jan, but dismissed at an "abruptly added" hearing this week.
-
I'm going by the views of Tickell (https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias) and Craig Murray: (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/01/the-salmond-stitch-up-the-incredible-facts-and-why-mackinnon-and-evans-must-be-sacked)
So there is disagreement between two commentators and the Scottish Government - so what. Why do you automatically assume the commentators are correct and the Scottish Government wrong. Surely you should wait until we have something more definitive before rushing to judgement - hence.
No written opinion has been released.
Then let's wait for the written document or let's look at the entire statement from the judge as it seems to have been videod, but the media reports only released a part, as that was the most interesting part.
If there were any findings on the significant points why would they not be published? The court can remove any doubts by publishing them (redacted where required for anonymity).
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
They may well be in due course. This was only a couple of days ago - it is common that written reports on judicial review proceeding to take several weeks to be released.
My point is that at present we don't seem to have definitive evidence as to whether Salmond's other claims had been considered or not.
-
Presumably from the judgement itself. From the statement from the Scottish Government:
'All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed.'
I haven't read the judgement, but certainly the Scottish government think that all the other points raised by Salmond were considered and have been dismissed.
I was going by the remarks of the judge himself and a comment I heard on the radio where a government spokesman said it was unfortunate they had to "settle" which suggests to me that they never really got to considering all of Salmond's points because the government case fell apart on the first one.
I agree. However if he is found not guilty in a criminal court it doesn't necessary rule out further investigation of the complaints in an employment/disciplinary context. This is because the standard of proof is different - being beyond reasonable doubt in the former and on the balance of probabilities in the latter.
There is that, but also the Scottish government can have rules of conduct that go beyond what the law prohibits. For example, it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol but if I turned up to work drunk, my employer would take a very dim view.
-
I was going by the remarks of the judge himself and a comment I heard on the radio where a government spokesman said it was unfortunate they had to "settle" which suggests to me that they never really got to considering all of Salmond's points because the government case fell apart on the first one.
You may have heard otherwise, but the only comments I've seen directly from Lord Pentland is a small snippet of his judgement on video - there is presumably more, but I've not seen it.
As I've said to Udayana - this appears to be unclear as we also have the Scottish Government's official statement indicating that Salmond's other claims had been dismissed. In the absence of definitive and official evidence either way it is best not to speculate. Certainly I'd take the comments of known Salmond cheerleaders on this case (e.g. Murray) with a heavy dollop of salt.
There is that, but also the Scottish government can have rules of conduct that go beyond what the law prohibits. For example, it's perfectly legal to drink alcohol but if I turned up to work drunk, my employer would take a very dim view.
Of course - which means that even if Salmond doesn't have police charges and/or is not found guilty of those charges it doesn't mean he is out of the woods as there could be claims within the remit of his employment in the Scottish Government that may be sustained.
-
You may have heard otherwise, but the only comments I've seen directly from Lord Pentland is a small snippet of his judgement on video - there is presumably more, but I've not seen it.
So you didn't read the quote from the BBC story that I posted earlier.
-
So you didn't read the quote from the BBC story that I posted earlier.
Please post again as I'm not aware of any other direct comments from Lord Pentland beyond those in the edited video clip - but happy to look at details if you can link to them.
Nonetheless - even if the BBC indicate that the other claims hadn't been looked at we remain in a position where we lack clarity. The Scottish Government statement suggesting they had been and had been dismissed while others are claiming they hadn't been looked at. Surely the only way to determine which is the case is to go back to the 'source material' - in other words the full judgement from Lord Pentland (which, I come back to again - I don't think we have seen).
-
Please post again as I'm not aware of any other direct comments from Lord Pentland beyond those in the edited video clip - but happy to look at details if you can link to them.
It was a quote in the BBC story that was linked earlier.
Nonetheless - even if the BBC indicate that the other claims hadn't been looked at we remain in a position where we lack clarity. The Scottish Government statement suggesting they had been and had been dismissed while others are claiming they hadn't been looked at. Surely the only way to determine which is the case is to go back to the 'source material' - in other words the full judgement from Lord Pentland (which, I come back to again - I don't think we have seen).
I agree with all of this.
See this story to gain a little more clarity about what has actually happened:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46801338
The two sides have basically settled between themselves which means that there will be no full judgement published. I'm actually mystified as to why Alex Salmond thinks he has won. The original points of complaint have not been resolved in his (or anybody's) favour and if the Scottish Government decides to resume proceedings, the only thing they are going to change is the investigating officer.
-
It was a quote in the BBC story that was linked earlier.I agree with all of this.
See this story to gain a little more clarity about what has actually happened:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46801338
The two sides have basically settled between themselves which means that there will be no full judgement published. I'm actually mystified as to why Alex Salmond thinks he has won. The original points of complaint have not been resolved in his (or anybody's) favour and if the Scottish Government decides to resume proceedings, the only thing they are going to change is the investigating officer.
Thanks - yes I had read that article, but it actually doesn't cast light on whether the other claims had been dismissed, as clearly suggested by the Scottish Government.
It is certainly the case that the current proceedings have been settled, but we perhaps don't know the full details here. I note in the article you linked to the phrase:
'This was the sole point the government conceded, but it was a fatal one.'
So no other points were conceded by the government in their settlement - that doesn't mean, firstly that other points weren't conceded by Salmond's team.
Also as there is a possibility that the investigation will be conducted again it is quite possible that the Scottish Government have asked for clarification on other aspects of the procedure - on the basis that it wouldn't be in anyone's interests to conduct the investigation again only to discover the process to be flawed.
All this is, of course, speculation. What it clear (or rather unclear) is that we currently do not have definitive information that allows us to conclude whether or not Salmond's other claims have been dismissed.
-
All this is, of course, speculation. What it clear (or rather unclear) is that we currently do not have definitive information that allows us to conclude whether or not Salmond's other claims have been dismissed.
Yes. As I said before, I really don’t know why Salmond thinks he’s won this. I mean, the government has conceded the case but not based on the points that Salmond was saying are unfair, namely that he be allowed to know who his accusers are and be allowed to defend himself. What’s going to happen is that, if the police investigation comes to nothing, Salmond will be no better off in respect of the government investigation than he was before this trial.
-
Yes. As I said before, I really don’t know why Salmond thinks he’s won this. I mean, the government has conceded the case but not based on the points that Salmond was saying are unfair, namely that he be allowed to know who his accusers are and be allowed to defend himself. What’s going to happen is that, if the police investigation comes to nothing, Salmond will be no better off in respect of the government investigation than he was before this trial.
I suspect Salmond is playing a political game (when doesn't he) - he knows that regardless of the facts of the matter, the media portrayal is that 'he won'. He knows this puts significant political pressure on the Scottish Government not to reopen the investigations (or rather to start it again) if the police investigation doesn't lead to charges or those charges aren't upheld in court.
I think Salmond is better off because it is likely that the Scottish Government will quietly drop the whole issue if it returns to them after the police investigation.
What we are seeing, in my opinion, is a further stage of the process started months ago - one in which Salmond uses his huge power and influence to frustrate an investigation. How many other people would be able to snap their fingers and raise enough money for this court case. And without the court case do you think this breach of the application of the Scottish Government's procedure would have come to light. Noting, of course, that there is no suggestions whatsoever that the outcome of the investigation was unsound, nor that there was actual bias in the process, rather than a perception that there could have been.
-
Short on detail currently:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46984747
-
Short on detail currently:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46984747
For those who don't want to click the link, Salmond has been arrested, well "a 64 year old man" has. The police haven't yet said why they have arrested him, but speculation is that it is to do with the sexual misconduct allegations. He will appear in court later today.
-
If guilty of sexual misconduct, I hope they throw the book at him, it is a very unpleasant crime. >:(
-
If guilty of sexual misconduct, I hope they throw the book at him, it is a very unpleasant crime. >:(
I was going to say there is a widespread spectrum of "sexual misconduct" but it appears he has been charged with two counts of attempted rape and an indecent assault. Salmond denies all charges.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46984747
-
14 charges including two of attempted rape and 9 of sexual assault.
Blimey
-
Why don't we all just shut the fuck up until the court case is over, instead of speculating without knowledge and virtue-signalling with self-righteous condemnations when he may be innocent?
-
Why don't we all just shut the fuck up until the court case is over, instead of speculating without knowledge and virtue-signalling with self-righteous condemnations when he may be innocent?
Agree.
-
Me too. It's all so depressing, I don't want to know any more until it's over.
-
Why don't we all just shut the fuck up until the court case is over, instead of speculating without knowledge and virtue-signalling with self-righteous condemnations when he may be innocent?
Is this aimed at me Steve?
If so, in what way was my comment 'speculating without knowledge' - when all I did was provide factual information about the charges.
In what was was my post 'virtue-signalling with self-righteous condemnations when he may be innocent'.
-
Is this aimed at me Steve?
If so, in what way was my comment 'speculating without knowledge' - when all I did was provide factual information about the charges.
In what was was my post 'virtue-signalling with self-righteous condemnations when he may be innocent'.
No, it wasn't. The bit about virtue-signalling had someone else in mind.
-
No, it wasn't. The bit about virtue-signalling had someone else in mind.
The I suggest you make it clear who your reply relates to. Particularly as it was without a quote and straight after mine.
But for the record I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the Salmond situation provided we do not stray into territory that could get us (or MB hosts) into hot water in a live case (or series of live cases). But that doesn't mean we need to 'shut the fuck up until the court case is over'.
-
Oliphant, best thing we can do is ignore this thread until it's all done and dusted. I agree with you prob'ly 4 different reasons to you, I find it distressing. Gawd knows why but I do.
It never occurred to me you were targeting Prof with your comment, I thought it was a general comment to us all. Fact that you responded straight after Prof is not that significant on a thread where many post.
-
Oliphant, best thing we can do is ignore this thread until it's all done and dusted. I agree with you prob'ly 4 different reasons to you, I find it distressing. Gawd knows why but I do.
It never occurred to me you were targeting Prof with your comment, I thought it was a general comment to us all. Fact that you responded straight after Prof is not that significant on a thread where many post.
Robbie - you and Steve are welcome to do what you like and no one forces anyone to post on any thread.
However Steve hasn't any right to tell others that they should 'shut the fuck up' - if others want to post about this case they are perfectly entitled to do so, with the caveat that we need to be mindful that there is a live case ongoing. However the focus of the thread has never been about whether Salmond did or did not do what he has been accuse of (that is for the jury in the case to decide) - it has been about the process up to this point - specifically the Scottish Government inquiry which was to determine whether their was a case to answer and were that to be the case whether it was appropriate to hand over information to the police. And also about the appropriateness of Salmond using his power and influence to (as some people would see it) attempt to frustrate that process.
None of that is off limits regardless of the charges and in my opinion the fact that the police, having independently looked at the evidence, have concluded that there is a case to answer and have charged Salmond with a number of criminal offences significantly vindicates the actions of the Scottish Government in the outcome of their investigation.
-
Robbie - you and Steve are welcome to do what you like and no one forces anyone to post on any thread.
However Steve hasn't any right to tell others that they should 'shut the fuck up' - if others want to post about this case they are perfectly entitled to do so, with the caveat that we need to be mindful that there is a live case ongoing. However the focus of the thread has never been about whether Salmond did or did not do what he has been accuse of (that is for the jury in the case to decide) - it has been about the process up to this point - specifically the Scottish Government inquiry which was to determine whether their was a case to answer and were that to be the case whether it was appropriate to hand over information to the police. And also about the appropriateness of Salmond using his power and influence to (as some people would see it) attempt to frustrate that process.
None of that is off limits regardless of the charges and in my opinion the fact that the police, having independently looked at the evidence, have concluded that there is a case to answer and have charged Salmond with a number of criminal offences significantly vindicates the actions of the Scottish Government in the outcome of their investigation.
Steve has a perfect right to tell others to shut the fuck up. He just doesn't have any power to enforce it.
Oh and surely there wasn't an actual outcome in the Scottish govt investigation?
-
I didn't tell anybody to do anything. I suggested that we shut up abput the case until he's either convicted or acquitted. "Why don't we all..." is a suggestion.
-
Oh and surely there wasn't an actual outcome in the Scottish govt investigation?
Read what I said.
The judicial review never made any comment whatsoever as to whether the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police) was correct or otherwise. Although there remains so doubt as to whether or not they dismissed Salmond's other claims, the only matter they have clearly ruled on was that the person conducting the inquiry had had prior contact with the accusers, and that was incorrect procedurally.
That the Police in their independent investigation have determined that charges should be brought vindicates the Scottish govt's inquiry findings (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police). Indeed surely on the basis the police have brought a significant number of charges of serious offences would mean that the Scottish govt would have been failing in its obligations had it not concluded its inquiry in finding sufficient evidence to support handing over the investigation to the police.
-
Read what I said.
The judicial review never made any comment whatsoever as to whether the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police) was correct or otherwise. Although there remains so doubt as to whether or not they dismissed Salmond's other claims, the only matter they have clearly ruled on was that the person conducting the inquiry had had prior contact with the accusers, and that was incorrect procedurally.
That the Police in their independent investigation have determined that charges should be brought vindicates the Scottish govt's inquiry findings (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police). Indeed surely on the basis the police have brought a significant number of charges of serious offences would mean that the Scottish govt would have been failing in its obligations had it not concluded its inquiry in finding sufficient evidence to support handing over the investigation to the police.
I did read what you said - there wasn't a full outcome of the investigation - which was why I phrased my comment as a question as your posts seemed unclear.
I also noticed what you didn't say as regards Steve - I take it you accept you were wrong to say he didn't have a right to say shut the fuck up?
-
I did read what you said - there wasn't a full outcome of the investigation - which was why I phrased my comment as a question as your posts seemed unclear.
I also noticed what you didn't say as regards Steve - I take it you accept you were wrong to say he didn't have a right to say shut the fuck up?
It would have been better if he hadn't used the 'F' word, imo.
-
It would have been better if he hadn't used the 'F' word, imo.
Which is irrelevant to him being perfectly within his rights to say it
-
I did read what you said - there wasn't a full outcome of the investigation - which was why I phrased my comment as a question as your posts seemed unclear.
The investigation I was talking about was the one conducted by the Scottish Government (note the judicial review) - there was a clear outcome to that investigation, namely that there were allegations serious enough and with sufficient evidence to warrant concluding that Salmond had a case to answer and that the details should be handed over to the police as some of the allegations appeared to be potentially criminal in nature.
That the police, having completed their own (independent) investigation, have concluded that Salmond should be charged with a number of criminal charges in my view vindicates the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation.
-
Which is irrelevant to him being perfectly within his rights to say it
I agree it isn't against forum rules, but it is still unpleasant.
-
I agree it isn't against forum rules, but it is still unpleasant.
It's not just about the forum rules, It's that Steve has a perfect right despite what the Prof wrote to say that everyone should shut up about the case. The use of the word fuck is entirely irrelevant.
-
The investigation I was talking about was the one conducted by the Scottish Government (note the judicial review) - there was a clear outcome to that investigation, namely that there were allegations serious enough and with sufficient evidence to warrant concluding that Salmond had a case to answer and that the details should be handed over to the police as some of the allegations appeared to be potentially criminal in nature.
That the police, having completed their own (independent) investigation, have concluded that Salmond should be charged with a number of criminal charges in my view vindicates the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation.
And I don't see that as being a full outcome since they stopped their own procedures because of the leak.
Still avoiding the point about Steve, I see
-
And I don't see that as being a full outcome since they stopped their own procedures because of the leak.
That isn't how I understood it. I thought they had got to a conclusion which was that there was sufficient evidence that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough that they needed to be handed over to the police. Of course having done that the internal process needed to stop while the police conducted their own inquiry and a conclusion was reached in those proceedings. They didn't stop due to a leak - they paused because the matter had been passed to the police.
Still avoiding the point about Steve, I see
I think his comment was unnecessarily aggressive and rude and as it wasn't directed at an individual and a specific post it came across to me as a general demand for everyone to stop talking about the issue. It is, of course, now an irrelevance given that we are continuing to discuss the matter.
-
That isn't how I understood it. I thought they had got to a conclusion which was that there was sufficient evidence that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough that they needed to be handed over to the police. Of course having done that the internal process needed to stop while the police conducted their own inquiry and a conclusion was reached in those proceedings. They didn't stop due to a leak - they paused because the matter had been passed to the police.
I think his comment was unnecessarily aggressive and rude and as it wasn't directed at an individual and a specific post it came across to me as a general demand for everyone to stop talking about the issue. It is, of course, now an irrelevance given that we are continuing to discuss the matter.
He has a perfect right to say it. You stating that he didn't was simply wrong.
-
Oh and surely there wasn't an actual outcome in the Scottish govt investigation?
Well it's finished isn't it? There may have been an outcome that will never see the light of day because they had to concede in Salmond's case against them.
-
Well it's finished isn't it? There may have been an outcome that will never see the light of day because they had to concede in Salmond's case against them.
That didn't preclude starting again after the police investigation, though whatever the outcome of any court case, I doubt it will restart now.
-
That didn't preclude starting again after the police investigation, though whatever the outcome of any court case, I doubt it will restart now.
Most internal HR processes are designed in stages, each of which comes to a natural conclusion (and indeed may be the end of the matter).
The Scottish Govt have completed their initial investigation and have released the outcome (namely that on the balance of probabilities they consider that Salmond does have a case to answer and that the nature of the allegations is such that it should be handed over to the police). That is where we are now.
Once the police investigation and any resulting court case is complete the Scottish govt may decide to initiate disciplinary proceedings according to their internal processes. That may occur even if Salmond is not found guilty of criminal offences due to the different threshold for evidence in criminal and civil cases.
-
He has a perfect right to say it. You stating that he didn't was simply wrong.
And I have a perfect right to say that ''Steve hasn't any right to tell others that they should 'shut the fuck up' - if others want to post about this case they are perfectly entitled to do so'.
Your opinion and mine (and Steve's) are just that, opinions - we aren't in the world of right or wrong.
My view was that his comment was rude and aggressive and I read it as demanding that we all shut up - we value free speech on this MB so in my opinion none of us have the right to demand that others shut up.
But hey ho, what value are opinions when NS knows right and wrong.
-
And I have a perfect right to say that ''Steve hasn't any right to tell others that they should 'shut the fuck up' - if others want to post about this case they are perfectly entitled to do so'.
Your opinion and mine (and Steve's) are just that, opinions - we aren't in the world of right or wrong.
My view was that his comment was rude and aggressive and I read it as demanding that we all shut up - we value free speech on this MB so in my opinion none of us have the right to demand that others shut up.
But hey ho, what value are opinions when NS knows right and wrong.
I didn't say it wasn't within your right to say that. Indeed I agree it is your right to do so. You have a right to be wrong.
-
You have a right to be wrong.
As do you - specifically when implying that an opinion is a matter of right and wrong.
Rather sterile discussion - I suggest we get back onto the actual topic of the thread.
-
As do you - specifically when implying that an opinion is a matter of right and wrong.
Rather sterile discussion - I suggest we get back onto the actual topic of the thread.
Except of course Steve has a perfect right to say what he said, and you arguing that you have a right to say what you said, shows you were wrong.
I can get why you think that you being wrong is sterile.
-
Except of course Steve has a perfect right to say what he said, and you arguing that you have a right to say what you said, shows you were wrong.
I can get why you think that you being wrong is sterile.
Do you actually have anything to add on the Salmond case or are you going to carry on, mule-like, on this rather pointless track.
-
Do you actually have anything to add on the Salmond case or are you going to carry on, mule-like, on this rather pointless track.
As noted earlier, whatever the outcome I think the Scottish Govt will walk away after this.
I understand why you feel you being wrong is pointless.
-
As noted earlier, whatever the outcome I think the Scottish Govt will walk away after this.
That may be the case, but it shouldn't be.
The standard of proof in employment disciplinary cases is markedly lower than for criminal cases. Also there are a range of things that will get you into a disciplinary process in employment that don't come close to being criminal offences. So regardless of the ultimate outcome of a criminal investigation the very notion that the police thought there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges should be sufficient for an employer to trigger disciplinary proceedings.
But as you suggest the Scottish govt may wish to wash their hands of the whole situation given that it has already caused them significant grief.
-
That may be the case, but it shouldn't be.
The standard of proof in employment disciplinary cases is markedly lower than for criminal cases. Also there are a range of things that will get you into a disciplinary process in employment that don't come close to being criminal offences. So regardless of the ultimate outcome of a criminal investigation the very notion that the police thought there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges should be sufficient for an employer to trigger disciplinary proceedings.
But as you suggest the Scottish govt may wish to wash their hands of the whole situation given that it has already caused them significant grief.
If Salmond is found guilty of any of the charges, no point in a further investigation politically. If he is found not guilty, it looks like a witch hunt even with the different burdens of proof.
If it was not proven, who knows!
-
Once the police investigation and any resulting court case is complete the Scottish govt may decide to initiate disciplinary proceedings according to their internal processes. That may occur even if Salmond is not found guilty of criminal offences due to the different threshold for evidence in criminal and civil cases.
It doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with threshold of evidence. An employee may break rules of the employer that have no equivalent in British law. For example, it's not illegal to be drunk in a bar while on company business, but the company might still consider it to be a sackable offence.
-
It doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with threshold of evidence. An employee may break rules of the employer that have no equivalent in British law. For example, it's not illegal to be drunk in a bar while on company business, but the company might still consider it to be a sackable offence.
Sure, but is Salmond actually in a position he can be fired from? I think he has already resigned SNP membership.
Also, we are assuming that the offenses he has been charged with are those arising from the complaints investigated, but it isn't necessarily so.
-
Sure, but is Salmond actually in a position he can be fired from? I think he has already resigned SNP membership.
It's not the SNP that was investigating him, but the Scottish government but he doesn't work for them anymore either.
Also, we are assuming that the offenses he has been charged with are those arising from the complaints investigated, but it isn't necessarily so.
Agreed.
-
If Salmond is found guilty of any of the charges, no point in a further investigation politically. If he is found not guilty, it looks like a witch hunt even with the different burdens of proof.
If it was not proven, who knows!
Wrong - just because Salmond is found not guilty (or not proven) of criminal charges with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard of proof, this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be subject to disciplinary proceedings internally - presumably misconduct or gross misconduct - with a 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof. And this is anything 'politically' but about justice.
So an example:
Imagine an employee goes out at lunchtime and gets blind drunk. He returns in the afternoon to work and has a go at their boss calling her a 'f****g c**t' and takes a swing at her. The employee is so out of control that the police are called and he is arrested and ultimately charged with being drunk and disorderly and assault. He is tried but found not guilty on 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does that mean that's the end of it? Of course not - once the criminal charges have been assessed he will be subject to disciplinary action on gross misconduct by his employer and likely as not that will be proven and he will lose his job.
That is quite right and proper - the notion that because he wasn't convicted of a criminal offence means that any misconduct inquiry internally should be shelved is nonsense. In what way would it be a 'witch hunt' if this employee was found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked by his employer?
-
It doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with threshold of evidence. An employee may break rules of the employer that have no equivalent in British law. For example, it's not illegal to be drunk in a bar while on company business, but the company might still consider it to be a sackable offence.
True - actually the nature of the offences is almost certain to be different, as well as the standard of evidence. Employment conduct and disciplinary codes are unlikely to include criminal offences as those are to be dealt with by the judicial system. They will, however, have charges of gross misconduct - and acting in a manner that brings a criminal charge is likely to be considered as an example of gross misconduct and would be investigated internally in that manner too.
So there are actions that may lead to criminal charge and internal disciplinary proceedings - with the latter much more likely to be successful as the 'offence' is less prescripted and the standard of evidence less stringent. There are also matters which will lead to internal disciplinary charges that wouldn't be a criminal or civil offence in the wider justice system.
-
Sure, but is Salmond actually in a position he can be fired from? I think he has already resigned SNP membership.
He isn't under investigation (currently) by the SNP but by the Scottish Parliament. It is true that currently he doesn't hold office but that shouldn't prevent an internal investigation with charge of misconduct or gross misconduct (for example) proceeding. This is firstly about justice, but secondly were he found guilty of gross misconduct in public office he could be barred from serving in public office again (or for a period of time). So although he isn't holding public office now if found guilty he might be barred from holding public office again in the future.
Also, we are assuming that the offenses he has been charged with are those arising from the complaints investigated, but it isn't necessarily so.
True, although that is speculation. However, as pointed out upthread, not being charged with a criminal offence doesn't mean that you have no case to answer in an internal investigation. However being charged with a criminal offence is likely to mean you would be likely to be determined to have a case to answer in an internal inquiry as the nature of the charges and burden of proof are less stringent.
Also, of course, if the police charges related to incidents that happened within the context of his public office and had not been identified in the internal investigation then these too will be added to the dossier of incidents to be investigated by the internal inquiry once (or if) it re-starts after the criminal investigation is completed.
-
Wrong - just because Salmond is found not guilty (or not proven) of criminal charges with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard of proof, this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be subject to disciplinary proceedings internally - presumably misconduct or gross misconduct - with a 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof. And this is anything 'politically' but about justice.
So an example:
Imagine an employee goes out at lunchtime and gets blind drunk. He returns in the afternoon to work and has a go at their boss calling her a 'f****g c**t' and takes a swing at her. The employee is so out of control that the police are called and he is arrested and ultimately charged with being drunk and disorderly and assault. He is tried but found not guilty on 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does that mean that's the end of it? Of course not - once the criminal charges have been assessed he will be subject to disciplinary action on gross misconduct by his employer and likely as not that will be proven and he will lose his job.
That is quite right and proper - the notion that because he wasn't convicted of a criminal offence means that any misconduct inquiry internally should be shelved is nonsense. In what way would it be a 'witch hunt' if this employee was found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked by his employer?
Given my point was speculation about how things might be seen, then declaring it 'wrong' as if we are talking about facts here is missing the point in such a spectacular way as to to be entered in the dictionary for the definition of 'category error '.
-
Wrong - just because Salmond is found not guilty (or not proven) of criminal charges with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard of proof, this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be subject to disciplinary proceedings internally - presumably misconduct or gross misconduct - with a 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof. And this is anything 'politically' but about justice.
So an example:
Imagine an employee goes out at lunchtime and gets blind drunk. He returns in the afternoon to work and has a go at their boss calling her a 'f****g c**t' and takes a swing at her. The employee is so out of control that the police are called and he is arrested and ultimately charged with being drunk and disorderly and assault. He is tried but found not guilty on 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does that mean that's the end of it? Of course not - once the criminal charges have been assessed he will be subject to disciplinary action on gross misconduct by his employer and likely as not that will be proven and he will lose his job.
That is quite right and proper - the notion that because he wasn't convicted of a criminal offence means that any misconduct inquiry internally should be shelved is nonsense. In what way would it be a 'witch hunt' if this employee was found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked by his employer?
In other words- to hell with the evidence, I want to believe the worst. This is a charter for curtain-twitchers, Nosey-Parkers and Zeal-of-the-Land Busys to harass and demonise anyone they like.
-
In other words- to hell with the evidence, I want to believe the worst. This is a charter for curtain-twitchers, Nosey-Parkers and Zeal-of-the-Land Busys to harass and demonise anyone they like.
On the contrary, it is all about the evidence.
My point is that just because there isn't sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal charge of assault 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean there is insufficient evidence to sustain a claim of gross misconduct in an employment disciplinary process 'on the balance of probabilities'.
And this isn't about 'believing the worst' it is about how the law operates in the UK and the nature of evidential tests in different types of case. In criminal cases there is a presumption of innocent - the charge is presumed not to be proven unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the individual is guilty. The same does not apply in law in civil cases and in employment disciplinary cases where the starting point is neither a presumption the the charge is proven, nor not proven (in other words neither a presumption that the individual is innocent, nor guilty) - the starting point is strict neutrality. Hence the evidence test is 'on the balance of probabilities' - in other words it is more likely than not that the individual is guilty.
That's the law - if you don't like it, take it up with your friendly local legislator, but good luck with trying to change something that is a fundamental part of our legal system.
-
Not clear whether this will have any generalised impact on the election prospects of the SNP - but certainly not a help.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50486713
-
Looks like he'll plead today, with the trial in March - but as you say not ideal for the SNP, but no doubt the Labour manifesto will take top billing later.
A lot will depend on whether voters have, by now, separated Salmond and his antics (such as his 'show' on a Russian TV channel) from the current SNP hierarchy and election campaign. There is a risk though that Sturgeon's position could be compromised given her previous handling and the case Salmond won against the Scottish Government.
I suppose the issue is just how much influence this case might have over the next 3 weeks as the electioneering escalates, and how much the other parties draw attention to it.
-
Looks like he'll plead today, with the trial in March - but as you say not ideal for the SNP, but no doubt the Labour manifesto will take top billing later.
A lot will depend on whether voters have, by now, separated Salmond and his antics (such as his 'show' on a Russian TV channel) from the current SNP hierarchy and election campaign. There is a risk though that Sturgeon's position could be compromised given her previous handling and the case Salmond won against the Scottish Government.
I suppose the issue is just how much influence this case might have over the next 3 weeks as the electioneering escalates, and how much the other parties draw attention to it.
It's going to be difficult to make too much of it publicly as a party but I imagine there will be semi - official efforts on social media - indeed I've already seen a couple elsewhere. The main impact will happen when the case goes to court - and given the timing there is no chance of indyref2 before it. I'm of the opinion that Sturgeon is in a great of deal of danger that what is revealed about who knew what when and actions surrounding that may scupper her. I also think that there will be an almighty struggle in the SNP if that happens and that I can't see them getting an indyref this side of the Scottish elections. I would then think that they may well lose seats in the 2021 election (Note I think they will gain a number in this WM election). The problem though with predicting things out as far as 2021 is that any number of things could happen before then.
-
I see Alex Salmond is really in deep water now , looks like he's ditched in the drink .
Mind you, I've always thought there was something fishy about that bloke
-
I wonder if he ever sniffed around that sturgeon ?
-
Surprised that Channel 4 didn't pick this up immediately
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50630054
-
Looks like he'll plead today, with the trial in March - but as you say not ideal for the SNP, but no doubt the Labour manifesto will take top billing later.
A lot will depend on whether voters have, by now, separated Salmond and his antics (such as his 'show' on a Russian TV channel) from the current SNP hierarchy and election campaign. There is a risk though that Sturgeon's position could be compromised given her previous handling and the case Salmond won against the Scottish Government.
I suppose the issue is just how much influence this case might have over the next 3 weeks as the electioneering escalates, and how much the other parties draw attention to it.
I've not got a lot of time for that Sturgeon or her SNP but I fail to see why any of these goings on with Alex Salmond should reflect on the S N P or anyone else associated with that party, unless of course it's a party member mixed up with Alex's goings on in some way.
ippy.
-
If the allegations against Alex Salmond are found to be true, I suppose you could say he chanced his arm on more than one occasion.
-
I've not got a lot of time for that Sturgeon or her SNP but I fail to see why any of these goings on with Alex Salmond should reflect on the S N P or anyone else associated with that party, unless of course it's a party member mixed up with Alex's goings on in some way.
ippy.
There are going to be lots of questions about how it was handled and when Sturgeon knew of the allegations. We've already had the pay out on Salmond's legal fees which doesn't look good. There is also a jockeying for position in the party based on the possibility that Sturgeon may have to resign. Part of that also seems bound up with the internal split on reforms of the Gender Recognition Act which was reflected in the GE with different reactions to the suspension of Neale Hanvey with some suggesting it was due in part to his views on the Trans issue.
-
There are going to be lots of questions about how it was handled and when Sturgeon knew of the allegations. We've already had the pay out on Salmond's legal fees which doesn't look good. There is also a jockeying for position in the party based on the possibility that Sturgeon may have to resign. Part of that also seems bound up with the internal split on reforms of the Gender Recognition Act which was reflected in the GE with different reactions to the suspension of Neale Hanvey with some suggesting it was due in part to his views on the Trans issue.
If it is proved Sturgeon knew of the allegations before they were public knowledge, but covered them up, she should be forced to resign, if she doesn't do so of her own volition .
-
If it is proved Sturgeon knew of the allegations before they were public knowledge, but covered them up, she should be forced to resign, if she doesn't do so of her own volition .
It's more complex than that, and it's unlikely that in the case it would be proven since that isn't what is being established.
-
If it is proved Sturgeon knew of the allegations before they were public knowledge, but covered them up, she should be forced to resign, if she doesn't do so of her own volition .
All depends on circumstances: she may have heard rumours of allegations and not believed them. It's difficult to believe the worst of someone you know and respect (we've seen similar in other situations). I hope she doesn't go and...what NS said above me.
-
All depends on circumstances: she may have heard rumours of allegations and not believed them. It's difficult to believe the worst of someone you know and respect (we've seen similar in other situations). I hope she doesn't go and...what NS said above me.
Allegations should always be checked out, imo.
-
Allegations should always be checked out, imo.
What allegations are you talking about?
-
What allegations are you talking about?
The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.
-
The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.
Has it? And who has made those allegations? After all there was an investigation into them, so the 'did nothing' is demonstrably untrue.
-
Has it? And who has made those allegations? After all there was an investigation into them, so the 'did nothing' is demonstrably untrue.
Whatever, no doubt it will all come out at his trial who knew what etc.
-
Whatever, no doubt it will all come out at his trial who knew what etc.
The trial isn't an investigation into who knew what when. It's about the allegations against Salmond.
-
The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.
Let's say Nicola Sturgeon knew about the allegations. Assuming they had been reported to the police, what was she supposed to do about them?
-
Let's say Nicola Sturgeon knew about the allegations. Assuming they had been reported to the police, what was she supposed to do about them?
I was under the impression it is claimed by some that she knew about the allegations of abuse before they were reported to the police, but did not report them herself as she should have done, if that was the case.
I have no more to say on this topic.
-
Good!
Have you never known someone you liked, about whom unpleasant accusations were made? It would be a shock but it happens and is difficult to process unless there is concrete proof.
-
The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.
By whom, pray? This is malicious, poisonous gossip.
-
Morning! Thought I'd check in before going to bed. Hope everyone had good Christmas day.
Agree with you, I hate scandal mongering gossip. As previously said she may have heard rumours but not believed them,frequently happens when it's someone we know quite well and like. We may never know but I'm none the worst for not knowing, I like Nicola Sturgeon & want to think the best of her. I'd like to think the best of Salmond but that remains to be seen, feel sorry for his elderly wife in all this.
-
The trial starts next week but already there is manoeuvring of tanks in the different parts of the SNP.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51601035
Also in the background it looks like we could have 2 new independence parties.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51707459
Salmond's trial started today, they reckon it could last about 4 weeks.
-
There was a ridiculous article in the Herald yesterday highlighting previous dramatic trials, and while the small print read that it wasn't suggesting that there was any connection with Salmond, it featured pictures of Fred West, Dennis Nilsen, the killers of Jamie Bulger (along with a picture of Jamie Bulger), and Adolf Eichmann amongst others. It was pulled after Bulger's mother complained but was certainly skating very close, or in my opinion, way past contempt.
-
There was a ridiculous article in the Herald yesterday highlighting previous dramatic trials, and while the small print read that it wasn't suggesting that there was any connection with Salmond, it featured pictures of Fred West, Dennis Nilsen, the killers of Jamie Bulger (along with a picture of Jamie Bulger), and Adolf Eichmann amongst others. It was pulled after Bulger's mother complained but was certainly skating very close, or in my opinion, way past contempt.
There has been no suggestion Salmond has killed anyone so that is daft.
-
There has been no suggestion Salmond has killed anyone so that is daft.
It's not just daft, it's prejudicial imo.
-
It's not just daft, it's prejudicial imo.
Not atypical of the Herald lately, though.
-
BBC just reported that he has been cleared of all charges: 12 not guilty and one not proven.
-
Good.
Ihope he recovers from this, mud sticks.
-
I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.
-
I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.
The jury heard the evidence and reached their verdict: hard to argue with that.
-
I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.
I don't think they found that the women wee lying. Only that he was not guilty or not proved guilty of assault?
-
I understand where LittleR's coming from because I find it difficult to believe women would be so vicious but it does happen for all sorts of reasons. I've not followed the trial but presume evidence was presented by those accusing Salmond which the jury didn't believe & he was able to refute.The way jury members are selected is rigorous, people are dismissed and replaced if either brief doesn't 'like' them so they should be impartial. I'm prepared to believe he was innocent of the charges, it wouldn't make any difference if I wasn't however if everything was played out openly and fairly there's no reason for people to doubt the verdict.
Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). ... It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal.
-
I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.
That's not what the verdicts mean.
-
I understand where LittleR's coming from because I find it difficult to believe women would be so vicious but it does happen for all sorts of reasons. I've not followed the trial but presume evidence was presented by those accusing Salmond which the jury didn't believe & he was able to refute.The way jury members are selected is rigorous, people are dismissed and replaced if either brief doesn't 'like' them so they should be impartial. I'm prepared to believe he was innocent of the charges, it wouldn't make any difference if I wasn't however if everything was played out openly and fairly there's no reason for people to doubt the verdict.
Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). ... It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal.
I think (didn't really listen to the reports) that all of the incidents occurred in one-to-one situations so there wasn't much actual evidence, especially as none of the women raised their cases at the time. Given that it's difficult to come to any conclusion except not guilty even without considering whether the claimed interaction actually constitutes sexual assault or not.
Different to Weinstein where the accusations were more solid and a number of people knew what was going on.
-
The legal case might be done but in due course, given other events, the politics that flow from this are likely to be brutal.
-
It doesn't mean that the women were lying. It says that the jury weren't sure, assuming this is like English law.
-
The legal case might be done but in due course, given other events, the politics that flow from this are likely to be brutal.
The one thing that will reduce the politics is coronavirus. Were we in normal times then this would have been the main news for the last couple of weeks, and we would be watching the SNP tearing itself apart. Even as it is there are are battlelines being drawn, but I suspect it will be harder to rally the troops.
-
It doesn't mean that the women were lying. It says that the jury weren't sure, assuming this is like English law.
Essentially other that the not proven verdict it is.
-
I thought I ought to read more about it as I joned in here.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/23/alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial
It will be interesting in due course to hear in due course what nobody has been able to say in court, Salmond says he will say it at a later date.
Eight women on the jury says something.
He can move on from this.
-
I thought I ought to read more about it as I joned in here.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/23/alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial
It will be interesting in due course to hear in due course what nobody has been able to say in court, Salmond says he will say it at a later date.
Eight women on the jury says something.
He can move on from this.
It tells you nothing other than the verdict. On social media I've seem those supportive of Salmond saying it shows all the women lied, and those not saying how can they be saying that that all the women lied. It says neither of those things.
Salmond is almost an irrelevance now beyond a symbol of what various groups give to him. He's got nothing to move onto other than that.
-
It doesn't mean that the women were lying. It says that the jury weren't sure, assuming this is like English law.
I would agree that the verdicts do not mean the women were lying. I think it means that there was not sufficient evidence to prove whether they were telling the truth. Without supporting evidence to their testimony it is very hard to convict someone of non-consensual sexual acts. It is not like other assaults where there can be photographic evidence of bruises and cuts. The jurors would need to be convinced by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged acts took place and that Salmond ought reasonably to have known that alleged acts were non-consensual. I find it really easy to doubt the truth of anything anyone tells me if I wasn't there at the time. I need supporting evidence to believe it beyond reasonable doubt.
I remember when I was about fifteen or sixteen, getting my hair cut locally and feeling uncomfortable that the male hairdresser's hand was brushing against my breast - it was brief but not that brief - while cutting my long hair. Or at least that was my perception. I have no idea if my perception is the truth - I think it is and I have mentioned it to my kids but in a criminal trial I would not expect my testimony to be sufficient to convict.
-
I find it very hard to believe all those women were lying.
The jury heard the evidence; you didn't. I prefer the jury's verdict.
-
Aside from any political fallout yet to come, for other reasons it seems this could be heading back to court.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/24/alex-salmond-allies-say-he-plans-to-sue-the-scottish-government
-
Aside from any political fallout yet to come, for other reasons it seems this could be heading back to court.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/24/alex-salmond-allies-say-he-plans-to-sue-the-scottish-government
This is political fallout.
-
This is political fallout.
True I suppose, but this has a legal element involving Salmond possibly seeking damages from the Scottish government as opposed to internal SNP factions jostling each or events in Holyrood involving investigations and political pressure from the other parties.
Salmond's previous court case against the Scottish Government, which he won, may well return to the fore.
-
True I suppose, but this has a legal element involving Salmond possibly seeking damages from the Scottish government as opposed to internal SNP factions jostling each or events in Holyrood involving investigations and political pressure from the other parties.
I mean this new legal case is also politics. Intentional or not, Salmond's actions may stitch up the Scottish government. I heard somebody the other day claim that Salmond's acquittal would lead to a civil war in the SNP. Well, here we are.
-
I was a member of the party in 1979, when 'Eck and others were kicked out of the party. I remember folk predicting the demise of SNP in an internal civil war were they ever readmitted. Still waiting......
-
I was a member of the party in 1979, when 'Eck and others were kicked out of the party. I remember folk predicting the demise of SNP in an internal civil war were they ever readmitted. Still waiting......
That doesn't mean that there isn't an ongoing stramash that might well become a split at some point now.
https://archive.is/aDdVn#selection-1569.150-1569.458
-
I was a member of the party in 1979, when 'Eck and others were kicked out of the party. I remember folk predicting the demise of SNP in an internal civil war were they ever readmitted. Still waiting......
I'm not suggesting this would be the end of the SNP only that things might be a bit fraught within the party.
-
That doesn't mean that there isn't an ongoing stramash that might well become a split at some point now.
https://archive.is/aDdVn#selection-1569.150-1569.458
The party has never been as united as the press thinks it has. There are four main factions at the moment.
The only difference between now and '79 is that in the latter period, only three; the 'Bannockburners' - almost Tory in their outlook, loyal to Gordon Wilson; the Ewing clan....the name says it all....and the Wolves....very left-of-centre, loyal to Billy Wolfe, former Convenor.
Only the demand for independence united, and still unites, them.
-
The party has never been as united as the press thinks it has. There are four main factions at the moment.
The only difference between now and '79 is that in the latter period, only three; the 'Bannockburners' - almost Tory in their outlook, loyal to Gordon Wilson; the Ewing clan....the name says it all....and the Wolves....very left-of-centre, loyal to Billy Wolfe, former Convenor.
Only the demand for independence united, and still unites, them.
No party with 2 or more members is ever united. But there is a real struggle going on and it's only corona that is hiding this.
-
No party with 2 or more members is ever united. But there is a real struggle going on and it's only corona that is hiding this.
The SNP is less united than most though. If you think about it, there is only one issue on which they all agree.
-
The SNP is less united than most though. If you think about it, there is only one issue on which they all agree.
Alternatively they and other parties who have a single issue on which they agree are the most united parties because there is one thing that they agree on unlike the other parties. The SNP has a big problem at the moment and I've covered this in some detail on this thread. Unlike anchorman, I think there are primarily 2 factions at the moment and when parties get to having fewer factions it then becomes more problematic and likelier to lead to a split. There are many on Salmond's side talkinb about this being a conspiracy pulled together between the women in the case, the civil service, the anti Salmond faction, the Uk govt and the security services. Now if this was just a minor faction that wouldn't matter but it isn't.
-
This is from a defence witness in the Salmond trial
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/1222015/alex-bell-when-your-best-defence-is-im-sleazy-but-not-criminal-its-nothing-to-smile-about/amp/?utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
-
This is from a defence witness in the Salmond trial
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/1222015/alex-bell-when-your-best-defence-is-im-sleazy-but-not-criminal-its-nothing-to-smile-about/amp/?utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Time to buy some popcorn, sit back and watch. I'll be interested to see if he chooses to wait until after the virus crisis has died down before suing the government.
-
Time to buy some popcorn, sit back and watch. I'll be interested to see if he chooses to wait until after the virus crisis has died down before suing the government.
Think he has said that he will.
This is a clear summary
https://theconversation.com/amp/alex-salmond-acquittal-looming-fall-out-for-snp-could-ignite-civil-war-134820?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton&__twitter_impression=true
-
This is a long but excellent read from Dani Garavelli who is one of the best journalists in Scotland
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/04/01/dani-garavelli-alex-salmond-verdict-scotland/content.html?sig=FaoRWeabiPXUdWXtVhkIce83Zix0RmVMwH63Tlexbb4&fbclid=IwAR3ruGQPGc3onDXdGoPIjq-o0Anb6ANlVAEVhy6SR2-5EOLsYJwJwZglMzM
-
All very odd
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmonds-lawyer-claims-recording-of-him-discussing-case-was-a-set-up-rmwfd88hf?shareToken=024c13d030e2f5956146775ef4aeecc8
-
The fall out from the trial continues but is in the main hidden by the 'lockdown' and the politics surrounding that. Here is a piece from Wings Over Scotland that went out yesterday.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-letter-to-humza-yousaf/
And I will presume that many missed the set up of a new independence party, the Independence for Scotland Party, last week. In the main this is because of those who disagree with the proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act - and is separate from the possible Wings party because of disagreement as regards the reaction to the Salmond trial.
And yes, this is all a bit Judean's Peoples Front but it is still not being seen widely and the approval of the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon continue to be strong. Even on the day of the Wings article above unity was brought to the factions when Sarah Smith on the BBC stated twice that Nicola was 'enjoying' the crisis. There has since been a rather mealy mouthed apology tweet from Sarah.
-
All very odd
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmonds-lawyer-claims-recording-of-him-discussing-case-was-a-set-up-rmwfd88hf?shareToken=024c13d030e2f5956146775ef4aeecc8
OH DAMNN! I left it too late and now you have to pay to see it!
Hey ho!
-
OH DAMNN! I left it too late and now you have to pay to see it!
Hey ho!
If you register, you get 2 free columns a week
-
If you register, you get 2 free columns a week
Actually I hate the Times with a passion - My father - may he rot in Hell (assuming such aplace exists - which I seriously doubt) took the Times/Sunday times every morning for every single day I knerw him. He used to do the Times Crossword with a fountain pen and came third, fifth and six tenths in the Times criossword competition - if he is - was to be believed and, I regret to say, I still shuuder every time I see the paper on sale.
-
Actually I hate the Times with a passion - My father - may he rot in Hell (assuming such aplace exists - which I seriously doubt) took the Times/Sunday times every morning for every single day I knerw him. He used to do the Times Crossword with a fountain pen and came third, fifth and six tenths in the Times criossword competition - if he is - was to be believed and, I regret to say, I still shuuder every time I see the paper on sale.
I hate tons of stuff with a passion but it doesn't mean it is wrong.
-
I hate tons of stuff with a passion but it doesn't mean it is wrong.
The stuff or hating it?
Sorry, I was just offering a reason why I was not following up on getting a look at the artyicle.
-
The stuff or hating it?
Sorry, I was just offering a reason why I was not following up on getting a look at the artyicle.
Doesn't really matter. You are indulging in the ad hominem fallacy
-
Doesn't really matter. You are indulging in the ad hominem fallacy
OK - please explain WTF the ad hominem fallacy is and how am I indulging in it?
This is a serious question, by the way!
-
I hate tons of stuff with a passion but it doesn't mean it is wrong.
But it might mean you are loathe to part with your email address for them.
-
Doesn't really matter. You are indulging in the ad hominem fallacy
No, he was just explaining to you why he hasn't read the article or registered with the Times. He hasn't said why he thinks the article is wrong - or even if he thinks the article is wrong. How could he if he hasn't read it?
-
No, he was just explaining to you why he hasn't read the article or registered with the Times.
True.
He hasn't said why he thinks the article is wrong - or even if he thinks the article is wrong. How could he if he hasn't read it?
Can't disagree with that.
-
True.
Can't disagree with that.
You and jeremyp are correct here. Your reasons for disliking the Times are like mine for disliking the Sun. So My apologies and best wishes.
-
You and jeremyp are correct here. Your reasons for disliking the Times are like mine for disliking the Sun. So My apologies and best wishes.
You're welcome, but I would still appreciate a description of what ad hominem is, from you I might get an explanation in words that I understand!
-
You're welcome, but I would still appreciate a description of what ad hominem is, from you I might get an explanation in words that I understand!
It’s when you attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
-
It’s when you attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
Person or institution.
-
It’s when you attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
Thank you one!
-
Person or institution.
Thank you two!
-
The Return of Alec
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53805254
-
And the split around this and other issues continues
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/mp-demands-probe-nicola-sturgeons-22696185.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
And WoS's take
https://wingsoverscotland.com/cracks-in-the-fog/#more-118449
-
And a follow up from Iain Lawson
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/difficult-not-to-be-worried/amp/
-
NS
Please forgive my (to you) well-known ignorance, but to me, it seems that a juvenile version of American political manoeuvring is alive and (relatively) well in Scotland.
-
NS
Please forgive my (to you) well-known ignorance, but to me, it seems that a juvenile version of American political manoeuvring is alive and (relatively) well in Scotland.
All such politics is the same, and all such politics is unique.
There is, in many ways, no reason why you should be closely foliowing or concerned with the internecine battles of the SNP. Their success, as is so often the case, brings about division, though the irony of politics is that failure redoubles division.
There is a longstanding division between gradualists and nowists in the SNP which is being played out in a number of ways. The Salmond rape case is one. The Gender Recognition Act reform another. The various constituency battles for who is nominated as an MSP candidate in next year's Holyrood election another. It's become a battle of Salmondites vs Sturgeonites. Each difference magnified by the overall split. In a sense this is Big Endians vs Little Endians - a tragedy of small differences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences
The chance for Scottish independence has never been closer but the very success of the SNP puts that in jeopardy. It is, in the Greek mythological sense, tantalising.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalus
To be fair, splits are always a thing in parties even without success. Salmond was, after all, thrown out of the party over 30 years ago and that was when they were not much more than a fringe grouping. No matter the size or success, there will always be the tendency to be The Judean People's Front, and The People's Front of Judea etc etc.
-
Many thanks, NS
-
Certainly the inquiry has its issues
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/inside-alex-salmond-inquiry-it-has-been-wading-through-treacle-2977541
-
And the split between Sturgeonites and Salmondites continues to deepen
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18742981.kenny-macaskill-calls-snp-suspend-peter-murrell/
-
More comment on the split
https://archive.is/s24dj
-
This is not a good look
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758
-
This is not a good look
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758
It's bound to happen. The SNP was formed as a single issue party and therefore attracted all sorts of people from across the political spectrum whose only common interest was Scottish independence. There's absolutely no reason at all why they should agree on anything else. This was not important back in the 70's and 80's but now they have partially achieved their aim and are the party in power in Scotland, they have to have policies on lots of things, not just who runs Scotland.
I think splits are inevitable.
-
It's bound to happen. The SNP was formed as a single issue party and therefore attracted all sorts of people from across the political spectrum whose only common interest was Scottish independence. There's absolutely no reason at all why they should agree on anything else. This was not important back in the 70's and 80's but now they have partially achieved their aim and are the party in power in Scotland, they have to have policies on lots of things, not just who runs Scotland.
I think splits are inevitable.
I agree that the SNP is a broad church in terms of policy wider than independence, and were that main goal to be achieved then splits would be inevitable into factions based on more traditional political ideologies.
However I don't think that's what we are seeing here - I don't think Sturgeon and Salmond are politically far apart, more Brown and Blair than Thatcher and Kinnock. What we are seeing here, played out in the media, is the equivalent of a major family spat - parent/child or siblings who once got on famously and have now fallen out massively. There is also an element of top-dog and resentments. Salmond was top dog for so long, groomed Sturgeon as his successor then hated it when he was no longer in charge, even more so when Sturgeon excercised some authority over him. Sturgeon on the other hand probably massively resents that Salmond simply won't drift off into the background and cannot stop interfering, either directly or via his not inconsiderable band of loyal supporters.
As far as I'm aware none of this is about major policy differences.
-
I agree that the SNP is a broad church in terms of policy wider than independence, and were that main goal to be achieved then splits would be inevitable into factions based on more traditional political ideologies.
However I don't think that's what we are seeing here - I don't think Sturgeon and Salmond are politically far apart, more Brown and Blair than Thatcher and Kinnock. What we are seeing here, played out in the media, is the equivalent of a major family spat - parent/child or siblings who once got on famously and have now fallen out massively. There is also an element of top-dog and resentments. Salmond was top dog for so long, groomed Sturgeon as his successor then hated it when he was no longer in charge, even more so when Sturgeon excercised some authority over him. Sturgeon on the other hand probably massively resents that Salmond simply won't drift off into the background and cannot stop interfering, either directly or via his not inconsiderable band of loyal supporters.
As far as I'm aware none of this is about major policy differences.
To an extent I agree but there are, as I have covered previously, 2 main splits in policy. The more important is in terms of how to pursue independence with the Salmondites looking for a much more aggressive approach versus the gradualist Sturgeonites. Given it's a party based around independence this is fundamental.
The other area is as regards the reform of the Gender Recognition Act with the Salmondites being much more likely to oppose the reforms.
-
I agree that the SNP is a broad church in terms of policy wider than independence, and were that main goal to be achieved then splits would be inevitable into factions based on more traditional political ideologies.
However I don't think that's what we are seeing here - I don't think Sturgeon and Salmond are politically far apart, more Brown and Blair than Thatcher and Kinnock. What we are seeing here, played out in the media, is the equivalent of a major family spat - parent/child or siblings who once got on famously and have now fallen out massively. There is also an element of top-dog and resentments. Salmond was top dog for so long, groomed Sturgeon as his successor then hated it when he was no longer in charge, even more so when Sturgeon excercised some authority over him. Sturgeon on the other hand probably massively resents that Salmond simply won't drift off into the background and cannot stop interfering, either directly or via his not inconsiderable band of loyal supporters.
As far as I'm aware none of this is about major policy differences.
I'm sorry. I quoted the wrong post from NS. I was responding to the content of this link
https://archive.is/s24dj
-
Tangled webs
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/either-nicola-sturgeon-or-geoff-aberdein-is-lying-on-oath-and-proving-which-will-be-easy/?fbclid=IwAR1Dzf7RtllRMAT5dz29Pb9zFQiq-I1-a56PImU6qqj9if0W8T7aNZ0FUeQ
-
To an extent I agree but there are, as I have covered previously, 2 main splits in policy. The more important is in terms of how to pursue independence with the Salmondites looking for a much more aggressive approach versus the gradualist Sturgeonites. Given it's a party based around independence this is fundamental.
The other area is as regards the reform of the Gender Recognition Act with the Salmondites being much more likely to oppose the reforms.
As I said Brown and Blair, not Thatcher and Kinnock.
-
As I said Brown and Blair, not Thatcher and Kinnock.
See post 438
-
See post 438
But gradualist vs nowist isn't really a policy difference is it - the policy, namely Scottish independence, is agreed by both - the difference is on tactics.
-
But gradualist vs nowist isn't really a policy difference is it - the policy, namely Scottish independence, is agreed by both - the difference is on tactics.
It is a fundamental difference of approach to their central policy. It is not just about personality as you have suggested.
-
It is a fundamental difference of approach to their central policy. It is not just about personality as you have suggested.
Sorry it is tactics - I image both the gradualists and the nowists actually want independence now. But it is of course not in their gift so there are differences in opinion on the tactics of timing as to when to try to get another referendum (which will be necessary to achieve their policy aim) to give the best chance of winning.
If becoming independent was in the gift of the scottish government and there were some in the SNP that wanted that to happen tomorrow and others for it to happen in 10 years time, then I'd agreed that would be a difference in policy (but not the main policy of independence), but that isn't the case here.
And I think this is also about personality and legacy too.
-
Sorry it is tactics - I image both the gradualists and the nowists actually want independence now. But it is of course not in their gift so there are differences in opinion on the tactics of timing as to when to try to get another referendum (which will be necessary to achieve their policy aim) to give the best chance of winning.
If becoming independent was in the gift of the scottish government and there were some in the SNP that wanted that to happen tomorrow and others for it to happen in 10 years time, then I'd agreed that would be a difference in policy (but not the main policy of independence), but that isn't the case here.
And I think this is also about personality and legacy too.
I didn't say it wasn''t personality but that it wasn't ONLY about personality which is what your post suggested.
Also there is a big part of the nowists who doubt the commitment of the gradualists to independence and think they are content to take the money for being MPs and MSPs.
-
I suspect a real risk here given the drift towards majority support for independence within Scotland, as recent polls suggest, is that the circumstances surrounding Salmond himself may work against that end as events play out - and of course if Salmond has a grievance he is fully entitled to pursue that.
As NS says the SNP are a house divided right now and, in my view, they would be wise to get all their dirty laundry aired well before the Holyrood election scheduled for next May since Brexit will impact in the interim, and for the SNP the opposition to Brexit within Scotland plays well for them so any negatives from Brexit would perhaps help them offset any Salmond-related damage - provided of course the SNP don't implode first.
-
I didn't say it wasn''t personality but that it wasn't ONLY about personality which is what your post suggested.
I never said this was all about personality - what I said was that there were few major policy differences between Salmond and Sturgeon - they are Brown and Blair not Thatcher and Kinnock policy wise.
Also there is a big part of the nowists who doubt the commitment of the gradualists to independence and think they are content to take the money for being MPs and MSPs.
But Salmond was the arch gradualist when he had power and influence - his approach from 1990 through to the 2014 referendum is playbook gradualist.
Why is he suddenly a convert to fundamentalism - legacy - he needs independence and he needs independence now (or at least in a couple of years) or he is a footnote in history. Otherwise he becomes Goldsmith rather than Farage.
-
I never said this was all about personality - what I said was that there were few major policy differences between Salmond and Sturgeon - they are Brown and Blair not Thatcher and Kinnock policy wise.
But Salmond was the arch gradualist when he had power and influence - his approach from 1990 through to the 2014 referendum is playbook gradualist.
Why is he suddenly a convert to fundamentalism - legacy - he needs independence and he needs independence now (or at least in a couple of years) or he is a footnote in history. Otherwise he becomes Goldsmith rather than Farage.
It'e not really about Salmond v Sturgeon in that sense. It's about a split in the party. Salmond has become the great lost leader for those who think that there needs to be a much more aggressive policy on independence. It's not Salmond stirring that up - he's too busy with the fall out on the legal case and the enquiry.
I don't think you know enough here to understand the various flows within the SNP.
-
It'e not really about Salmond v Sturgeon in that sense. It's about a split in the party. Salmond has become the great lost leader for those who think that there needs to be a much more aggressive policy on independence. It's not Salmond stirring that up - he's too busy with the fall out on the legal case and the enquiry.
I don't think you know enough here to understand the various flows within the SNP.
Or perhaps you are too close to see the wood for the trees?
But you do understand my comparison with Goldsmith and Farage I trust?
-
Or perhaps you are too close to see the wood for the trees?
But you do understand my comparison with Goldsmith and Farage I trust?
I just know more about the SNP and what is going on than you do. And yes I did understand your comparison which is why I pointed out why it is invalid .
-
And yes I did understand your comparison which is why I pointed out why it is invalid .
Why is it invalid?
-
Why is it invalid?
See post 457
-
See post 457
I don't think that addresses my point - specifically why someone who was an arch-gradualist, indeed incurred the wrath of the fundamentalists over devolution should have become the poster boy for the very people who must have hated his slowly, slowly approach (1997-2014) from devolution to opposition to in government on the basis of overall competence, through to majority sufficient to call a referendum. And why is he unwilling to disavow them of being seen as a fellow traveller on the nowist agenda (which he didn't adopt when he had power).
I would suggest the answer lies in two (or is it three words) - power-base and legacy.
-
I don't think you know enough here to understand the various flows within the SNP.
Perhaps I don't, but I would have thought that Jim Sillars would, and he seems to agree with me that this is primarily, indeed near exclusively, a battle of personalities and for power rather than over policy.
-
Perhaps I don't, but I would have thought that Jim Sillars would, and he seems to agree with me that this is primarily, indeed near exclusively, a battle of personalities and for power rather than over policy.
Hmm that you are citing mad uncle Jim on this highlights your lack of knowledge
-
I don't think that addresses my point - specifically why someone who was an arch-gradualist, indeed incurred the wrath of the fundamentalists over devolution should have become the poster boy for the very people who must have hated his slowly, slowly approach (1997-2014) from devolution to opposition to in government on the basis of overall competence, through to majority sufficient to call a referendum. And why is he unwilling to disavow them of being seen as a fellow traveller on the nowist agenda (which he didn't adopt when he had power).
I would suggest the answer lies in two (or is it three words) - power-base and legacy.
Brexit and polls
-
Hmm that you are citing mad uncle Jim on this highlights your lack of knowledge
I think that suggests a level of bias on your part. Regardless of your personal opinion on Jim Sillars I think it is hard to deny that he has an excellent inside track on the goings on within the upper echelons of the SNP, certainly much better than I do, and I suspect much better than you do too.
-
Brexit and polls
Why would either of those coalesce a previously negative group (fundamentalists) around the arch gradualist Salmond (rather than the other arch gradualist Sturgeon), and why would either of those move Salmond to accept their support as a power base, outside of his unerring need for ... err ... a power base.
Answers on a post-card please.
-
I think that suggests a level of bias on your part. Regardless of your personal opinion on Jim Sillars I think it is hard to deny that he has an excellent inside track on the goings on within the upper echelons of the SNP, certainly much better than I do, and I suspect much better than you do too.
Except given your lack of knowledge what you think her isn't that useful. It's not just that Jim isn't that close to the SNP anymore but that he has rather obvious agenda.
-
Except given your lack of knowledge what you think her isn't that useful. It's not just that Jim isn't that close to the SNP anymore but that he has rather obvious agenda.
I suspect he is a hell of a lot closer to those in the upper echelons of the SNP than you or I.
That he has an agenda doesn't mean necessarily that what he says is invalid.
-
Why would either of those coalesce a previously negative group (fundamentalists) around the arch gradualist Salmond (rather than the other arch gradualist Sturgeon), and why would either of those move Salmond to accept their support as a power base, outside of his unerring need for ... err ... a power base.
Answers on a post-card please.
Again this just shows a lack of knowledge
Those arguing for more aggressive measures are not a set of people who have always done so. Rather the majority are people who were gradualists who because of Brexit and polling have moved to that position. They see Salmond as a king over the water figure and think that the very success of the SNP has made some comfortable. It's worth remembering that the SNP is a very different beast than when Salmond took over - and even from 2014. The party membership quadrupled at the time and it's still dealing with that effect.
The interesting thing is how this has somehow got entangled with the GRA reform policy mentioned earlier. Many of the longer term members see an influx of people that they think are there for their careers - something that was once not an option when you were a member of the SNP, and they think some are more interested in a rather different form of identity politics than independence. It will be interesting to see how some of the selection battles for the next Holyrood elections go - keep an eye on Argyle and Bute.
-
I suspect he is a hell of a lot closer to those in the upper echelons of the SNP than you or I.
That he has an agenda doesn't mean necessarily that what he says is invalid.
No, it doesn't make it invalid but you have to read any comments from him in the context of that agenda.
-
I agree with a lot of this.
https://archive.is/Jugy4
-
Scottish govt defeated for second time on its approach to the Salmond inquiry
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/11/25/scottish-government-defeated-again-over-refusal-to-publish-salmo/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI_zTT6dQF9y2tKUkYadt8XsuFuNYajwedzec3HYlxqAZcMWf4oP4kktQGgKrc7YlGXCJKpt51xUrqNP5kDI7JOD-Roye3OpY3mBsR9NZgbqpce8igBRWALirH6Ay_gMD5HHhZKS17U0vDZMIz4af3yQmqO_KyQlXAATGFA0RYb_
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-former-first-minister-brands-nicola-sturgeons-account-simply-untrue-leaked-evidence-3090560
From the article:-
In response, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Douglas Ross, launched a blistering attack on the First Minister and said he expected to see her resign if Mr Salmond’s evidence was proven to be true.
-
Salmond accuses Sturgeon of lying.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18998623.alex-salmond-accuses-nicola-sturgeon-giving-untrue-evidence-holyrood-inquiry/
-
Just goes to show why it was necessary and correct procedure for Mr Salmond to ask for a judicial review of the government's investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against him. I could be wrong but I got the impression that there was some patronising, knee-jerk 'presumption of guilt against the man against poor defenceless women ' reaction from some people on here to argue against the judicial review.
Given that the government investigation was set aside in the judicial review by showing it was flawed from the start and “tainted by apparent bias”, costing taxpayers £512,000 for Salmond's legal costs, the latest accusation by Salmond that Sturgeon misled Parliament seems plausible. The evidence that Salmond seems to be offering about the meetings in March 2018 seems much more convincing than Sturgeons vague response that Salmond was "spinning false conspiracy theories" and trying to divert attention away from the misconduct complaints made against him. .
-
Just goes to show why it was necessary and correct procedure for Mr Salmond to ask for a judicial review of the government's investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against him. I could be wrong but I got the impression that there was some patronising, knee-jerk 'presumption of guilt against the man against poor defenceless women ' reaction from some people on here to argue against the judicial review.
Given that the government investigation was set aside in the judicial review by showing it was flawed from the start and “tainted by apparent bias”, costing taxpayers £512,000 for Salmond's legal costs, the latest accusation by Salmond that Sturgeon misled Parliament seems plausible. The evidence that Salmond seems to be offering about the meetings in March 2018 seems much more convincing than Sturgeons vague response that Salmond was "spinning false conspiracy theories" and trying to divert attention away from the misconduct complaints made against him. .
I would like to see evidence of anyone on here arguing against holding the judicial review.
-
I would like to see evidence of anyone on here arguing against holding the judicial review.
The whole discussion with PD who thought Salmond going for a judicial review was an abuse of process. I am not sure what page it started but here is an exctract.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16041.250
-
The whole discussion with PD who thought Salmond going for a judicial review was an abuse of process. I am not sure what page it started but here is an exctract.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16041.250
I think (a) need to show a quote that says the judicial review shouldn't happen, and (b) anything there amounts to 'some patronising, knee-jerk 'presumption of guilt against the man against poor defenceless women ' reaction from some people on here to argue against the judicial review'.
-
I think (a) need to show a quote that says the judicial review shouldn't happen, and (b) anything there amounts to 'some patronising, knee-jerk 'presumption of guilt against the man against poor defenceless women ' reaction from some people on here to argue against the judicial review'.
Not sure what you mean by needing to show a quote for (a) and (b).
My words were not a quote of someone else's words. My words were an interpretations of (a) a discussion about whether asking for a judicial review was inappropriate and (b) a discussion of whether crowdfunding a judicial review will make the alleged victims feel bad - as though the feelings of the alleged victims were more important than the feelings of someone subjected to an unfair investigation process.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16041.175
(a) #268 onwards - there are too many posts to quote here - but the start is "So overall I think this is an inappropriate use of the judicial review approach"
(b) #177 onwards - there are too many posts to quote here but the start is "I agree there is a significant political context, but I'm struggling to see how that is primarily about Scottish politics, rather it seems to me politically that this is far more to do with the whole metoo global movement. This is about power relationships, sexual harassment/abuse and the ability (or otherwise) of women with limited power and influence to speak out against men with power and influence."
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16041.175
(a) #268 onwards - there are too many posts to quote here - but the start is "So overall I think this is an inappropriate use of the judicial review approach"
These are my words I believe, but clearly misrepresents my view. These words are not from the start of my reply #268 but in fact is in the fifth paragraph of my post after the argument.
Also my argument is not, and was never, that Salmond should not have the option of judicial review - no my argument was that it was inappropriate to use is at such an early stage, when judicial review is supposed to be the option of last resort once all other avenues have been exhausted, including appeals etc. Hence, this is actually the start of my reply #268 (with my emphasis):
'I have been thinking a little more overnight at to why I have such a difficulty with Salmond going for judicial review at this stage'.
I still consider pushing for judicial review at such an early stage to be inappropriate and effectively an abuse of power - specifically because it isn't realistically available to others, both due to cost (ordinary people have neither the means themselves, nor the power to put out a call to supporters to raise the cash) and I cannot believe that had Joe Public or Joanne Public requested judicial review at such an early stage that it would have been allowed. The judicial system acquiesced to Salmond I suspect due to his position as the 'biggest beast' in Scottish politics over decades and that had they refused the Salmond campaign would scream refusal to allow a fair process.
And what has happened is probably exactly at Salmond would have wished - even with judicial review on process (not on irrationality of outcome which wasn't the case and couldn't have been the case as the process had not progressed to outcome), then the appropriate response should be to re-run the process, in this case the investigation within the work context of the Scottish Government. That has not happened as far as I am aware, and I doubt it will ever happen as it would be seen to be politically incendiary. Therefore those who made the allegation have not had their opportunity for these work-based allegations to be considered under a process where the burden of proof is balance of probabilities. Don't suggest that all is fine because of the criminal case - that is an entirely different process with a much more stringent burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). It is extremely common for processed assessed on balance of probabilities to find in favour of the complainants even if there is no chance of conviction in a criminal court.
The other point here is that Salmond has adeptly moved the agenda from allegations of sexual misconduct against him to allegations of a politically-motivated witch hunt against him. He has carefully shifted his position from one of alleged perpetrator of serious misconduct to being the victim. Doesn't surprise me as he is a superb political operator. But where are those who raised the issues in the first place - the original 'victims' - where is their justice? There isn't any - the process most likely to find in their favour has effectively been shelved and the key reason for that was Salmond's use of judicial review at, in my opinion, an inappropriately early stage in the process.
-
These are my words I believe, but clearly misrepresents my view. These words are not from the start of my reply #268 but in fact is in the fifth paragraph of my post after the argument.
Also my argument is not, and was never, that Salmond should not have the option of judicial review - no my argument was that it was inappropriate to use is at such an early stage, when judicial review is supposed to be the option of last resort once all other avenues have been exhausted, including appeals etc. Hence, this is actually the start of my reply #268 (with my emphasis):
Sorry it was not intended to be a misrepresentation. I was referring to the actual discussion on this board in the context of the timing of the judicial review, and was not trying to imply that you were arguing that a judicial review should never take place. My sloppy wording in not making that clear in the first place.
'I have been thinking a little more overnight at to why I have such a difficulty with Salmond going for judicial review at this stage'.
I still consider pushing for judicial review at such an early stage to be inappropriate and effectively an abuse of power - specifically because it isn't realistically available to others, both due to cost (ordinary people have neither the means themselves, nor the power to put out a call to supporters to raise the cash) and I cannot believe that had Joe Public or Joanne Public requested judicial review at such an early stage that it would have been allowed. The judicial system acquiesced to Salmond I suspect due to his position as the 'biggest beast' in Scottish politics over decades and that had they refused the Salmond campaign would scream refusal to allow a fair process.
And what has happened is probably exactly at Salmond would have wished - even with judicial review on process (not on irrationality of outcome which wasn't the case and couldn't have been the case as the process had not progressed to outcome), then the appropriate response should be to re-run the process, in this case the investigation within the work context of the Scottish Government. That has not happened as far as I am aware, and I doubt it will ever happen as it would be seen to be politically incendiary. Therefore those who made the allegation have not had their opportunity for these work-based allegations to be considered under a process where the burden of proof is balance of probabilities. Don't suggest that all is fine because of the criminal case - that is an entirely different process with a much more stringent burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). It is extremely common for processed assessed on balance of probabilities to find in favour of the complainants even if there is no chance of conviction in a criminal court.
The other point here is that Salmond has adeptly moved the agenda from allegations of sexual misconduct against him to allegations of a politically-motivated witch hunt against him. He has carefully shifted his position from one of alleged perpetrator of serious misconduct to being the victim. Doesn't surprise me as he is a superb political operator. But where are those who raised the issues in the first place - the original 'victims' - where is their justice? There isn't any - the process most likely to find in their favour has effectively been shelved and the key reason for that was Salmond's use of judicial review at, in my opinion, an inappropriately early stage in the process.
I think if a process is flawed then that calls into question any outcome of that process. So it makes sense to correct the process before proceeding to the next step.
I don't think your suggestion makes sense nor is it fair. What is achieved by conducting a flawed process from start to finish, knowing it is flawed and requiring Salmond and the alleged victims to endure the ordeal of a flawed investigation and disciplinary hearing, then have a judicial review which would have found that the original investigation process was flawed, and then Salmond and the alleged victims would have to go through the whole process of investigation and disciplinary hearing again? It's far better and fairer IMO to fix the process first before proceeding any further on the disciplinary hearing.
The political aspects, while interesting, is far less important than being seen to have conducted a fair process of investigation according to the rules, in order for the outcome of the process to be respected and believed.
-
I think if a process is flawed then that calls into question any outcome of that process. So it makes sense to correct the process before proceeding to the next step.
But that isn't the process for Judicial Reviews which are meant to be an option of last resort - effectively the normal process is supposed to run its course before triggering Judicial Review. I refer again to the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland (my emphasis).
'Judicial review is the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker. It is only available where other effective remedies have been exhausted and where there is a recognised ground of challenge.'
Over the years I've been involved in all sorts of quasi-judicial processes, where Judicial Review is an option - for example School disciplinary cases, Student complaints, Schools admissions etc. In every case it is accepted that the normal process must run its course in its entirety (which usually involves a process of appeal) before an individual can ask for Judicial Review.
The Salmond case is a pretty standard internal process within an organisation, which usually involves three stages:
1. An initial investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer.
2. A formal process (e.g. disciplinary) which determines whether the allegations are upheld or not upheld - on a balance of probabilities
3. An appeal process whereby an individual can challenge the outcome of the formal process and potentially have it overturned.
I have never heard of a case where Judicial Review has been triggered prior to running through all three stages, and indeed it should be as, by definition, other remedies would not have been exhausted (stage 3 appeal).
-
don't think your suggestion makes sense nor is it fair.
It isn't really my suggestion - this is what happens all the time in Judicial Review - they are only allowed once the internal processes within a public body have been completed and any alternative approach for remedy has been exhausted.
Realistically it would be chaos if anyone could trigger Judicial Review at any stage in a process - it would result in countless Judicial Reviews, would be used simply to stall processes within public bodies and would result in Judicial Review where no such review would be triggered had the normal process been allowed to run its course (as the person doesn't yet know whether the ultimate decision might be acceptable to them).
What is achieved by conducting a flawed process from start to finish, knowing it is flawed and requiring Salmond and the alleged victims to endure the ordeal of a flawed investigation and disciplinary hearing, then have a judicial review which would have found that the original investigation process was flawed, and then Salmond and the alleged victims would have to go through the whole process of investigation and disciplinary hearing again? It's far better and fairer IMO to fix the process first before proceeding any further on the disciplinary hearing.
But that it the process - that's the way Judicial Reviews work - they are supposed to be an option of last resort, once processes within public bodies have run to completion.
But interesting that you mention Salmond and the alleged victims would have to go through the whole process of investigation and disciplinary hearing again - why hasn't this happened in this case. The Judicial Review challenged stage 1 in my three stage process and found it to be unsound. It did not comment on a decision (i.e. whether the allegations were upheld on the balance of probabilities) as the process never got to stage 2. The appropriate response to the Judicial Review outcome should be to run the process again, ensuring a fair process, from stage 1 through to 3. Has this happened ... hmmm, don't think it has.
-
The political aspects, while interesting, is far less important than being seen to have conducted a fair process of investigation according to the rules, in order for the outcome of the process to be respected and believed.
So presumably you are in favour of the process to be run again to determine whether the allegations against Salmond are upheld on the balance of probabilities. I agree this is what should happen.
But this is where the politics get in the way (and I'm sure Salmond fully recognised this). The Judicial Review effectively stalled the process and to re-run it I suspect is too politically incendiary to be contemplated by the Scottish Government, so in the allegations brought forward by the various women have not been considered, under the balance of probabilities burden of proof - there has been no process to determine whether they are upheld or not. Justice has not been served for those women.
-
So presumably you are in favour of the process to be run again to determine whether the allegations against Salmond are upheld on the balance of probabilities. I agree this is what should happen.
But this is where the politics get in the way (and I'm sure Salmond fully recognised this). The Judicial Review effectively stalled the process and to re-run it I suspect is too politically incendiary to be contemplated by the Scottish Government, so in the allegations brought forward by the various women have not been considered, under the balance of probabilities burden of proof - there has been no process to determine whether they are upheld or not. Justice has not been served for those women.
It's not really practical to rerun the process while there is the ongoing committee review happening in the Scottish Parliament looking at the process
-
But that isn't the process for Judicial Reviews which are meant to be an option of last resort - effectively the normal process is supposed to run its course before triggering Judicial Review. I refer again to the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland (my emphasis).
'Judicial review is the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker. It is only available where other effective remedies have been exhausted and where there is a recognised ground of challenge.'
Over the years I've been involved in all sorts of quasi-judicial processes, where Judicial Review is an option - for example School disciplinary cases, Student complaints, Schools admissions etc. In every case it is accepted that the normal process must run its course in its entirety (which usually involves a process of appeal) before an individual can ask for Judicial Review.
The Salmond case is a pretty standard internal process within an organisation, which usually involves three stages:
1. An initial investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer.
2. A formal process (e.g. disciplinary) which determines whether the allegations are upheld or not upheld - on a balance of probabilities
3. An appeal process whereby an individual can challenge the outcome of the formal process and potentially have it overturned.
I have never heard of a case where Judicial Review has been triggered prior to running through all three stages, and indeed it should be as, by definition, other remedies would not have been exhausted (stage 3 appeal).
I think you are mistaken without further evidence to support your interpretation of how a judicial process is supposed to work. Makes no sense to have a formal disciplinary process if the investigation process is flawed. I think the correct interpretation of "other effective remedies have been exhausted" does not mean have an appeal to a flawed disciplinary process as you seem to think. I think it makes more sense in disciplinary processes to do something similar to declaring a mistrial during the trial process, rather than continuing a flawed trial process which produces an outcome of no value, going through the appeals process and then declaring a mistrial after that.
-
I think you are mistaken without further evidence to support your interpretation of how a judicial process is supposed to work.
I'm not mistaken - I've been involved in enough processes that might ultimately result in Judicial Review to know the way they work (or rather are supposed to work).
And again I refer you back to the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland (my emphasis).
'Judicial review is the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker. It is only available where other effective remedies have been exhausted and where there is a recognised ground of challenge.'
In the three stage process how on earth could other effective remedies have been exhausted when the allegations had not been formally considered (stage 2) and were that to have found against Salmond then there is an appeal (stage 3) - only when stage 3 had been completed can it be considered that other effective remedies have been exhausted.
-
I think you are mistaken without further evidence to support your interpretation of how a judicial process is supposed to work.
Recent confirmation that under UK law Judicial Review is a remedy of last resort:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=840ca85c-6576-4b52-9477-91b9f55cc933
Salmond used it as a remedy of first resort.
-
It's not really practical to rerun the process while there is the ongoing committee review happening in the Scottish Parliament looking at the process
Does that translate to 'not now' in your mind, or 'not ever'.
Do you agree that the outcome of the Judicial Review means that the process should be re-run (presumably using the new process determined by the committee review). Or do you think that Salmond should not have to face a process based on the allegations with the burden of proof being balance of probabilities.
-
I'm not mistaken - I've been involved in enough processes that might ultimately result in Judicial Review to know the way they work (or rather are supposed to work).
And again I refer you back to the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland (my emphasis).
'Judicial review is the process by which a court reviews a decision, act or failure to act by a public body or other official decision maker. It is only available where other effective remedies have been exhausted and where there is a recognised ground of challenge.'
In the three stage process how on earth could other effective remedies have been exhausted when the allegations had not been formally considered (stage 2) and were that to have found against Salmond then there is an appeal (stage 3) - only when stage 3 had been completed can it be considered that other effective remedies have been exhausted.
I think you are mistaken and any assertions or claims about your opinion or experience are not convincing. I think your interpretation of the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland is flawed. Repeating your flawed interpretation or asserting that your interpretation is not flawed is not convincing. If you have some evidence to support your interpretation that would be more convincing.
That the court agreed with Salmond's lawyers to holding a judicial review and found against the Scottish government points to your interpretation being wrong.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/emails-lawyers-reveal-how-alex-salmond-won-judicial-review-against-scottish-government-3023310
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-gain-access-legal-advice-report-after-agreement-scottish-government-3072781
-
Recent confirmation that under UK law Judicial Review is a remedy of last resort:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=840ca85c-6576-4b52-9477-91b9f55cc933
Salmond used it as a remedy of first resort.
In Salmond's case the alternative remedies were not adequate and appropriate.
-
Does that translate to 'not now' in your mind, or 'not ever'.
Do you agree that the outcome of the Judicial Review means that the process should be re-run (presumably using the new process determined by the committee review). Or do you think that Salmond should not have to face a process based on the allegations with the burden of proof being balance of probabilities.
It translates to your statement that 'I suspect is too politically incendiary to be contemplated by the Scottish Government' to rerun betrayed a lack of knowledge of the current position.
As to your two questions, they seem like a false dichotomy. I'd like to see what comes out of the current review before opining on the next steps.
-
In Salmond's case the alternative remedies were not adequate and appropriate.
Why?
That is using the outcome of the Judicial Review to support its initiation when other remedies had not been exhausted.
How would that argument work had the Judicial Review determined that the processes for initial investigation (stage 1) were hunky dory?
-
I think you are mistaken and any assertions or claims about your opinion or experience are not convincing. I think your interpretation of the official documentation linked to the process in Scotland is flawed. Repeating your flawed interpretation or asserting that your interpretation is not flawed is not convincing. If you have some evidence to support your interpretation that would be more convincing.
That the court agreed with Salmond's lawyers to holding a judicial review and found against the Scottish government points to your interpretation being wrong.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/emails-lawyers-reveal-how-alex-salmond-won-judicial-review-against-scottish-government-3023310
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-gain-access-legal-advice-report-after-agreement-scottish-government-3072781
So you are using the argument that the court agreed to Judicial Review as confirmation that their decision was right, yet you are also arguing that when the initial inquiry into the allegations found that there was a case to answer that the decision was flawed (and therefore had to be subject to judicial review at an early stage, and certainly not as last resort).
Guess what, public bodies and the courts sometimes get things wrong - hence the need for Judicial review and appeals. I doubt very much that a similar case for Judicial review brought by Joe or Joanne Public, rather than the biggest beast in Scottish politics would have received anything other than 'go away and come back once the internal process is complete'.
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/emails-lawyers-reveal-how-alex-salmond-won-judicial-review-against-scottish-government-3023310
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-gain-access-legal-advice-report-after-agreement-scottish-government-3072781
But these links relate to the outcome of the Judicial Review, not to the earlier decision to allow the Judicial Review at such an early stage when it is meant to be an option of last resort.
-
As to your two questions, they seem like a false dichotomy. I'd like to see what comes out of the current review before opining on the next steps.
But surely whatever the review comes up with there is a necessity to rerun the process - this is surely what the Judicial Review requires as it did not quash the decision (not that there really was one) but dismissed the process - thus the inquiry should be rerun in the interests of justice.
-
But surely whatever the review comes up with there is a necessity to rerun the process - this is surely what the Judicial Review requires as it did not quash the decision (not that there really was one) but dismissed the process - thus the inquiry should be rerun in the interests of justice.
Dunno. I think we are not in Kansas anymore and I know of no precedent so I don't think I have any chance of what I think 'should' happen till I have the information of what does hsppen
-
Dunno. I think we are not in Kansas anymore and I know of no precedent so I don't think I have any chance of what I think 'should' happen till I have the information of what does hsppen
Precedent for what? Precedent for a Judicial Review determining that there was procedural impropriety and requiring the public body to rerun the process again? Happens all the time.
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review - surely you can agree with that?
-
Precedent for what? Precedent for a Judicial Review determining that there was procedural impropriety and requiring the public body to rerun the process again? Happens all the time.
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review - surely you can agree with that?
Do parliamentary inquiries into the process happen all thr time? No.
And given that I don't know what might be the impact of such an inquiry due to the lack of precedent, I won't make a judgement on should till I see what happens.
-
Do parliamentary inquiries into the process happen all thr time? No.
And given that I don't know what might be the impact of such an inquiry due to the lack of precedent, I won't make a judgement on should till I see what happens.
We aren't talking about the parliamentary inquiry - we are talking about the judicial review - they hand down decisions all the time that indicate a process not to to have been fair or lawful and in these circumstances the public body should revise its process and then rerun the investigation.
We aren't in uncharted territory at - except that the accused (in the original investigation) and petitioner in the Judicial Review is an ex first minister. You are heading into deeply murky waters if you think that the nature of the individual makes a case without precedent in the eyes of the law. The law should be the same for an ex first minister as it should be for Joe Public.
-
We aren't talking about the parliamentary inquiry - we are talking about the judicial review - they hand down decisions all the time that indicate a process not to to have been fair or lawful and in these circumstances the public body should revise its process and then rerun the investigation.
We aren't in uncharted territory at - except that the accused (in the original investigation) and petitioner in the Judicial Review is an ex first minister. You are heading into deeply murky waters if you think that the nature of the individual makes a case without precedent in the eyes of the law. The law should be the same for an ex first minister as it should be for Joe Public.
I've been talking about the parliamentary inquiry. That's strangely why I have been referring to it in my posts.
-
I've bern talking about the parliamentary inquiry. That's strangely why I have been referring to it in my posts.
Well I am talking about the Judicial Review and my questions to you are in that context - so again. On the basis that the Judicial Review concluded that the original investigations were “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair and they were tainted with apparent bias”
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review, in other words using being procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias - surely you can agree with that?
And even in respect to the inquiry - again this isn't without precedence - all sorts of public bodies will hold an inquiry into their procedures and those involved if they have received Judicial Review judgement that they original procedures were unfair and/or biased. That the public body in this case is the scottish government is irrelevant.
-
Why?
That is using the outcome of the Judicial Review to support its initiation when other remedies had not been exhausted.
How would that argument work had the Judicial Review determined that the processes for initial investigation (stage 1) were hunky dory?
For the courts to decide to agree with Salmond's lawyers and hear a judicial review, they would have determined that the alternative remedies were not adequate and appropriate. I was not in court so I have not seen the evidence in order to be able to argue whether the court's decision to hear the judicial review was right or wrong. You are welcome to think it was wrong, without having seen the evidence or being able to present the evidence to justify your position.
You are entitled to your opinion because this forum seems to be a place for presenting opinions.
-
Well I am talking about the Judicial Review and my questions to you are in that context - so again. On the basis that the Judicial Review concluded that the original investigations were “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair and they were tainted with apparent bias”
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review, in other words using being procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias - surely you can agree with that?
And even in respect to the inquiry - again this isn't without precedence - all sorts of public bodies will hold an inquiry into their procedures and those involved if they have received Judicial Review judgement that they original procedures were unfair and/or biased. That the public body in this case is the scottish government is irrelevant.
if you want to ignore my points and the reality of what is actually going on, it defeats any point to the discussion..
-
So you are using the argument that the court agreed to Judicial Review as confirmation that their decision was right, yet you are also arguing that when the initial inquiry into the allegations found that there was a case to answer that the decision was flawed (and therefore had to be subject to judicial review at an early stage, and certainly not as last resort).
Guess what, public bodies and the courts sometimes get things wrong - hence the need for Judicial review and appeals. I doubt very much that a similar case for Judicial review brought by Joe or Joanne Public, rather than the biggest beast in Scottish politics would have received anything other than 'go away and come back once the internal process is complete'.
The flaws in the investigation process are mentioned in my link. Presumably these flaws are what influenced the court to hear the judicial review as the flaws in the process meant alternative remedies to a judicial review in this case were not adequate and appropriate.
-
But surely whatever the review comes up with there is a necessity to rerun the process - this is surely what the Judicial Review requires as it did not quash the decision (not that there really was one) but dismissed the process - thus the inquiry should be rerun in the interests of justice.
If there is a way to rerun the process in a fair way, sure I agree it should be re-run. If the civil servants on behalf of the Scottish Govt are too incompetent to run a fair process then re-running the process is not possible at the moment until some civil servants are found who can run a fair process.
Presumably the Parliamentary inquiry is to establish why the civil servants / Scottish government were too incompetent to run a fair process in order to avoid the Govt making the same mistakes again if the process is to be re-run. The Parliamentary inquiry has been asking repeatedly to see the legal advice given to the Scottish government relating to the judicial review and minutes of any meetings the Govt had about the judicial review. Once the inquiry has seen it and understood and established how the government botched its investigation process, we may see a re-run of the process minus the aforementioned flaws.
-
If there is a way to rerun the process in a fair way, sure I agree it should be re-run. If the civil servants on behalf of the Scottish Govt are too incompetent to run a fair process then re-running the process is not possible at the moment until some civil servants are found who can run a fair process.
Presumably the Parliamentary inquiry is to establish why the civil servants / Scottish government were too incompetent to run a fair process in order to avoid the Govt making the same mistakes again if the process is to be re-run. The Parliamentary inquiry has been asking repeatedly to see the legal advice given to the Scottish government relating to the judicial review and minutes of any meetings the Govt had about the judicial review. Once the inquiry has seen it and understood and established how the government botched its investigation process, we may see a re-run of the process minus the aforementioned flaws.
The inquiry is about establishing what happened. It does not start from an assumption of incompetence.
-
The inquiry is about establishing what happened. It does not start from an assumption of incompetence.
Nor do most inquiries which are about determining that happened in a situation where something has gone wrong.
Nonetheless I note you've still not provided your response to a rather simple question - so I'll ask again:
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review, in other words using being procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias - surely you can agree with that?
-
Nor do most inquiries which are about determining that happened in a situation where something has gone wrong.
Nonetheless I note you've still not provided your response to a rather simple question - so I'll ask again:
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review, in other words using being procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias - surely you can agree with that?
And I will repeat, I will wait until the PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY is complete to decide what should happen next because I would rather deal with the actual situation than some dumbed down hypothetical that ignores the real.case.
-
And I will repeat, I will wait until the PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY is complete to decide what should happen next because I would rather deal with the actual situation than some dumbed down hypothetical that ignores the real.case.
I'm sorry that is obfuscation of the n-th degree.
Sure - the inquiry may determine the most appropriate process for a rerun, but that is entirely separate from accepting, in principle, that the outcome of the Judicial Review should result in the investigation should rerun using a process that is procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias.
Why is it so hard for you to accept this basic point of principle and justice.
-
I'm sorry that is obfuscation of the n-th degree.
Sure - the inquiry may determine the most appropriate process for a rerun, but that is entirely separate from accepting, in principle, that the outcome of the Judicial Review should result in the investigation should rerun using a process that is procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias.
Why is it so hard for you to accept this basic point of principle and justice.
Because I deal with the real world and what has happened and is happening.
-
Because I deal with the real world and what has happened and is happening.
No - you aren't actually dealing with the real world and what has happened - what has happened is that a Judicial Review has determined the original investigation to be procedurally flawed - the outcome of that should be that the investigation is rerun using procedures that aren't flawed.
You are in the world of speculation about what the inquiry might, or might not, conclude in the future. I am sitting in the real world where we know that the Judicial Review has determined.
The reality is, of course, that this is too politically incendiary and the whole sorry tale is being kicked further and further into the long grass. And while that happens justice is not being served as there has been no determination as to whether the allegations are upheld under the civil balance of probabilities burden of proof.
And it is now pretty well exactly three years since these allegations were received and an investigation opened. In what way is that fair on the claimant who, three years on, still haven't had their complaints dealt with under civil proceedings. I'm not, in any way saying that the complaints should be upheld, but surely they should be worked through to a decision - upheld or not.
-
No - you aren't actually dealing with the real world and what has happened - what has happened is that a Judicial Review has determined the original investigation to be procedurally flawed - the outcome of that should be that the investigation is rerun using procedures that aren't flawed.
You are in the world of speculation about what the inquiry might, or might not, conclude in the future. I am sitting in the real world where we know that the Judicial Review has determined.
The reality is, of course, that this is too politically incendiary and the whole sorry tale is being kicked further and further into the long grass. And while that happens justice is not being served as there has been no determination as to whether the allegations are upheld under the civil balance of probabilities burden of proof.
And it is now pretty well exactly three years since these allegations were received and an investigation opened. In what way is that fair on the claimant who, three years on, still haven't had their complaints dealt with under civil proceedings. I'm not, in any way saying that the complaints should be upheld, but surely they should be worked through to a decision - upheld or not.
No, I'm dealing with the fact that there is a parliamentary inquiry. Something you seemed unaware of and unwilling to deal with. Something that is not precedented.
-
No, I'm dealing with the fact that there is a parliamentary inquiry. Something you seemed unaware of and unwilling to deal with. Something that is not precedented.
No you are ignoring the fact that there has been a judicial review which has concluded and given its opinion. What is required now is that the investigation is rerun using procedures that aren't flawed.
It doesn't require a parliamentary inquiry to come up with procedures to investigate allegations of sexual harassment that aren't flawed - organisations do it all the time. The parliamentary inquiry is a complete red herring and irrelevant to the ability of the scottish government to rerun the investigation. The government could set up a new investigation tomorrow if it chose to, but it hasn't. Indeed it could have established a new investigation the moment the criminal case concluded - but it didn't.
-
No - you aren't actually dealing with the real world and what has happened - what has happened is that a Judicial Review has determined the original investigation to be procedurally flawed - the outcome of that should be that the investigation is rerun using procedures that aren't flawed.
You are in the world of speculation about what the inquiry might, or might not, conclude in the future. I am sitting in the real world where we know that the Judicial Review has determined.
The reality is, of course, that this is too politically incendiary and the whole sorry tale is being kicked further and further into the long grass. And while that happens justice is not being served as there has been no determination as to whether the allegations are upheld under the civil balance of probabilities burden of proof.
And it is now pretty well exactly three years since these allegations were received and an investigation opened. In what way is that fair on the claimant who, three years on, still haven't had their complaints dealt with under civil proceedings. I'm not, in any way saying that the complaints should be upheld, but surely they should be worked through to a decision - upheld or not.
Maybe the Scottish government should co-operate more readily with the Inquiry rather than delaying providing the Inquiry with legal counsel they received. Then the inquiry can be completed and a fair process can be established to look into the complaints by the alleged victims.
-
No you are ignoring the fact that there has been a judicial review which has concluded and given its opinion. What is required now is that the investigation is rerun using procedures that aren't flawed.
It doesn't require a parliamentary inquiry to come up with procedures to investigate allegations of sexual harassment that aren't flawed - organisations do it all the time. The parliamentary inquiry is a complete red herring and irrelevant to the ability of the scottish government to rerun the investigation. The government could set up a new investigation tomorrow if it chose to, but it hasn't. Indeed it could have established a new investigation the moment the criminal case concluded - but it didn't.
I'm ignoring nothing. I'm pointing out that there is a parliamentary inquiry, which you seemed completely ignorant of, and that has an effect, and it would be better to see what happens from that to decide what should happen after it.
You do seem a bit behind the curve on what is happening.
-
I'm ignoring nothing. I'm pointing out that there is a parliamentary inquiry, which you seemed completely ignorant of, and that has an effect, and it would be better to see what happens from that to decide what should happen after it.
You do seem a bit behind the curve on what is happening.
Did the Judicial Review require there to be a parliamentary inquiry - nope.
Did the Judicial Review request there to be a parliamentary inquiry - nope.
Did the Judicial Review expose multiple failings in the process - nope.
The Judicial Review found the procedure to be unlawful on a single point - that the investigating officer had previous involvement in the case. That is, of course, a big no-no, but no other failings in the process were found. So all that is required is for the investigation to be rerun with a new investigating officer who had not previously had involvement in the case. You don't need a parliamentary inquiry to rectify the failings identified in the judicial review - you merely need a different investigating officer. The parliamentary inquiry is a complete red herring.
-
Did the Judicial Review require there to be a parliamentary inquiry - nope.
Did the Judicial Review request there to be a parliamentary inquiry - nope.
Did the Judicial Review expose multiple failings in the process - nope.
The Judicial Review found the procedure to be unlawful on a single point - that the investigating officer had previous involvement in the case. That is, of course, a big no-no, but no other failings in the process were found. So all that is required is for the investigation to be rerun with a new investigating officer who had not previously had involvement in the case. You don't need a parliamentary inquiry to rectify the failings identified in the judicial review - you merely need a different investigating officer. The parliamentary inquiry is a complete red herring.
Why are you asking strawman questions?
If you think a parliamentary inquiry is a red herring to what happens it just illustrates your ignorance of politics and fact.
-
Why are you asking strawman questions?
If you think a parliamentary inquiry is a red herring to what happens it just illustrates your ignorance of politics and fact.
It is a complete red herring to the ability of the outcome of the judicial review to be adhered to. Show me where the judicial review required or requested an inquiry. Show me where the scottish government was unable to comply with the outcome of the judicial review without holding an inquiry.
I am not asking straw man questions - the only thing the Scottish government needed to do to ensure the investigation was fair and unbiased (in the view of the judicial review) was to use an investigating officer who had had not prior involvement in the case. Why does that require an inquiry? It doesn't.
-
If you think a parliamentary inquiry is a red herring to what happens it just illustrates your ignorance of politics and fact.
So let's focus on fact.
Tell me on what grounds the judicial review determined the original investigation to be procedurally flawed. You seem to be ignoring this entirely allowing yourself to drift off into the never, never, longest or long grasses of parliamentary inquiries. Indeed you seem to have convinced yourself that a new investigation somehow cannot proceed until this inquiry concludes - that is complete and utter non-sense. Not proceeding with a new investigation is entirely a political choice, not a requirement, legal or otherwise.
-
So let's focus on fact.
Tell me on what grounds the judicial review determined the original investigation to be procedurally flawed. You seem to be ignoring this entirely allowing yourself to drift off into the never, never, longest or long grasses of parliamentary inquiries. Indeed you seem to have convinced yourself that a new investigation somehow cannot proceed until this inquiry concludes - that is complete and utter non-sense. Not proceeding with a new investigation is entirely a political choice, not a requirement, legal or otherwise.
Holding an actual rerun while the entirety of the validity of what happened is being investigated by parliament and you think that makes no difference?
-
Holding an actual rerun while the entirety of the validity of what happened is being investigated by parliament and you think that makes no difference?
Providing the rerun follows legally justifiable procedures - absolutely. And, guess what, the judicial review has very helpfully told them what they need to change. They need an investigating officer with no prior involvement in the case - that's it, nothing more - then the procedure will not fall foul of the law.
Surely the government, as an employer, also has a duty to investigate complains promptly and effectively - sure it made an error in the first investigation, but that can and should have been rectified and the investigation rerun. In terms of justice it is frankly appalling that the complainants who came forward with their complaints three years ago have still not seem the process proceed to completion. And I'm in no way prejudging what the outcome would be - perhaps with a new investigating officer the initial investigation wouldn't find that Salmond has a case to answer. And even if it did the formal proceedings might not uphold those complaints on the balance of probabilities. And even if it did Salmond might win on appeal.
That's what should have happened, and should have been instigated as soon as the criminal case concluded.
-
Providing the rerun follows legally justifiable procedures - absolutely. And, guess what, the judicial review has very helpfully told them what they need to change. They need an investigating officer with no prior involvement in the case - that's it, nothing more - then the procedure will not fall foul of the law.
Surely the government, as an employer, also has a duty to investigate complains promptly and effectively - sure it made an error in the first investigation, but that can and should have been rectified and the investigation rerun. In terms of justice it is frankly appalling that the complainants who came forward with their complaints three years ago have still not seem the process proceed to completion. And I'm in no way prejudging what the outcome would be - perhaps with a new investigating officer the initial investigation wouldn't find that Salmond has a case to answer. And even if it did the formal proceedings might not uphold those complaints on the balance of probabilities. And even if it did Salmond might win on appeal.
That's what should have happened, and should have been instigated as soon as the criminal case concluded.
You just seem to continually show your ignorance about what is happening. Let's go back to your idea that the Scottish Govt was scared of holding a rerun because of the politics which showed your ignorance of the parliamentary inquiry. You just don't seem to have much knowledge of Scottish politics
-
You just seem to continually show your ignorance about what is happening. Let's go back to your idea that the Scottish Govt was scared of holding a rerun because of the politics which showed your ignorance of the parliamentary inquiry. You just don't seem to have much knowledge of Scottish politics
Oh - here we go again - the old 'you don't understand about scottish politics'. Straw man.
This is about work based allegations of sexual harassment - and with the alleged perpetrator being a person of significant power and influence. The key issues are similar to many other 'me-too' movement cases throughout the world. This isn't a peculiarly scottish issue - it is an issue of power and influence, same as many other cases.
It could just as easily have been a case against powerful figure in the media, or in sport, or in a religious organisation or in any other walk of life. And the issues would be the same in many other countries.
The notion that you cannot understand the power dynamics at play here without somehow understanding scottish politics is both non-sense and rather insulting.
-
Let's go back to your idea that the Scottish Govt was scared of holding a rerun because of the politics which showed your ignorance of the parliamentary inquiry.
On the contrary - I think the scottish government is terrified of having to either uphold or reject the complaints against Salmond - they'd prefer a situation where there is never a decision either for or against him. A 'kick the ball into the longest of long grass' is the very best option. But, of course, Salmond is such an adept political operator that he has managed to turn himself from alleged perpetrator to victim - he certainly is a class act as a political operator, no doubt about that.
-
Oh - here we go again - the old 'you don't understand about scottish politics'. Straw man.
This is about work based allegations of sexual harassment - and with the alleged perpetrator being a person of significant power and influence. The key issues are similar to many other 'me-too' movement cases throughout the world. This isn't a peculiarly scottish issue - it is an issue of power and influence, same as many other cases.
It could just as easily have been a case against powerful figure in the media, or in sport, or in a religious organisation or in any other walk of life. And the issues would be the same in many other countries.
The notion that you cannot understand the power dynamics at play here without somehow understanding scottish politics is both non-sense and rather insulting.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2273819/sun4mon-the-various-inquiries-into-the-botched-probe-into-alex-salmonds-conduct-promise-yet-more-political-drama/
There seem to be 3 on-going inquiries. How is that similar to a powerful figure in media or in sport? Why do you think the Scottish government has taken the decision not to re-run the investigation? Is it because political procedures prevent that from happening or because of SNP self-interest or Sturgeon's self-interest? Any ideas?
-
On the contrary - I think the scottish government is terrified of having to either uphold or reject the complaints against Salmond - they'd prefer a situation where there is never a decision either for or against him. A 'kick the ball into the longest of long grass' is the very best option. But, of course, Salmond is such an adept political operator that he has managed to turn himself from alleged perpetrator to victim - he certainly is a class act as a political operator, no doubt about that.
Wow! So you think that the Scottish Govt are scared about what would be an internal process as opposed to an open govt enquiry. Politics is just not your strength.
-
Wow! So you think that the Scottish Govt are scared about what would be an internal process as opposed to an open govt enquiry. Politics is just not your strength.
But the inquiry is instigated by the scottish parliament not the scottish government (the clue is in the name) so is not under the government's control to decide whether or not to have an inquiry.
The decision to rerun the investigation is a decision for the scottish government, not the parliament. They could have made the decision to do so, they have chosen not to. The notion that the parliament is holding an inquiry isn't relevant to the government's decision to act on the outcome of the judicial review.
I'm sure the government would prefer there to be no inquiries (just as they'd probably have preferred there to be no judicial review) but that isn't in their control. However as I've said before I think having had the inquiry foisted on them by the parliament the silver lining for the government is it can hide behind the inquiry and therefore kick the decision which is in their control, namely to re-run the investigation, into the long grass meaning that they wont have to actually determine whether the complaints are uphold or not upheld.
-
Is it because political procedures prevent that from happening ...
I don't believe so - perhaps you can provide evidence to demonstrate that the investigation cannot be rerun until the inquiry is concluded. I doubt very much there will be as it would be completely counterintuitive - effectively placing government decision making completely on hold while an inquiry (not of their making) concludes. The equivalent would be to suggest that until the Grenfell inquiry is complete there should be no revision to building regulations on cladding and there should be no work to remove cladding.
or because of SNP self-interest or Sturgeon's self-interest? Any ideas?
I think you are more on the right track here - the scottish government - effectively the SNP and Sturgeon really, really don't want to be forced to make a decision to uphold or not uphold the complaints. While in the initial investigation this seemed sensible as they were on the front foot, they are now so firmly on the backfoot compared to Salmond that either to uphold or not uphold is dynamite. If they uphold then they will feel the full force of Salmond highly successful campaign to appear as the victim. If they don't uphold they will be seen as weak, in hock to the powerful big beast and also to have failed women who took a very brave decision to come forward and complain about Salmond.
So much better to have his acquitted by someone else (the criminal court), where there was little likelihood of conviction as it is a one person's word against another person's word, consent issue with a beyond reasonable doubt burden of proof. And to simply allow the original reason to vanish under the weight of inquiries, never to return.
And all the time there are the complainants, who when coming forward, quite reasonably expected their complaints to be considered and for a decision to uphold them or not uphold to be made on the balance of probabilities. But that hasn't happened, three years on and I see no reasonable likelihood of it happening any time soon, if at all. What message does that send to someone else thinking of making a work-based complaint of sexual harassment against a very senior colleague - hmmm.
-
I don't believe so - perhaps you can provide evidence to demonstrate that the investigation cannot be rerun until the inquiry is concluded. I doubt very much there will be as it would be completely counterintuitive - effectively placing government decision making completely on hold while an inquiry (not of their making) concludes. The equivalent would be to suggest that until the Grenfell inquiry is complete there should be no revision to building regulations on cladding and there should be no work to remove cladding.
Once again I think you are wrong. Given that there are 3 inquiries into how the Government conducted itself during the first investigation I think the Government has little credibility to undertake an investigation into the complaints against Salmond without first clearing itself of wrong-doing.
We have an inquiry into whether Sturgeon should resign because she allegedly broke the ministerial code. She is also accused of misleading Parliament because she forgot about mentioning to Parliament that she had a meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, in her office on March 29, 2018 about the sexual misconduct allegations against Salmond.
We have another inquiry into why the Government continued pursuing the same strategy for the investigation that would take them to a judicial review, when they had apparently been given legal advice that they would lose the judicial review, which then resulted in a waste of £512,000 of taxpayer money in legal costs.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18998773.alex-salmond-accuses-nicola-sturgeon-lying-msps-breaking-ministerial-code/
It s nothing like Grenfell. How can the government be seen to carry out a fair investigation about a sensitive issue such as sexual misconduct, that is based purely on one person's word against another, while the government's credibility in carrying out investigations is shot to pieces? There are now allegations that Sturgeon's chief of staff revealed the name of one of the complainants to Geoff Aberdein, which Sturgeon is denying. Of course if the government thought they could get away with it, they would still carry out the investigation. However, in this instance they can't get away with it because they are up against Salmond, not some Joe Public whose rights they can steamroller over with minimum publicity. Salmond is a public figure so he generates huge publicity and public support - the government were stupid to be this sloppy when going after a public figure.
I think you are more on the right track here - the scottish government - effectively the SNP and Sturgeon really, really don't want to be forced to make a decision to uphold or not uphold the complaints. While in the initial investigation this seemed sensible as they were on the front foot, they are now so firmly on the backfoot compared to Salmond that either to uphold or not uphold is dynamite. If they uphold then they will feel the full force of Salmond highly successful campaign to appear as the victim. If they don't uphold they will be seen as weak, in hock to the powerful big beast and also to have failed women who took a very brave decision to come forward and complain about Salmond.
Salmond did not just "appear" as the victim - he was the victim of an unfair investigation.
So much better to have his acquitted by someone else (the criminal court), where there was little likelihood of conviction as it is a one person's word against another person's word, consent issue with a beyond reasonable doubt burden of proof. And to simply allow the original reason to vanish under the weight of inquiries, never to return.
Disagree. The government can't carry out an investigation while they appear to lack credibility.
And all the time there are the complainants, who when coming forward, quite reasonably expected their complaints to be considered and for a decision to uphold them or not uphold to be made on the balance of probabilities. But that hasn't happened, three years on and I see no reasonable likelihood of it happening any time soon, if at all. What message does that send to someone else thinking of making a work-based complaint of sexual harassment against a very senior colleague - hmmm.
That was always a distinct possibility if you change the rules and then allow retrospective investigations. I am sure the women weren't naïve enough to think the process would not be held up if the government botched the investigation. It's unfortunate if women in general are naive enough to think that complaints will not be robustly defended by the people they are accusing and the sooner they get the message it will not be a walk in the park the better prepared they will be. I am sure if the women were being accused of misconduct they would equally robustly defend themselves against the accusations.
The government had appointed an official, Judith MacKinnon, to conduct an apparently independent investigation even though she had already met and counselled both complainants though MacKinnon denied she had coached them in their complaint. MacKinnon did not deny she had met the two women at the same time as she had been copied into a series of draft versions of the Scottish government’s new ministerial complaints code in November 2017, as had Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary, and MacKinnon’s boss, the Scottish government’s director of people, Nicola Richards. The code made clear that an investigating officer should have had “no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter being raised”.
When this appearance of bias was pointed out to the government by Salmond, the government ignored it, and he had to take it to judicial review.
Therefore it sounds bizarre for you to suggest the government presses on with conducting a new investigation without first establishing whether the government has any credibility in carrying out investigations against Salmond.
The complaints themselves seem to be about conduct that may or may not have been consensual or may or may not have been exaggerated or reinterpreted or conduct that may or may not have been fabrications or misremembered. Given it's one person's word against another it is problematic if the investigation is carried out by the government while there is still the appearance of bias and misleading Parliament hanging over the government's head.
-
What should happen is that the investigation should be rerun using a process that doesn't fall foul of challenge by Judicial Review, in other words using being procedurally fair and not tainted by apparent bias - surely you can agree with that?
Not necessarily. They could just retract the findings and leave it at that.
Then there's always the possibility of some intermediate conclusion (I'm speaking generally now, not about this particular case). The court might find that there were breaches of the rules but they weren't serious enough to warrant throwing everything out.
-
Ooft!
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,what-about-the-women
-
Not a good look
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-inquiry-committee-wont-get-nicola-sturgeon-key-evidence-t0r9frphz
-
It could be time to get the popcorn in.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/22/scottish-parliament-orders-prosecutors-to-release-salmond-leak-evidence
-
Craig Murray case related to Salmond case happening now
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18506768.craig-murray-hearing-alex-salmond-case-take-place-today/
-
And Craig Murray's sworn evidence (release approved by Crown Office, redacted)
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/#click=https://t.co/O7nrRh9GAk
-
Fascinating stuff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55863264
-
Messier and messier
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55873821
-
And not clear what the sacking of Joanna Cherry from the SNP front bench is motivated by, though it might be to do with the Salmond case, or GRA reform, or supporting the legal attempts to see if a referendum can be called without UK govt approval, or a combination of them.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054750.snp-sack-joanna-cherry-westminster-front-bench-team/
-
And this looks awful
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-chief-executive-peter-murrell-turns-down-alex-salmond-inquiry-invite-3120287
-
As far as I can see there are 3 SNP MPs to have no position in this list: Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill and Angus Brendan MacNeil. All of them are seen as being linked to Salmond.
https://www.snp.org/the-real-opposition-meet-your-new-snp-westminster-frontbench-team/
-
Interesting how thoroughly disliked Alex Salmond is in Scotland
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/pdqzw72qoe/InternalResults_Favourabilitty_210125.pdf
With a net favourability rating of -60, he ranks below well Boris (-54), the Tories (-46), Labour (-24) and Starmer (-5) - and with Sturgeon on +21 there is a 81 point difference in their favourability ratings. Has there ever been such a gaping gap in favourability between two key political figures going head to head with each other.
-
Interesting how thoroughly disliked Alex Salmond is in Scotland
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/pdqzw72qoe/InternalResults_Favourabilitty_210125.pdf
With a net favourability rating of -60, he ranks below well Boris (-54), the Tories (-46), Labour (-24) and Starmer (-5) - and with Sturgeon on +21 there is a 81 point difference in their favourability ratings. Has there ever been such a gaping gap in favourability between two key political figures going head to head with each other.
Don't know but the challenge to Sturgeon is not Salmond going 'head to head' with her but whether the inquiry shows she lied to the Parliament.
-
Don't know but the challenge to Sturgeon is not Salmond going 'head to head' with her but whether the inquiry shows she lied to the Parliament.
That is a completely different question - and we are talking here about public opinion, and I'm not sure that the public will take kindly to a person with a +21 favourability rating being taken down by one with a -60 rating.
And of course Salmond has been challenging Sturgeon over this from the first moment he became aware that there were allegations against him.
For those without a dog in the fight it is popcorn time ... except for the fact that there are women who came forward with allegations to their employer who haven't had those allegations properly considered in an employment process which is considered on balance of probabilities. That really is the issue we should be focusing on.
-
That is a completely different question - and we are talking here about public opinion, and I'm not sure that the public will take kindly to a person with a +21 favourability rating being taken down by one with a -60 rating.
And of course Salmond has been challenging Sturgeon over this from the first moment he became aware that there were allegations against him.
For those without a dog in the fight it is popcorn time ... except for the fact that there are women who came forward with allegations to their employer who haven't had those allegations properly considered in an employment process which is considered on balance of probabilities. That really is the issue we should be focusing on.
It is, indeed, a completely different question. It is also the relevant question as to the impact on Sturgeon as opposed to your naive idea of a 'head to head'
Your last paragraph seems to imply that we should not be focussing on whether the First Minister lied to Parliament. That just seems badly phrased.
-
It is, indeed, a completely different question. It is also the relevant question as to the impact on Sturgeon as opposed to your naive idea of a 'head to head'
I think most of the public will see this as a 'head to head' between Sturgeon and Salmond.
So much so that YouGov (you know the guys whose whole business is about public opinion) have just released a poll that specifically compares option about Salmond vs Sturgeon on the inquiry.
Don't be so naive to think this isn't fundamentally Sturgeon vs Salmond.
-
I think most of the public will see this as a 'head to head' between Sturgeon and Salmond.
So much so that YouGov (you know the guys whose whole business is about public opinion) have just released a poll that specifically compares option about Salmond vs Sturgeon on the inquiry.
Don't be so naive to think this isn't fundamentally Sturgeon vs Salmond.
Ah look, an ad populum how cute. Salmond can't take on Sturgeon 'head to head' so you and any of the public you want to cite are simply wrong. As already covered what will do damage to Sturgeon is being found to have lied to parliament in which case 68% of the public think she should. There is nothing in that argument that brings Salmond back.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1387084/nicola-sturgeon-news-snp-resign-sturgeon-misled-parliament-claims-alex-salmond-enquiry
As to this being fundamentally about Salmond v Sturgeon, first of all that contradicts what you said we should be 'focussing on' i.e. the women who came forward. Secondly it's enormously simplistic in that there are a number of different issues here. Tge gradualist approach of Sturgeon to independence which is actually Salmind's position as well but those who want to ignore Westminster giving permission for a next referendum are using the split as a flag of convenience. Next, there is a genuine split on GRA reform and in part because of the comments from Joanna Cherry, this too has become a flag of convenience. And the mention of Joanna Cherry adds the split that there are those who see this as much more a case of Cherry v Sturgeon.
-
I think most of the public will see this as a 'head to head' between Sturgeon and Salmond.
I don't think the public in Scotland do - the key issue is clear: which is whether of not our FM breached the ministerial code. In terms of wider Scottish politics Salmond is largely an irrelevance now, outwith his support base - his antics on a Russian TV channel saw to that long before any court cases. Joanna Cherry the more likely challenger to Sturgeon.
So much so that YouGov (you know the guys whose whole business is about public opinion) have just released a poll that specifically compares option about Salmond vs Sturgeon on the inquiry.
Don't be so naive to think this isn't fundamentally Sturgeon vs Salmond.
It isn't about 'Sturgeon vs Salmond' at all - it's just about Sturgeon. Maybe the guys in YouGov aren't spending enough time in Scotland.
-
I don't think the public in Scotland do - the key issue is clear: which is whether of not our FM breached the ministerial code. In terms of wider Scottish politics Salmond is largely an irrelevance now, outwith his support base - his antics on a Russian TV channel saw to that long before any court cases. Joanna Cherry the more likely challenger to Sturgeon.
It isn't about 'Sturgeon vs Salmond' at all - it's just about Sturgeon. Maybe the guys in YouGov aren't spending enough time in Scotland.
It's worth pointing out that any challenge from Cherry is doomed unless Sturgeon is found to have lied, in which case we are into Cherry v Robertson - though Cherry will have a problem as she isn't standing for an MSP position.
-
Ah look, an ad populum how cute.
You don't seem to understand much about politics in a democracy, do you NS.
Last time I looked politics within a democratic context is all about having the most popular politicians with the most populars policies so that the largest number of people vote for you. If you aren't popular (or more popular than your rivals) then you don't win elections.
So politics in a democracy is based entirely on ad populum principles.
-
Don't know but the challenge to Sturgeon is not Salmond going 'head to head' with her but whether the inquiry shows she lied to the Parliament.
Hmm - well if you won't take it from he that it is fundamentally about Salmond vs Sturgeon (because I'm not Scottish - or rather only half Scottish so cannot possibly understand politics in Scotland - a rather patronising view) then perhaps you'll take ot from others who have a better insight into Scottish politics.
So for example, this chap, who sees a reshuffle in Westminster, entirely through the prism of who is a Salmond supporter and who is a Sturgeon supporter - his quote:
'As far as I can see there are 3 SNP MPs to have no position in this list: Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill and Angus Brendan MacNeil. All of them are seen as being linked to Salmond.'
So this chap seems to think it is about Salmond vs Sturgeon so perhaps you'll be more persuaded by his view ... oh wait a moment ... that was you NS.
-
You don't seem to understand much about politics in a democracy, do you NS.
Last time I looked politics within a democratic context is all about having the most popular politicians with the most populars policies so that the largest number of people vote for you. If you aren't popular (or more popular than your rivals) then you don't win elections.
So politics in a democracy is based entirely on ad populum principles.
The majority of people might want free unicorns but given there are no unicorns it doesn't mean they will get them. The majority of people might think that this is about a Salmond v Sturgeon head to head but given that what will have an effect is whether Sturgeon lied to the Parliament, they, and you, are simply wrong.
-
Hmm - well if you won't take it from he that it is fundamentally about Salmond vs Sturgeon (because I'm not Scottish - or rather only half Scottish so cannot possibly understand politics in Scotland - a rather patronising view) then perhaps you'll take ot from others who have a better insight into Scottish politics.
So for example, this chap, who sees a reshuffle in Westminster, entirely through the prism of who is a Salmond supporter and who is a Sturgeon supporter - his quote:
'As far as I can see there are 3 SNP MPs to have no position in this list: Joanna Cherry, Kenny MacAskill and Angus Brendan MacNeil. All of them are seen as being linked to Salmond.'
So this chap seems to think it is about Salmond vs Sturgeon so perhaps you'll be more persuaded by his view ... oh wait a moment ... that was you NS.
I haven't ever denied that there is an element of Sturgeon v Salmond in this - I just pointed out that seeing it purely in that light is simplistic. It's way more complex.
Since we are quoting my estimable output see herr
'Secondly it's enormously simplistic in that there are a number of different issues here. The gradualist approach of Sturgeon to independence which is actually Salmind's position as well but those who want to ignore Westminster giving permission for a next referendum are using the split as a flag of convenience. Next, there is a genuine split on GRA reform and in part because of the comments from Joanna Cherry, this too has become a flag of convenience. And the mention of Joanna Cherry adds the split that there are those who see this as much more a case of Cherry v Sturgeon. '
-
The majority of people might want free unicorns but given there are no unicorns it doesn't mean they will get them.
And in democratic politics if they don't get the thing they were promised (and was popular enough for them to vote for) then that party and its politicians will become less popular and fewer people will vote for them,
Politics in a democracy is all about ad popular principles.
-
And in democratic politics if they don't get the thing they were promised (and was popular enough for them to vote for) then that party and its politicians will become less popular and fewer people will vote for them,
Politics in a democracy is all about ad popular principles.
Simply repeating your mistake about facts is very tedious. The inquiry in the parliament is not going to find that Sturgeon lied to parliament, if it does, because of a Salmond v Sturgeon head to head.
-
I haven't ever denied that there is an element of Sturgeon v Salmond in this ...
Really - says the guy who previously opined that:
...the challenge to Sturgeon is not Salmond going 'head to head' with her but whether the inquiry shows she lied to the Parliament.
Which implies that is it about Sturgeon vs the inquiry not Sturgeon vs Salmond.
You do seem a touch confused, particularly as you see a reshuffle in Westminster (which, remember doesn't include either Salmond or Sturgeon as MPs) as entirely framed around who is a Sturgeon supporter and who is a Salmond supporter.
- I just pointed out that seeing it purely in that light is simplistic. It's way more complex.
Indeed which I why I recognise this to be fundamentally about Salmond vs Sturgeon, with the inquiry just being one battle in a rather long and protracted tug of power in the SNP and Scottish politics between the wounded big beast (Salmond) and the young upstart and his protege (Sturgeon).
You are the one showing naivety to complexity if (as seems to be the case) you cannot see that the inquiry is fundamentally framed around, and entirely due to, Salmond vs Sturgeon.
As as touchingly loyal Salmond fan-boy (clearly a rare beast these days, and amazingly we have two here at least) you perhaps lack the neutrality and balance to see the wood from the trees.
-
The inquiry in the parliament is not going to find that Sturgeon lied to parliament, if it does, because of a Salmond v Sturgeon head to head.
Once again to demonstrate your bias.
You are correct that the inquiry will not find that Sturgeon lied to parliament ... and you need go no further.
Why - because the inquiry is about whether Sturgeon misled parliament. Your use of the more inflammatory word lied which isn't the remit of the inquiry is rather telling as to your bias.
-
As as touchingly loyal Salmond fan-boy (clearly a rare beast these days, and amazingly we have two here at least) you perhaps lack the neutrality and balance to see the wood from the trees.
Please show your working for this statement which is quite frankly the most ludicrous thing I've seen on this site - easily outdistancing Nick Marks by a large hadron collider.
-
Once again to demonstrate your bias.
You are correct that the inquiry will not find that Sturgeon lied to parliament ... and you need go no further.
Why - because the inquiry is about whether Sturgeon misled parliament. Your use of the more inflammatory word lied which isn't the remit of the inquiry is rather telling as to your bias.
I think if you want to split the hair between misled/lied, it illustrates your desperation
-
I think if you want to split the hair between misled/lied, it illustrates your desperation
Not at all - the distinction is important and that you want to see the inquiry as being about whether Sturgeon lied to parliament (which isn't its remit), rather than whether she misled parliament and in doing so broke the ministerial code (which is its remit) is telling. It demonstrates that your bias prevents you from being dispassionate and describing the process that is going on appropriately.
-
Not at all - the distinction is important and that you want to see the inquiry as being about whether Sturgeon lied to parliament (which isn't its remit), rather than whether she misled parliament and in doing so broke the ministerial code (which is its remit) is telling. It demonstrates that your bias prevents you from being dispassionate and describing the process that is going on appropriately.
Pray tell, what is the difference between misleading and lying? And we're back at your invented idea of bias which you have knitted from your lack of knowledge.
-
Pray tell, what is the difference between misleading and lying? And we're back at your invented idea of bias which you have knitted from your lack of knowledge.
Lying involves telling a mistruth - saying something that isn't true, and really to be lying that needs to be deliberate - in other words you say something that you know to be untrue.
Misleading is entirely different (although it could encompass lying) - you can mislead without ever telling a lie. A good example being failing to reveal full information, which was deliberately or inadvertently mislead someone. It doesn't involve lying but it may mislead.
Typically most people see lying as a worst form of deceit than misleading, so it is very telling that you use that term, which is of course not the remit of the inquiry.
-
Lying involves telling a mistruth - saying something that isn't true, and really to be lying that needs to be deliberate - in other words you say something that you know to be untrue.
Misleading is entirely different (although it could encompass lying) - you can mislead without ever telling a lie. A good example being failing to reveal full information, which was deliberately or inadvertently mislead someone. It doesn't involve lying but it may mislead.
Typically most people see lying as a worst form of deceit than misleading, so it is very telling that you use that term, which is of course not the remit of the inquiry.
You mean lying by omission? And you do know what the question is? About when Sturgeon knew about the allegations. If she is found to have misled parliament about when, how will that not be a lie?
-
You mean lying by omission? And you do know what the question is? About when Sturgeon knew about the allegations. If she is found to have misled parliament about when, how will that not be a lie?
No, not lying by omission.
Mislead also involves situation where you inadvertently create an impression that isn't the case - it doesn't necessarily involve a deliberate act. Lying, of course, is deliberately saying something that isn't true.
They aren't the same - mislead, while broader (in other words it includes lying) also includes a range of other actions or omissions that are generally considered less significant. Interesting you've decided to replace the word actually used in the inquiry (misled) with one (lie) which is considered much more serious. Hmm, but you aren't biased or anything.
-
No, not lying by omission.
Mislead also involves situation where you inadvertently create an impression that isn't the case - it doesn't necessarily involve a deliberate act. Lying, of course, is deliberately saying something that isn't true.
They aren't the same - mislead, while broader (in other words it includes lying) also includes a range of other actions or omissions that are generally considered less significant. Interesting you've decided to replace the word actually used in the inquiry (misled) with one (lie) which is considered much more serious. Hmm, but you aren't biased or anything.
I see you've ignored the actual question. And mislead does involve an intentional act
-
And mislead does involve an intentional act
Not necessarily. To mislead covers intentional acts/omissions and also unintentional ones. Hence under ministerial code the 'resignation offence' as-it-were is intentionally misleading parliament. There are cases where ministers have been found to have unintentionally misled parliament.
By contrast lying is considered to be an intentional deceitful act.
-
Not necessarily. To mislead covers intentional acts/omissions and also unintentional ones. Hence under ministerial code the 'resignation offence' as-it-were is intentionally misleading parliament. There are cases where ministers have been found to have unintentionally misled parliament.
By contrast lying is considered to be an intentional deceitful act.
So the sense it is used here it is intentional
-
So the sense it is used here it is intentional
No, not necessarily. In the past there have been inquiries which have found that ministers have unintentionally misled parliament - that is unlikely to be a resignation offence, but may require the minister to apologise and/or correct any statement or omission that unintentionally caused parliament to be misled.
So if this is all about potential breach of the ministerial code then the inquiry will presumably be considering the whole range of potential issues that stem from 'misled parliament' - so that will include both intentional and unintentional.
Worth noting too that there are situations where legal restrictions prevent a minister from being able to inform parliament fully on a particular issue, even if parliament would love to know about it and request information. That inability to reveal full information could be construed as 'misleading parliament', but would be covered by legal mitigation.
-
No, not necessarily. In the past there have been inquiries which have found that ministers have unintentionally misled parliament - that is unlikely to be a resignation offence, but may require the minister to apologise and/or correct any statement or omission that unintentionally caused parliament to be misled.
So if this is all about potential breach of the ministerial code then the inquiry will presumably be considering the whole range of potential issues that stem from 'misled parliament' - so that will include both intentional and unintentional.
Worth noting too that there are situations where legal restrictions prevent a minister from being able to inform parliament fully on a particular issue, even if parliament would love to know about it and request information. That inability to reveal full information could be construed as 'misleading parliament', but would be covered by legal mitigation.
Does any of that apply here to the specific question?
-
Does any of that apply here to the specific question?
The specific question of what? You seem to be focussing on the inquiry, so presumably you mean the question being asked by the inquiry. Well absolutely - it is integral to the inquiry.
-
Maybe the guys in YouGov aren't spending enough time in Scotland.
YouGov are just asking the questions, as is the role of a polling organisation. In this case the questions were answered exclusively by people on Scotland on their favourable view or otherwise of various politicians and parties. Why would the notion of whether YouGov do, or do not, spend lots of time in Scotland have any bearing on the results of such simple and standard favourability questions?
-
Another set of recent polling from YouGov, which NS and Gordon as our resident Salmond fan-boys may be interested in. This time specifically looking at Sturgeon vs Salmond in relation to the inquiry.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xzean1bi82/InternalResults_SalmondSturgeon_210125.pdf
So on the question:
'What you have seen or heard about the Alex Salmond inquiry and how it relates to Nicola Sturgeon, do you think each of the following has or has not generally told the truth?'
Both are in negative territory - in other words more people feel they have not told the truth than have, but the differences between the two on net result are quite striking. Sturgeon -6; Salmond -37.
Overall 50% of people think Sturgeon should resign if she is found to have misled parliament - interestingly I find this surprisingly low, as I'd have thought that misleading parliament (or rather deliberatively misleading parliament) was pretty well an automatic resigning offence. Perhaps the Scottish people are a bit more sophisticated in the understanding of unintentional vs deliberate misleading of parliament. Or, of course, it might be just good old fashioned politics as opposition party supporters want her gone while SNP supporters want her not to resign.
-
Another set of recent polling from YouGov, which NS and Gordon as our resident Salmond fan-boys may be interested in.
Sorry, no point in reading beyond this made up nonsense of yours
-
Another set of recent polling from YouGov, which NS and Gordon as our resident Salmond fan-boys may be interested in. This time specifically looking at Sturgeon vs Salmond in relation to the inquiry.
I am most definitely NOT a Salmond fan-boy.
-
Sorry, no point in reading beyond this made up nonsense of yours
Don't want to know whether people in Scotland tend to consider that your idol is more or less likely to be telling the truth than Sturgeon?
I guess when you are one of the last of the true believers it is hard to see how a once great (and hugely popular) figure in Scottish politics is now considered so unfavourably.
-
Don't want to know whether people in Scotland tend to consider that your idol is more or less likely to be telling the truth than Sturgeon?
I guess when you are one of the last of the true believers it is hard to see how a once great (and hugely popular) figure in Scottish politics is now considered so unfavourably.
Why are you making stuff up?
-
I am most definitely NOT a Salmond fan-boy.
Really?
I may have misjudged you - I think you are less overt in your unerring pro-Salmond posting than your erstwhile chum NS, who seems unable to post anything other than stuff from the of pro-Salmond true believer echo chamber, who while rather small in number seem to punch above their weight in terms of media profile, which is unsurprising as they are often part of the Scottish political elite class of the past two decades (albeit having lost their power base in the past few years).
-
Really?
I may have misjudged you - I think you are less overt in your unerring pro-Salmond posting than your erstwhile chum NS, who seems unable to post anything other than stuff from the of pro-Salmond true believer echo chamber, who while rather small in number seem to punch above their weight in terms of media profile, which is unsurprising as they are often part of the Scottish political elite class of the past two decades (albeit having lost their power base in the past few years).
Where is my 'unerring pro-Salmond' posting? And your use of 'erstwhile' is just further evidence of your fevered imaginings
-
Why are you making stuff up?
What stuff am I making up.
I am simply using the evidence from two very recent polls which shows that the Scottish public have a poorer opinion of Salmond than of any other political or party considered in the survey. And that they are far more likely to think that Salmond isn't telling the truth in the inquiry than Sturgeon.
How am I making up stuff - perhaps you don't want to hear it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
-
What stuff am I making up.
I am simply using the evidence from two very recent polls which shows that the Scottish public have a poorer opinion of Salmond than of any other political or party considered in the survey. And that they are far more likely to think that Salmond isn't telling the truth in the inquiry than Sturgeon.
How am I making up stuff - perhaps you don't want to hear it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
We are talking about your wild assertion about me being a Salmond fan boy.
-
Really?
I may have misjudged you - I think you are less overt in your unerring pro-Salmond posting than your erstwhile chum NS, who seems unable to post anything other than stuff from the of pro-Salmond true believer echo chamber, who while rather small in number seem to punch above their weight in terms of media profile, which is unsurprising as they are often part of the Scottish political elite class of the past two decades (albeit having lost their power base in the past few years).
I abhor Salmond: always have, so I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion that I'm a fan of his.
-
I abhor Salmond: always have, so I've no idea how you've come to the conclusion that I'm a fan of his.
Fair enough - please accept my apologies for tarring you with the same brush as NS who has been consistently pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon in his comments on this thread and in particular in his elective choice of links to opinion pieces (full evidence will be forthcoming).
-
Fair enough - please accept my apologies for tarring you with the same brush as NS who has been consistently pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon in his comments on this thread and in particular in his elective choice of links to opinion pieces (full evidence will be forthcoming).
I am on tenterhooks to find out what nonsense you manage to pull together. Meanwhile here's a quote from me on reply 79 on this thread which was a reply to you.
'To repeat ;It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money'. It's also an attempt to make the judicial review which might agree that the process was technically flawed, can then be spun as a 'clearing of his name' when it isn't anything of the sort. That Salmond is playing politics and misrepresenting the law, doesn't make him correct'
-
... NS who has been consistently pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon in his comments on this thread and in particular in his elective choice of links to opinion pieces (full evidence will be forthcoming).
Here you go NS - virtually every external news/opinion piece you've linked to on this thread, with an indication as to whether they are:
Factual and if has an element of opinion whether it is pro/anti Salmond/Strugeon, and in very rare cases, pro-the women making the allegations. A couple a paywalled so I cannot comment:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45287672
Broadly factual – mildly pro-Salmond
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-why-should-salmond-be-treated-any-differently-1-4789829
Pro-Sturgeon
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/columnists/16609766.the-court-of-session-wont-clear-salmonds-name-heres-the-facts/
Factual
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-what-woman-would-put-herself-through-this-1-4793591/amp
Pro-the women
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias/
Factual – largely pro-Salmond
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50486713
Factual
https://archive.is/aDdVn#selection-1569.150-1569.458
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/alex-bell/1222015/alex-bell-when-your-best-defence-is-im-sleazy-but-not-criminal-its-nothing-to-smile-about/amp/?utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Balanced
https://theconversation.com/amp/alex-salmond-acquittal-looming-fall-out-for-snp-could-ignite-civil-war-134820?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton&__twitter_impression=true
Largely pro-Salmond
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/04/01/dani-garavelli-alex-salmond-verdict-scotland/content.html?sig=FaoRWeabiPXUdWXtVhkIce83Zix0RmVMwH63Tlexbb4&fbclid=IwAR3ruGQPGc3onDXdGoPIjq-o0Anb6ANlVAEVhy6SR2-5EOLsYJwJwZglMzM
Paywall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmonds-lawyer-claims-recording-of-him-discussing-case-was-a-set-up-rmwfd88hf?shareToken=024c13d030e2f5956146775ef4aeecc8
Pro-Salmond
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-letter-to-humza-yousaf/
Pro-Salmond
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53805254
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon/Evans
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/mp-demands-probe-nicola-sturgeons-22696185.amp?__twitter_impression=true
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://wingsoverscotland.com/cracks-in-the-fog/#more-118449
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/difficult-not-to-be-worried/amp/
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/inside-alex-salmond-inquiry-it-has-been-wading-through-treacle-2977541
Paywall
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18742981.kenny-macaskill-calls-snp-suspend-peter-murrell/
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://archive.is/s24dj
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/either-nicola-sturgeon-or-geoff-aberdein-is-lying-on-oath-and-proving-which-will-be-easy/?fbclid=IwAR1Dzf7RtllRMAT5dz29Pb9zFQiq-I1-a56PImU6qqj9if0W8T7aNZ0FUeQ
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/11/25/scottish-government-defeated-again-over-refusal-to-publish-salmo/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI_zTT6dQF9y2tKUkYadt8XsuFuNYajwedzec3HYlxqAZcMWf4oP4kktQGgKrc7YlGXCJKpt51xUrqNP5kDI7JOD-Roye3OpY3mBsR9NZgbqpce8igBRWALirH6Ay_gMD5HHhZKS17U0vDZMIz4af3yQmqO_KyQlXAATGFA0RYb_
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18998623.alex-salmond-accuses-nicola-sturgeon-giving-untrue-evidence-holyrood-inquiry/
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,what-about-the-women
Pro- the women
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-inquiry-committee-wont-get-nicola-sturgeon-key-evidence-t0r9frphz
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18506768.craig-murray-hearing-alex-salmond-case-take-place-today/
Paywall
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-sworn-evidence-on-the-sturgeon-affair/#click=https://t.co/O7nrRh9GAk
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55863264
Largely factual, but marginally pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55873821
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19054750.snp-sack-joanna-cherry-westminster-front-bench-team/
Paywall
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-chief-executive-peter-murrell-turns-down-alex-salmond-inquiry-invite-3120287
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
https://www.snp.org/the-real-opposition-meet-your-new-snp-westminster-frontbench-team/
Factual
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1387084/nicola-sturgeon-news-snp-resign-sturgeon-misled-parliament-claims-alex-salmond-enquiry
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
The pieces you choose to link to are overwhelmingly pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon and that is reflected in your comments alongside the articles you choose to link to.
-
Some more quotes from me on this thread:
Reply 51
I don't know here. Obviously no matter what lese you think of Salmond. he's a very able politician. But by time this is over, he will have been out of mainstream politics for 5 years. say? It's also not the only issue that some in the SNP have had with him, see the RT programme, and then there are his opponents gleefully publishing photos of him looking the worse for wear on a train, and the folks, who even if his legal challenge to the govt gets upheld, and no case is brought forward for criminal proceedings, or any such case results in a not guilty verdict. will think 'no smoke without fire'.
Though not quite in his league, Jim Sillars was once the comet streaking through the darks skies of Scottish politics, and now he has taken up the role from Gordon Wilson of the odd uncle shouting sexist and racist comments from underneath his tartan blanket. There is already a level of discomfort in the friends I have in the SNP over him in his actions here, and elsewhere, that I cannot rule out the same fate for him.
Reply 73
Except the crowdfunding is only for, and can only be for the judicial review. Salmond's language is incorrect, and I would suggest deliberately so. People may well think they are contributing to his defence for some as yet non existent criminal trial and they would be wrong. There's a case to made that any such crowdfunding description needs to be much clearer about what can actually be achieved by what the money is being raised for.
Reply 76 the 'he' in he's wrong is Salmond
yes, and he's wrong. It has nothing to do with any legal defence in any criminal case. It's a deliberate ploy to raise more money. As Andrew Tickell in the link I provided makes clear, it can do nothing to clear his name.
Reply 82 again the'he' here is Salmond
The crowd funding statement finished with
'It is a rare thing to be devoted to a cause more important than any individual, it is a precious thing to cherish it and my intention now - as it has always been - is to protect and sustain that cause.'
That's wrapping up what is good for him with what is good for independence.
That you agree with him when he and you are factually wrong is of no consequence. The legal details are laid out in the Tickell column.
Reply 88
That's his case in part for the judicial review but at this stage we don't know the truth. That he thinks it can clear his name doesn't make him right, and that he may have reasons for portraying it that way even if he thinks it's incorrect needs to be understood. Agani I'll take the Tickell column as a better statement of the law than Salmond's attempt at crowdfunding
Reply 92
And his 'intention' now as he says is to serve independence. That covers the actoin that he is taking. Also if you want to look at some of the comments on the crowdfunding page, and indeed his support across social media, you will see that many see the judicial review as part of the fight for independence, and I would suggest that Salmpnd, being as ever a canny operator when needed, is using this exactly to his advantage with that statement - as you say, much of this is about using that 'soft' power to his advantage which is precisely why he makes this to do with independence
Reply 112
I think this is where you may be missing the political nuance going on . Let:s start with what we agree on. Salmond's statement is a self serving one designed to raise a wodge of dosh. He doesn't actually need it,, it's a statement of power. And yes you are absolutely right that that power may intimidate any accusers.
But, and here's the nuance, there has been for some time a movement in the SNP that Sturgeon isn't pushing the case for independence strongly enough, l lunatic shouts for UDI. At the same time Salmond's show on RT , following on his previous pash for Putin, has alienated some who are it as likely to win over previous No voters. Salmond, rather like Blair, has made various comments about returning to mainstream politics. The anti gradualists see this as an opportunity. Neither Salmon d, nor Sturgeon would have chosen this as a battlefield but it begins to feel increasingly like that. For anyone understanding this Salmond's 'intention now' to serve independence in that paragraph is a loud dog whistle. r
Equally when Sturgeon replied that she and Salmond were in agreement that independence was bigger than any one person, the sound of the sucking of teeth amongst those involved in Scottish politics was deafening, as it effectively translated into 'Get your tanks off my lawn, old man!'
Reply 113
As I said I take his opinion as more definitive than yours.The judicial review does nothing about Salmond clearing his name and you and Salmond are incorrect on that. By the way, I am struggling to understand why if you think Salmond is acting deviously that you take the words in the statement actually true rather than a deliberate manipulation
Reply 127
There is no ultimate outcome in that sense legally which is the point that Tickell makes which you and Salmond disagree with.
Reply 139
And yet you took the position of disagreeing with Tickell and agreeing with Salmond about what was covered by the judicial review. If you don't disagree with Tickell, then you would accept that in putting forward his case that Salmond was wrong is correct?
Reply 153
And less embarrassment to him. You seem very naïve about the politics here, and indeed arguing against yourself. Remember when you said the crowdfunding statement seemed all about Salmond? Just apply that idea consistently.
Reply 164
Sorry, I don't see where your post addresses the question. It's about your opinion of Salmond which seems to think that while being self serving, you somehow don't think that he might use people by implying that Independence is wrapped up.in how he his treated. Your idea of Salmond and the SNP and independence as the same is overly simplistic.
Reply 168
This reads as if every women I know in the Yes movement who has questioned Salmond's action and some of the support, including McWhirter who tweeted about Salmond's reputation being lost for a couple of tawdry front pages' and thereby undermining any person making the allegations, is part of the establishment trying to do Salmond down. And while that is a acerbic, it's way off nail on the head.
Reply 170 -again the he is Salmond
And being self obsessed as you think he is he turns all of that to be about him, and because you aren't close enough to what is going on in Scottish politics you miss that, and make an overly simplistic and contradictory analysis.
Reply 183
Dearie me! NS doesn't see it as purely about Scottish politics, but NS can understand why your lack of knowledge about it makes you so insecure that you have to misrepresent NS. I think that Salmond is indulging in an abuse of power here, a number of my posts make that clear. Thatthere is a nuance on how he is doing it makes no difference to that point. Kindly stop misrepresenting what is being said.
Reply 397
It tells you nothing other than the verdict. On social media I've seem those supportive of Salmond saying it shows all the women lied, and those not saying how can they be saying that that all the women lied. It says neither of those things.
Salmond is almost an irrelevance now beyond a symbol of what various groups give to him. He's got nothing to move onto other than that.
Reply 438
All such politics is the same, and all such politics is unique.
There is, in many ways, no reason why you should be closely foliowing or concerned with the internecine battles of the SNP. Their success, as is so often the case, brings about division, though the irony of politics is that failure redoubles division.
There is a longstanding division between gradualists and nowists in the SNP which is being played out in a number of ways. The Salmond rape case is one. The Gender Recognition Act reform another. The various constituency battles for who is nominated as an MSP candidate in next year's Holyrood election another. It's become a battle of Salmondites vs Sturgeonites. Each difference magnified by the overall split. In a sense this is Big Endians vs Little Endians - a tragedy of small differences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences
The chance for Scottish independence has never been closer but the very success of the SNP puts that in jeopardy. It is, in the Greek mythological sense, tantalising.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalus
To be fair, splits are always a thing in parties even without success. Salmond was, after all, thrown out of the party over 30 years ago and that was when they were not much more than a fringe grouping. No matter the size or success, there will always be the tendency to be The Judean People's Front, and The People's Front of Judea etc etc.
Reply 446
To an extent I agree but there are, as I have covered previously, 2 main splits in policy. The more important is in terms of how to pursue independence with the Salmondites looking for a much more aggressive approach versus the gradualist Sturgeonites. Given it's a party based around independence this is fundamental.
The other area is as regards the reform of the Gender Recognition Act with the Salmondites being much more likely to oppose the reforms.
-
One of the illustrations of Prof D's ignorance when it comes to Scottish politics is in his wee trawl of articles, he didn't notice my fulsome approbation of the journalist Dani Garavelli and her articles on this. Anyone with some knowledge would know that Dani is a figure of hate of many of the Salmondites.
-
One of the illustrations of Prof D's ignorance when it comes to Scottish politics is in his wee trawl of articles, he didn't notice my fulsome approbation of the journalist Dani Garavelli and her articles on this. Anyone with some knowledge would know that Dani is a figure of hate of many of the Salmondites.
Yes I did - one of them I indicated as pro-women (one of the very few). But the other one was behind a paywall, and so it isn't possible for me to comment (as I made clear).
And it isn't a wee trawl of articles - it is every link you've made on this thread, excluding a couple that were dead links and one about gogglebox which seemed pretty irrelevant.
So by my count of the 34 articles you've linked to in this thread (excluding dead links and gogglebox):
23 are pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon
4 are behind paywall so I cannot comment
3 are basically factual with no opinion
2 are pro the women making the accusations
1 is balanced
1 is pro Sturgeon
See my point.
-
Yes I did - one of them I indicated as pro-women (one of the very few). But the other one was behind a paywall, and so it isn't possible for me to comment (as I made clear).
And it isn't a wee trawl of articles - it is every link you've made on this thread, excluding a couple that were dead links and one about gogglebox which seemed pretty irrelevant.
So by my count of the 34 articles you've linked to:
23 are pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon
4 are behind paywall so I cannot comment
3 are basically factual with no opinion
2 are pro the women making the accusations
1 is balanced
1 is pro Sturgeon
See my point.
No, since I do not agree with all links I post. I specifically call out my approval of Dani's and you have just ignored the point about your ignorance of the significance of that.
-
No, since I do not agree with all links I post. I specifically call out my approval of Dani's and you have just ignored the point about your ignorance of the significance of that.
I haven't ignored it at all - indeed looking back at my list there are two articles by her (although one seems to have gone dead as a link) - one I indicated as pro-Sturgeon (the only one) and one as pro-women (one of just two).
Which leave the 23 pro-Salmond articles, which begs the question why if you don't agree with the pro-Salmond/anti-Sturgeon articles, why post them, and more significantly why make such comments as:
'Ooft!'
'Not a good look'
'And this looks awful'
'Salmond accuses Sturgeon of lying.'
'Scottish govt defeated for second time on its approach to the Salmond inquiry'
'The Return of Alec'
'I agree with a lot of this.'
About articles having a go at Sturgeon, clearly purring at her discomfort and him getting the upper hand (or rather so the writers of those opinion pieces think).
Bottom line - people tend to link to opinion pieces they agree with - it would be very odd to link to an opinion piece you disagreed with and not make that clear. I'm struggling to see any of the pro-Salmond/anti-Sturgeon pieces (all 23 of them) where you are clear you disagree with that pro-Salmond/anti-Sturgeon sentiment that you'd just linked to.
-
I haven't ignored it at all - indeed looking back at my list there are two articles by her (although one seems to have gone dead as a link) - one I indicated as pro-Sturgeon (the only one) and one as pro-women (one of just two).
Which leave the 23 pro-Salmond articles, which begs the question why if you don't agree with the pro-Salmond/anti-Sturgeon articles, why post them, and more significantly why make such comments as:
'Ooft!'
'Not a good look'
'And this looks awful'
'Salmond accuses Sturgeon of lying.'
'Scottish govt defeated for second time on its approach to the Salmond inquiry'
'The Return of Alec'
'I agree with a lot of this.'
About articles having a go at Sturgeon, clearly purring at her discomfort and him getting the upper hand (or rather so the writers of those opinion pieces think).
Bottom line - people tend to link to opinion pieces they agree with - it would be very odd to link to an opinion piece you disagreed with and not make that clear. I'm struggling to see any of the pro-Salmond/anti-Sturgeon pieces (all 23 of them) where you are clear you disagree with that pro-Salmond/anti-Sturgeon sentiment that you'd just linked to.
I didn't say that ignored the articles, rather my fulsome approbation including referring to her as one of Scotland's best journalists, and you being ignorant of the hatred that many Salmondites have for her, in part for these articles.
As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding. It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.
I do find it bizarre in your rather bizarre desire to cling to your little fantasy that you have decided to ignore what I actually wrote about Salmond.
-
I do find it bizarre in your rather bizarre desire to cling to your little fantasy that you have decided to ignore what I actually wrote about Salmond.
If you don't want to be described as a Salmond fan-boy I suspect you shouldn't link to article after article that is pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck.
-
As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding.
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting
'Ooft!'
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding.
-
If you don't want to be described as a Salmond fan-boy I suspect you shouldn't link to article after article that is pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck.
Odd that you have just ignored what I actually said about Salmond. Why is that?
-
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting
'Ooft!'
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding.
What a lovely piece of quotemining. What did the rest of the paragraph that you mined it from say?
-
What a lovely piece of quotemining. What did the rest of the paragraph that you mined it from say?
Nope - that was your entire quote reproduced in full. Perhaps if I had neglected to include the exclamation mark you might be able to accuse me of quotemining - but I didn't. Difficult to see how you can sustain an accusation of quotemining when I've included your entire quote in full.
-
Nope - that was your entire quote reproduced in full. Perhaps if I had neglected to include the exclamation mark you might be able to accuse me of quotemining - but I didn't. Difficult to see how you can sustain an accusation of quotemining when I've included your entire quote in full.
What I am referring to is when you did this in that post.
As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding.
So what did the rest of the paragraph say, and why did you quotemine?
-
If you don't want to be described as a Salmond fan-boy I suspect you shouldn't link to article after article that is pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck.
I've at times cited sections of 'Answers in Genesis' but that doesn't make me a Young Earth Creationist' - the citing of link doesn't necessarily imply agreement with the sentiments expressed in said link.
-
I've at times cited sections of 'Answers in Genesis' but that doesn't make me a Young Earth Creationist' - the citing of link doesn't necessarily imply agreement with the sentiments expressed in said link.
No - but if you don't agree I'd expect some comment to that effect. And you'd probably balance with links to opinion pieces you do agree with.
So if someone routinely links to articles which are pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon (23 times), without comment that he doesn't agree with that sentiment, virtually never links to articles that are anti-Salmond and/or pro-Sturgeon (once), then I think it is reasonable to draw a conclusion that the person in question is ... err ... pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon.
-
So what did the rest of the paragraph say, and why did you quotemine?
You made no further comment except 'Ooft', that's it, nothing more, that is the entirely of your quote.
How can I be quotemining if I reproduce your entire quote.
-
You made no further comment except 'Ooft', that's it, nothing more, that is the entirely of your quote.
How can I be quotemining if I reproduce your entire quote.
Did you even read my last post -the quotemining isn't the 'ooft'. Go back reread my last post slowly and you will perhaps be able to see the quotemine. It's made quite explicit, and I'm sure if you concentrate hard you will be able to understand.
-
No - but if you don't agree I'd expect some comment to that effect. And you'd probably balance with links to opinion pieces you do agree with.
So if someone routinely links to articles which are pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon (23 times), without comment that he doesn't agree with that sentiment, virtually never links to articles that are anti-Salmond and/or pro-Sturgeon (once), then I think it is reasonable to draw a conclusion that the person in question is ... err ... pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon.
Why are you ignoring the 2 posts where I quote what I wrote about Salmond? They aren't fan boy statements. Is it because it's too hard to deal with your little fantasy crumbling away?
-
Did you even read my last post -the quotemining isn't the 'ooft'. Go back reread my last post slowly and you will perhaps be able to see the quotemine. It's made quite explicit, and I'm sure if you concentrate hard you will be able to understand.
Yes - and I've gone back and read it really, really slowly.
There is no quotemining - in my post that you complained was quotemining 'Ooft!' I used your entire quote from an earlier post, which was a single word - 'Ooft!'.
And given that the context was you rather patronisingly claiming that your arguments are complex and cannot be seems as simplistic, then to reply that one of your supposedly complex and sophisticated argument was ... well ... 'Ooft!' (in its entirety - nothing left out from your quote whatsoever).
Give up NS - accept that I'm not quotemining and move on.
-
Yes - and I've gone back and read it really, really slowly.
There is no quotemining - in my post that you complained was quotemining 'Ooft!' I used your entire quote from an earlier post, which was a single word - 'Ooft!'.
And given that the context was you rather patronisingly claiming that your arguments are complex and cannot be seems as simplistic, then to reply that one of your supposedly complex and sophisticated argument was ... well ... 'Ooft!' (in its entirety - nothing left out from your quote whatsoever).
Give up NS - accept that I'm not quotemining and move on.
And again for the hard of comprehension. I did not say the 'Ooft' was a quotemine.In fact I have explicitly stated that the 'Ooft' was not a quotemine. Have you understood that bit? I know it's pretty simple stuff but you don't seem able to understand even that.
Next I helped you out in reply 597 by quoting what was the quotemine, and asking you about that. Just for you, here it is again
As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding.
Now read that slowly, maybe a couple of times, you can ask someone else for help if you need.
So what did the rest of the paragraph say, and why did you quotemine?
-
If you don't want to be described as a Salmond fan-boy I suspect you shouldn't link to article after article that is pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck.
From my experience, it only walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck in your head PD.
You've spouted your "it's telling" assertions before without any compelling evidence to support them.
I have been following this issue and I really don't care one way or the other regarding Sturgeon or Salmond other than it is quite interesting reading about politicians getting caught out in their lies or not following proper procedure because they think themselves able to get away with it. It wouldn't surprise me if both Sturgeon and Salmond have lied to/ intentionally misled Parliament. People do it quite often if they think they can get away with it, and politicians have repeatedly proved themselves to have the same weaknesses as the general public.
It's always more interesting catching members of a government ignoring or abusing due process or involved in a stich-up or lying, as a government's greater access to resources and the power they wield over people's lives means that government abuse of process usually has a relatively greater negative impact compared to non-government abuses.
Sturgeon's husband contradicting Sturgeon's testimony to the Holyrood inquiry about whether Sturgeon considered the sexual assault allegations against Salmond as party or government business was interesting. As were the articles about when Sturgeon found out about the allegations against Salmond and whether she knowingly misled Parliament about the date she found out.
I don't think these views make me pro-Salmond, I think they just make me anti-government Ministers being intentionally careless with the truth for political gain especially where it involves mishandling processes set up to impartially investigate allegations of abuse.
-
I did not say the 'Ooft' was a quotemine.
I'm sorry NS - you did - it is there for all to see in reply595:
Where you describe my reply 593 as 'What a lovely piece of quotemining.'
You will note of course that in my reply 593 I only use a single word quote of yours, namely 'Ooft' - so if you think I am quotemining (as you claimed in 595) it can only refer to ''Ooft' as there is no other quote to refer to.
-
I'm sorry NS - you did - it is there for all to see in reply595:
Where you describe my reply 593 as 'What a lovely piece of quotemining.'
You will note of course that in my reply 593 I only use a single word quote of yours, namely 'Ooft' - so if you think I am quotemining (as you claimed in 595) it can only refer to ''Ooft' as there is no other quote to refer to.
At the top of your reply, this is you quoting me
As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding.
I've pointed out a couple of times that this is the quotemine. Now you are denying that the quote is in there. This sort of denial of facts makes indulging in your fantasy world pretty pointless. But let me give you one last chance to try to accept that the above is a quote from me in reply 593, that you apologise for denying it.
-
All sounds a bit fishy to me.
-
At the top of your reply, this is you quoting me
I've pointed out a couple of times that this is the quotemine. Now you are denying that the quote is in there. This sort of denial of facts makes indulging in your fantasy world pretty pointless. But let me give you one last chance to try to accept that the above is a quote from me in reply 593, that you apologise for denying it.
Stop talking non-sense NS.
For something to be a quote mine, by definition, it has to involve a quote - the clue is in the name.
The only quote I used in my comment in reply 593 was Ooft!, so that is the only part of the post that could possibly be a quote mine.
The first sentence is entirely my own - it isn't a quote and therefore cannot possibly be a quotemine, as it contains no quote from you.
So to give my reply in full (with my annotation):
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)
'Ooft!' (a quote from you, so could plausibly be a quotemine - but isn't)
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding. (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)
-
Stop talking non-sense NS.
For something to be a quote mine, by definition, it has to involve a quote - the clue is in the name.
The only quote I used in reply 593 was Ooft!, so that is the only part of the post that could possibly be a quote mine.
The first sentence is entirely my own - it isn't a quote and therefore cannot possibly be a quotemine, as it contains no quote from you.
So to give my reply in full (with my annotation):
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)
'Ooft!' (a quote from you, so could plausibly be a quotemine - but isn't)
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding. (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)
I pointed out the quote you use at the start of reply 593 3 times now. You are denying reality.
-
I pointed out the quote you use at the start of reply 593 3 times now. You are denying reality.
No I'm not - the only quote that I included in my comment in reply593 is Ooft!
The only quote in your reply595 when you accuse me of quotemining is Ooft!
Please show me where in reply 595 (your accusation of quotemining) that there is any other quote except Ooft! - there isn't.
-
Here you go NS - virtually every external news/opinion piece you've linked to on this thread, with an indication as to whether they are:
Factual and if has an element of opinion whether it is pro/anti Salmond/Strugeon, and in very rare cases, pro-the women making the allegations. A couple a paywalled so I cannot comment:
PD - I had a read of some of the articles that you assert are pro-Salmond. After I while I realised that 1)your assertion was your opinion as the articles do not read to me as being pro-Salmond or where they do report some pro-Salmond opinions you do not seem to take into account the context.
So I did not see the point of reading every article after reading the 1st few you claimed were pro-Salmond but did not appear that way to me. Maybe you're just biased.
For example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
Why is this BBC article pro-Salmond? It reports that Salmond won the judicial review. "The government's admission that it had not followed the correct procedures came during a hearing at the Court of Session on Tuesday morning."
Which parts do you interpret as being pro-Salmond?
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias/
Factual – largely pro-Salmond
Same question - why do you read it as being largely pro-Salmond?
It reports "The decision does not exonerate Mr Salmond of the underlying allegations of sexual harassment – which he strenuously denies. It does not close the case or end the ongoing police investigation. It doesn’t tell us anything about whether the claims made against him are credible or not....when he launched his judicial review petition the former First Minister’s case seemed mainly to focus on the fairness of the complaints procedure itself.....The Court of Session made no determination – for or against – the merits of these arguments yesterday. Instead, its decision was limited to the question of apparent bias. Bias isn’t concerned with the inherent fairness of the Scottish Government’s protocol – but the outlook and behaviour of key decision-makers in this particular case.....The Scottish Government conceded the civil servant’s investigation could be tainted by this impression. Reviewing the paper trail, it became apparent the functionary responsible for investigating the complaints had had prior contact with the complainers about their case. The precise nature of this contact is not in the public domain."
https://archive.is/aDdVn#selection-1569.150-1569.458
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon
I had a look at the context of this article and it was posted in relation to whether there would be an SNP split because of the pro-Salmond vs anti-Salmond factions. In #408 NS says "Unlike anchorman, I think there are primarily 2 factions at the moment and when parties get to having fewer factions it then becomes more problematic and likelier to lead to a split. There are many on Salmond's side talkinb about this being a conspiracy pulled together between the women in the case, the civil service, the anti Salmond faction, the Uk govt and the security services. Now if this was just a minor faction that wouldn't matter but it isn't."
https://theconversation.com/amp/alex-salmond-acquittal-looming-fall-out-for-snp-could-ignite-civil-war-134820?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton&__twitter_impression=true
Largely pro-Salmond
Again why do you see this as largely pro-Salmond?
This was posted by NS in the context of showing the possibility of an SNP civil war "In the immediate aftermath of the decision, much of the political tension within the SNP that had been in hiatus during the criminal proceedings resurfaced, if only temporarily, due to the COVID-19 issue....Coupled with a potential internal SNP battle which could expose the bitterness and bad blood simmering within the party, the long-term effects of the Salmond acquittal could be immense."
The article states "A picture of this stressful workplace emerged, where the most powerful person in government was failing fully to respect personal space, an issue that caused Gordon Jackson to say that Salmond “could have been a better man on occasion”. That, however, did not amount to criminality." That does not make Salmond look good.
The article supports the bringing of criminal charges against Salmond "There will always be people found not guilty, but it does not mean that potential criminal behaviour should not be investigated and brought to court for a jury to decide upon."
Like I said I did not see the point of continuing, given the first few articles seemed to not support your assertion that the articles are pro-Salmond or you missed the context in which they were posted.
-
No I'm not - the only quote that I included in my comment in reply593 is Ooft!
The only quote in your reply595 when you accuse me of quotemining is Ooft!
Please show me where in reply 595 (your accusation of quotemining) that there is any other quote except Ooft! - there isn't.
At the very start of reply 593 there is the quote from me that I have quoted in posts. It's even helpfully in a little box following the system generated statement that it is a quote of NearlySane.
-
Stop talking non-sense NS.
For something to be a quote mine, by definition, it has to involve a quote - the clue is in the name.
The only quote I used in my comment in reply 593 was Ooft!, so that is the only part of the post that could possibly be a quote mine.
The first sentence is entirely my own - it isn't a quote and therefore cannot possibly be a quotemine, as it contains no quote from you.
So to give my reply in full (with my annotation):
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)
'Ooft!' (a quote from you, so could plausibly be a quotemine - but isn't)
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding. (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)
It's really not difficult to see the quote mine referred to by NS - it took me all of a couple of minutes.
NS wrote in #591 "As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding. It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.
I do find it bizarre in your rather bizarre desire to cling to your little fantasy that you have decided to ignore what I actually wrote about Salmond."
PD then quote-mined #591 by only quoting "As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding." and replied
"Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting
'Ooft!'
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding."
Then in #595 NS pointed out that PD had quote-mined #591.
-
At the very start of reply 593 there is the quote from me that I have quoted in posts. It's even helpfully in a little box following the system generated statement that it is a quote of NearlySane.
Which you don't include in your reply where you accuse me of quotemining - how can that accusation refer to something that you don't include nor mention in your actual post. It is nonsense.
And even if it is the bit that you don't refer to, it still isn't quotemining as the point I made in relationship to it isn't altered even were I to have used a larger quote. Your point was that when linking to articles your comments allude to the complex nature of the arguments, while mine are simplistic.
Yet of course your comments to the links include such detailed and sophisticate arguments such as Ooft!. There is no quotemining as exactly the same comment could have been made, with no greater or lesser relevance, had I included the whole post - I chose not to as I like to focus on the nub of the argument.
You seem not to understand the difference between quotemining and someone posting a comment you don't like.
-
I didn't say that ignored the articles, rather my fulsome approbation including referring to her as one of Scotland's best journalists, and you being ignorant of the hatred that many Salmondites have for her, in part for these articles.
As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding. It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.
I do find it bizarre in your rather bizarre desire to cling to your little fantasy that you have decided to ignore what I actually wrote about Salmond.
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting
'Ooft!'
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding.
-
Which you don't include in your reply where you accuse me of quotemining - how can that accusation refer to something that you don't include nor mention in your actual post. It is nonsense.
And even if it is the bit that you don't refer to, it still isn't quotemining as the point I made in relationship to it isn't altered even were I to have used a larger quote. Your point was that when linking to articles your comments allude to the complex nature of the arguments, while mine are simplistic.
Yet of course your comments to the links include such detailed and sophisticate arguments such as Ooft!. There is no quotemining as exactly the same comment could have been made, with no greater or lesser relevance, had I included the whole post - I chose not to as I like to focus on the nub of the argument.
You seem not to understand the difference between quotemining and someone posting a comment you don't like.
I pointed out what I meant numerous times and you just denied that there was such a quote in your reply 593. Pity even in struggling to admit that you were wrong about your reply 593, you are unable to apologise.
-
There you go NS - you now cannot accuse me of quotemining as I've now included the whole of your earlier post.
Note of course that the inclusion of the full post makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning or relevance of my comment - which means that it cannot be quotemining as that involves taking a selected quote out of context to change its meaning. In this case it doesn't, albeit using the whole longer comment is more cumbersome as the key point was your rather patronising suggestion that my understanding, as demonstrated in my comments is simplistic, while yours is nuanced by complexity and sophistication.
-
Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting
'Ooft!'
Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding.
Just to note that in the post of mine that you quoted (note the quote is the first part of your post that I am replying to here), I was pointing out that you were continuing to ignore what I actually said about Salmond. I provided those quotes. You are still ignoring them.
-
I pointed out what I meant numerous times and you just denied that there was such a quote in your reply 593. Pity even in struggling to admit that you were wrong about your reply 593, you are unable to apologise.
The only quote in 595 where you accused me of quotemining is Ooft! - why would anyone consider that you were referring to some other quote that you don't include in the post where you accuse me of quotemining.
Nonetheless I have demonstrated that your accusation of quotemining (even if it relates to a quote you didn't include in your post accusing me of quotemining) was not, in fact, quotemining as my comment is just as valid (or invalid) with the whole quote - there is no change in meaning.
-
There you go NS - you now cannot accuse me of quotemining as I've now included the whole of your earlier post.
Note of course that the inclusion of the full post makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning or relevance of my comment - which means that it cannot be quotemining as that involves taking a selected quote out of context to change its meaning. In this case it doesn't, albeit using the whole longer comment is more cumbersome as the key point was your rather patronising suggestion that my understanding, as demonstrated in my comments is simplistic, while yours is nuanced by complexity and sophistication.
Your understanding is obviously simplistic since you think there is the tediously simple idea of pro Salmond or pro Sturgeon in this. As the full quote makes clear, that isn't the case.
And are you suggesting that referring to Salmond as 'yesterday's dick', in addition to all the other comments I have listed about Salmond that you have ignored, is what a fan boy would say then as well as simplistic, I think you have basic problems of comprehension.
-
The only quote in 595 where you accused me of quotemining is Ooft! - why would anyone consider that you were referring to some other quote that you don't include in the post where you accuse me of quotemining.
Nonetheless I have demonstrated that your accusation of quotemining (even if it relates to a quote you didn't include in your post accusing me of quotemining) was not, in fact, quotemining as my comment is just as valid (or invalid) with the whole quote - there is no change in meaning.
No, you are now just lying. There are a number of posts which I said exactly what was the qoutemine. Stop embarrassing yourself
-
Which you don't include in your reply where you accuse me of quotemining - how can that accusation refer to something that you don't include nor mention in your actual post. It is nonsense.
And even if it is the bit that you don't refer to, it still isn't quotemining as the point I made in relationship to it isn't altered even were I to have used a larger quote. Your point was that when linking to articles your comments allude to the complex nature of the arguments, while mine are simplistic.
The point that NS seemed to be making is not what you have claimed here. I read NS's point as being that "It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent."
Yet of course your comments to the links include such detailed and sophisticate arguments such as Ooft!. There is no quotemining as exactly the same comment could have been made, with no greater or lesser relevance, had I included the whole post - I chose not to as I like to focus on the nub of the argument.
You seem not to understand the difference between quotemining and someone posting a comment you don't like.
It's quote-mining because you left out the rest of NS's post when you quoted, and did not address it.
NS thinks Salmond is "yesterday's dick", which then disproves your rather childish assertion that NS is a "Salmond fan-boy". You have been shown to be wrong in your assessment of this issue a few times now or at least the courts did not agree with your legal assessments of when judicial reviews are justified. I think your judgement appears to be clouded by bias.
I agree with NS. It is possible to not like Salmond and also criticise the Scottish government's handling of the sexual assault allegations against Salmond. Why don't you address that point? Interpreting criticism of the government as support for Salmond is simplistic.
-
NS thinks Salmond is "yesterday's dick", ...
Does he? He used that term in the manner of a hypothetical:
'It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.'
Just because it is possible to think that someone can think both of those things doesn't mean he, personally, thinks either of them. We need to wait for NS to say that he actually thinks that Salmond is yesterday's dick.
which then disproves your rather childish assertion that NS is a "Salmond fan-boy".
I made that accusation in reply 573, based on my interpretations of his comments on this thread up to that point. I may, of course, have missed it, but can you show me where NS has said he thinks Salmond is yesterday's dick in his comments up to that point please.
-
Does he? He used that term in the manner of a hypothetical:
'It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.'
Just because it is possible to think that someone can think both of those things doesn't mean he, personally, thinks either of them. We need to wait for NS to say that he actually thinks that Salmond is yesterday's dick.
I made that accusation in reply 573, based on my interpretations of his comments on this thread up to that point. I may, of course, have missed it, but can you show me where NS has said he thinks Salmond is yesterday's dick in his comments up to that point please.
Still avoiding all my quotes that I put up about Salmond I se. Why is that?
-
I think your judgement appears to be clouded by bias.
Says the person who in one of the more bizarre posts on this thread stated that she was biased in favour of Salmond.
When you are biased, as you have admitted you are, it is easy to see someone else's neutrality as biased.
-
Does he? He used that term in the manner of a hypothetical:
'It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.'
Just because it is possible to think that someone can think both of those things doesn't mean he, personally, thinks either of them. We need to wait for NS to say that he actually thinks that Salmond is yesterday's dick.
I made that accusation in reply 573, based on my interpretations of his comments on this thread up to that point. I may, of course, have missed it, but can you show me where NS has said he thinks Salmond is yesterday's dick in his comments up to that point please.
I think you're really reaching with this line of argument.
I interpret NS's various comments and posts on this thread as him not being a Salmond fan though there may be instances where, like me, he agrees with Salmond on certain points, and disagrees with him on others. I don't need NS to jump through any particular hoops. You're free to interpret comments how you want. Your simplistic, black and white, either you're for Salmond on everything or against Salmond on everything line of argument doesn't seem very convincing to me, and I think displays bias rather than neutrality.
I prefer a more nuanced approach where there are some things Salmond gets right and some things Sturgeon gets right, and as the judicial review and subsequent inquiries show, there are some things Sturgeon appears to get wrong and Salmond gets wrong. One of the articles NS linked to certainly said Salmond was invading people's personal space and he could have been a better man but the courts did not find he had passed the threshold of criminality.
-
Says the person who in one of the more bizarre posts on this thread stated that she was biased in favour of Salmond.
When you are biased, as you have admitted you are, it is easy to see someone else's neutrality as biased.
You'll have to refresh my memory by posting a link to the post you are referring to. Given your previous quote-mining and your dubious interpretation of NS's posts I would need to read my comment in its entirety in order to first figure out if you are interpreting my post in the way that I meant it, and in what context I wrote it, and what specific points it was addressing.
-
Salmond not going before committee tomorrow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55979135
-
Says the person who in one of the more bizarre posts on this thread stated that she was biased in favour of Salmond.
When you are biased, as you have admitted you are, it is easy to see someone else's neutrality as biased.
As you have not linked to the post you are referring to, nor withdrawn the comment, I can only assume you were lying when you said I had admitted to being biased.
-
Sturgeon's appearance before the committee postponed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56045653
-
And one of Salmond's accusers speaks about the process
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56028750
-
My feeling is that this is now so convoluted in what's going on that most people have zoned out on it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56103277
-
Alex Massie on the subject
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-is-something-rotten-in-scottish-politics/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Salmond statement to be allowed to be published
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56118452
-
And the view from the New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/world/europe/scotland-independence-salmond-sturgeon.html#click=https://t.co/t3ebajlFcu
-
Iain MacWhirter on the inquiry
https://archive.is/wAT6v
-
And on we go
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56155102
-
From Salmond's latest submission to the inquiry:
‘The inescapable conclusion is of a malicious and concerted attempt to damage my reputation and remove me from public life in Scotland’
I think we have moved on from a failure to communicate.
-
Now the Crown Office has told the Scottish Govt to remove Dapmond's submission from website.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/crown-office-urges-parliament-remove-23548487.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Link to the submission - who knows for how long
https://t.co/IgU5QIlxm0?amp=1
-
Another twist - wonder if his appearance tomorrow will happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56167956
-
Another twist - wonder if his appearance tomorrow will happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56167956
Apparently now removed and will be put up later with redactions.
-
Link to the submission - who knows for how long
https://t.co/IgU5QIlxm0?amp=1
Very interesting. Especially Page 6 -8. This in particular:
When the fact of it was discovered by the Government’s external Counsel (and even
after the duty of candour was explained to government lawyers by them on November
2nd and then by the court on November 6th , both 2018) the attempt was still made in
pleadings to present it as “welfare” contact.
The documents which demonstrated this to be false had to be extracted from the
Government by a Commission and Diligence procedure under the authority of the
court as granted by Lord Pentland. The documents then produced under that
procedure emerged despite the Government being willing to certify to the Court that
these documents simply did not exist. That conduct is outrageous for a Government.
At the Commission itself, Senior Counsel for the Government (himself blameless for
the debacle) felt compelled to apologise to the court repeatedly as new batches of
documents emerged.
It is highly probable that had this documentation not been concealed from the court
(and from the Governments own counsel) the falsity of the Government’s pleadings
would have been avoided. The fact that even after the Government case collapsed,
misinformation then appeared in both a press release from the Permanent Secretary
and the First Minister’s statement to Parliament of 8th January 2019 speaks to an
organisation unable and unwilling to admit the truth even after a catastrophic defeat,
the terms of which they had conceded to the Court of Session.
-
Another twist - wonder if his appearance tomorrow will happen.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56167956
From the article:
Ms Sturgeon, who is expected to give evidence to the inquiry next week, has denied the allegations and told BBC Scotland that there was "not a shred of evidence" to back up claims of a conspiracy against Mr Salmond.
"Several of the women have already made clear how utterly absurd it is to suggest they were part of a conspiracy to bring him down. And yet Alex Salmond is still making these ridiculous and baseless claims and lashing out at all and sundry."
Salmond's submission linked to by NS on Page 9 - 11 (see extract below) does not appear to be claiming that the women complainants were part of a conspiracy. So it looks like Sturgeon is trying to discredit Salmond by misrepresenting the claims about conspiracy to include the women and by also claiming he is lashing out. Dick move by Sturgeon IMO:
The interests of the complainants
They were offered the option of making “anonymous complaints” for which there is
no provision in the policy. However, when it came to actually protecting the
anonymity of the complainants through a court order in the Judicial Review in
October 2018 the Government was not even represented by Counsel in court. It was,
in fact, me who instructed Counsel to seek that anonymity on the part of the women
concerned.
The investigation was carried out against the advice of the police who pointed out that
the Scottish Government were not competent to conduct the investigation. This has
been made available to the Committee in the police evidence from the Chief
Constable.
The reports to the Crown Office (instead of the police) were made against the express
wishes of both complainants and in direct conflict with the terms of the policy at
paragraph 19.
The question of ‘conspiracy’
It has been a matter of considerable public interest whether there was ‘a conspiracy’. I
have never adopted the term but note that the Cambridge English Dictionary defines it
as ‘the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal.’
I leave to others the question of what is, or is not, a conspiracy but am very clear in
my position that the evidence supports a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and
concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish Government and
the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned.
That includes, for the avoidance of doubt, Peter Murrell (Chief Executive), Ian
McCann (Compliance officer) and Sue Ruddick (Chief Operating Officer) of the SNP
together with Liz Lloyd, the First Minister’s Chief of Staff. There are others who, for
legal reasons, I am not allowed to name.
The most obvious and compelling evidence of such conduct is contained within the
material crown office refuses to release. That decision is frankly disgraceful. Refusing
to allow the Committee to see that material both denies me the opportunity to put the
full truth before the Committee and the public, and makes it impossible for the
Committee to complete its task on a full sight of the relevant material. The only
beneficiaries of that decision to withhold evidence are those involved in conduct
designed to damage (and indeed imprison) me.
-
So the redactions appear to be the ones about whether Sturgeon breached the ministerial code. Salmond's lawyers have asked for an urgent explanation of the decision. I suspect the chance of Salmond appearing tomorrow are now small.
-
And Salmond now not appearing tomorrow.
-
It is the Mail but written by Andrew Neil.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9297015/ANDREW-NEIL-Nicola-Sturgeons-storm-troops-turned-Scotland-banana-republic.html
-
Salmond appearing before inquiry today. Should be worth watching
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56198842
-
It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
-
Well that took a lot of popcorn. Some dreadful performances, some good ones.
-
View from Mandy Rhodes
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,burning-down-the-house
-
Tweet that I find very apposite from Duncan Hothersall, Scottish Labour activist:
'I've said for a long time that the SNP's fundamental political strategy is to supplant Labour in Scotland, leaving them - and therefore independence - as the only alternative to the Tories. Looks like they've finally perfected the public infighting bit.'
-
Dani Garavelli on the inquiry
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/insight-the-alex-salmond-inquiry-and-unpicking-a-tangle-of-disinformation-3149409
-
Andrew Tickell on some of the legal complexity
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19123699.andrew-tickell-understanding-legalities-behind-holyrood-committee/
-
Motion of no confidence to be raised in Sturgeon. Could be very tight. Suspect the Greens might abstain in which case Sturgeon will survive.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56259056
-
Sturgeon before the committee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-56251990
-
Salmond lodges formal complaint. Very interesting timing
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19132179.alex-salmond-lodges-formal-complaint-claims-accusers-name-leaked/
-
I think there is a real issue. I think this overshoots
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/david-davis-scotland-a-deficit-of-power-and-accountability
-
Sturgeon being found to have misled parliament. Once this would have meant resignation but we are not in Kansas anymore.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56451170
-
Sturgeon being found to have misled parliament. Once this would have meant resignation but we are not in Kansas anymore.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56451170
The committee split entirely on party lines, which suggests to me that the voting is more political than evidential. It may ever have been thus in these kinds of committee, but I guess in many cases if a PM (or FM) has an absolute majority in their parliament then they will have a majority in the committees. So were this to be Boris Johnson to be under the same scrutiny but with a Westminster committee then he'd probably be OK if there was a split absolutely along party lines.
Reminds me a bit of the impeachment of Trump - where the evidence seemed pretty irrelevant it was all decided on the political make-up of the House and the Senate.
So all in all - given the huge publicity of the inquiry a deeply unsatisfactory outcome as far as I'm concerned. Not on whether she did or did not mislead etc (hard for me to judge given that I've not seen all the evidence), but that the outcome looks to me to be one you could have anticipated before a word of evidence had been taken - SNP MSPs voting for Sturgeon, non-SNP MSPs voting against.
I think the other inquiry (or are the two more ongoing - I've lost track) may be more interesting as that is being considered in a manner independent of party political factionalism.
-
The SNP needs to get its act together before the election in May.
-
The committee split entirely on party lines, which suggests to me that the voting is more political than evidential. It may ever have been thus in these kinds of committee, but I guess in many cases if a PM (or FM) has an absolute majority in their parliament then they will have a majority in the committees. So were this to be Boris Johnson to be under the same scrutiny but with a Westminster committee then he'd probably be OK if there was a split absolutely along party lines.
Reminds me a bit of the impeachment of Trump - where the evidence seemed pretty irrelevant it was all decided on the political make-up of the House and the Senate.
So all in all - given the huge publicity of the inquiry a deeply unsatisfactory outcome as far as I'm concerned. Not on whether she did or did not mislead etc (hard for me to judge given that I've not seen all the evidence), but that the outcome looks to me to be one you could have anticipated before a word of evidence had been taken - SNP MSPs voting for Sturgeon, non-SNP MSPs voting against.
I think the other inquiry (or are the two more ongoing - I've lost track) may be more interesting as that is being considered in a manner independent of party political factionalism.
I think that's unfair on Andy Wightman. It was always likely to split 4/4 leaving Wightman aside politically but he's as a now Independent, once Green, who is generally seen as being an honest person. He voted with the SNP members pretty cibsistejtly on the questiond of evidence to the extent that he was receiving a lot of abuse for being biased for the SNP.
-
I think that's unfair on Andy Wightman. It was always likely to split 4/4 leaving Wightman aside politically but he's as a now Independent, once Green, who is generally seen as being an honest person. He voted with the SNP members pretty cibsistejtly on the questiond of evidence to the extent that he was receiving a lot of abuse for being biased for the SNP.
The fact remains that all the SNP MSPs voted in her favour, all the non-SNP MSPs voted against. So it is very hard to unpick the influence of the evidence from the influence of the politics. Perhaps Wightman was the only one really looking at the evidence - who knows. But in order for the outcome to be freed of the taint of just going along political lines, we'd have needed at least one SNP MSP voting against Sturgeon or at least one non-SNP MSPs voting in her favour. That did not happen.
-
Was there any actual evidence? Admittedly I only heard the main extracts, but it was all political or statements about what people felt or intended. Not factual details about what happened, or who said what when?
Fail to see how an 8 hour interview can be about anything than further muddying the waters.
-
Yet another big week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56478884
-
And this from Craig Murray about one of the side issues, Craig Murray
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/03/the-world-darkens-a-little-more-i-may-have-to-spend-some-time-as-a-political-prisoner/
-
James Hamilton's report due to be released in a minute
-
James Hamilton's report due to be released in a minute
Still waiting
-
Can I sue the Scottish Government for Hamilton report-related RSI?
-
Sturgeon has been cleared of breaking the ministerial code.
-
Sturgeon has been cleared of breaking the ministerial code.
By the Hamiton report. The leaked committee report which comes out later in the week will say she misled parliament but as Prof D covered earlier that will be seen as political even though that is unfair on Andy Wightman.
It does mean that if the Tories call for her to resign then they are managing to be even more hypocritical than up to now in being happy with Hancock and Johnson and Patel to to remain despite having been found in breach of the ministerial code with those findings for Hancock and Johnson to be court findings.
-
By the Hamiton report. The leaked committee report which comes out later in the week will say she misled parliament but as Prof D covered earlier that will be seen as political even though that is unfair on Andy Wightman.
It does mean that if the Tories call for her to resign then they are managing to be even more hypocritical than up to now in being happy with Hancock and Johnson and Patel to to remain despite having been found in breach of the ministerial code with those findings for Hancock and Johnson to be court findings.
I think this report will be seen as more credible than the committee report as it isn't tainted by political bias (regardless of your views on Wightman the fact remains that all the SNP MSPs voted for Sturgeon and all the non-SNP MSPs voted against).
But even were it the case that both approaches carried equal weight I think that a one-all draw is enough for her to rebut calls for her to resign.
And there will of course be further calls for her to resign but I think they will have been rather deflated by the fact that an independent (and non political) inquiry has found that she didn't break the code.
-
Says the person who in one of the more bizarre posts on this thread stated that she was biased in favour of Salmond.
When you are biased, as you have admitted you are, it is easy to see someone else's neutrality as biased.
PD - you're back on here. In which case you can address this post you wrote about me where you claimed I admitted I was biased in favour of Salmond. Which post number are you referring to? Or were you lying?
-
PD - you're back on here. In which case you can address this post you wrote about me where you claimed I admitted I was biased in favour of Salmond. Which post number are you referring to? Or were you lying?
Morning Gabriella
As you inferred I've not been posting much on this thread over the past few weeks and my posts over the last few days certainly contain no accusation of bias against you.
I've no desire to go wading through 27 pages of posts on this thread to find the post which I felt indicated you to be biased, so I will withdraw that accusation.
Now perhaps you might give your views on the current developments - specifically the independent inquiry not finding that Sturgeon breached the ministerial code, with the parliamentary committee finding that she misled the inquiry.
-
Summary of the committee findings:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56494852
Not that this is particularly news as much had already been leaked.
-
I'll read the committee findings later today. But below is Andy Wightman's blog
https://andywightman.scot/committee-on-the-scottish-government-handling-of-harassment-complaints
-
The no confidence vote against Sturgeon failed. 31 MSPs backed it, 65 were against it and 27 abstained.
-
The no confidence vote against Sturgeon failed. 31 MSPs backed it, 65 were against it and 27 abstained.
Labour and Lib Dems abstained. Interesting move.
-
Labour and Lib Dems abstained. Interesting move.
Well there was no chance of the vote carrying so I guess it looked better to not side with the Tories!
-
The no confidence vote against Sturgeon failed. 31 MSPs backed it, 65 were against it and 27 abstained.
I thought Smith's closing remarks were appalling.
-
Labour and Lib Dems abstained. Interesting move.
I think it was a pretty smart move by Labour and the LibDems.
They weren't going to win the vote so why chain yourself to the losing side. But also it allows them to position themselves above the political infighting which turns off so many voters and to make the Tories seem both opportunistic and also isolated.
-
I thought Smith's closing remarks were appalling.
Not sure who you are talking about as down south we didn't get much coverage of the non-confidence vote. What did he or she say?
-
Salmond to make statement today
-
Salmond to make statement today
Hmm
What I would like to hear Salmond say in his statement:
'We have come to the end of the various inquiries into the original investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It is time to return to the reason why we have been through all this. I recognise that two women brought complaints several years ago and have never had those complaints considered to completion within the context in which they brought them, that being to their employer. It is time for those complaints to be heard and I will fully co-operate with a fresh investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer and if so I will cooperate fully in any formal process that follows.'
What I least expect Salmond to say in his statement - see above:
-
Hmm
What I would like to hear Salmond say in his statement:
'We have come to the end of the various inquiries into the original investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It is time to return to the reason why we have been through all this. I recognise that two women brought complaints several years ago and have never had those complaints considered to completion within the context in which they brought them, that being to their employer. It is time for those complaints to be heard and I will fully co-operate with a fresh investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer and if so I will cooperate fully in any formal process that follows.'
What I least expect Salmond to say in his statement - see above:
I wish, but doubt it will happen.
-
Hmm
What I would like to hear Salmond say in his statement:
'We have come to the end of the various inquiries into the original investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It is time to return to the reason why we have been through all this. I recognise that two women brought complaints several years ago and have never had those complaints considered to completion within the context in which they brought them, that being to their employer. It is time for those complaints to be heard and I will fully co-operate with a fresh investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer and if so I will cooperate fully in any formal process that follows.'
What I least expect Salmond to say in his statement - see above:
Yes, if he says that, other than a passing reference to tye women, then I would suspect drugs.
More likely is something like 'Me, Me, and thrice Me. Vindicated, innocent, honest Me. Scottish govt pile of shite unlike Me. Court and committee and Me all agreed. Scottish civil service failing, Me successful. Poor women failed by Scottish govt and civil service, just like Me.'
-
Yes, if he says that, other than a passing reference to tye women, then I would suspect drugs.
More likely is something like 'Me, Me, and thrice Me. Vindicated, innocent, honest Me. Scottish govt pile of shite unlike Me. Court and committee and Me all agreed. Scottish civil service failing, Me successful. Poor women failed by Scottish govt and civil service, just like Me.'
Indeed I suspect you are right.
What I thought was very interesting in his evidence to the inquiry was that he repeatedly mentioned his success in the Judicial Review (arguable whether he did win as the case fell on a single point which wasn't one of the ones that Salmond had raised) and his acquittal in the criminal trial.
Now the former is a 'balance of probabilities case', which makes it easier for a complainant to win and the latter is a 'beyond reasonable doubt case' which makes it easier for a defendant to be acquitted.
He quietly neglected to mention that the original complaint was in a 'balance of probabilities case' context, which is therefore significantly easier for those bringing the complaint to win, yet of course that original case has never been heard.
Given the behaviour he admitted to under oath in the criminal case isn't it highly likely that the complainants allegations would be upheld on both a lower threshold of proof and also as the allegations of harassment are less serious than those heard in the criminal case, those being sexual/indecent assault and attempted rape.
-
The final FMQs at Holyrood was today, before the election campaign starts, and it was interesting to see that Ruth Davidson (in her final appearance at Holyrood) chose to not mention the Salmond case in any of her questions, which surprised me given how vitriolic the Scottish Tories have been on this issue - perhaps they were chastened that their 'no confidence' motion of yesterday turned out to be a damp squib after Scottish Labour decided to abstain.
Maybe they will raise it more during the election campaign or maybe, after the Hamilton report outcome, they've decided there is little mileage left in this that they could benefit from - time will tell.
-
Morning Gabriella
As you inferred I've not been posting much on this thread over the past few weeks and my posts over the last few days certainly contain no accusation of bias against you.
I've no desire to go wading through 27 pages of posts on this thread to find the post which I felt indicated you to be biased, so I will withdraw that accusation.
Now perhaps you might give your views on the current developments - specifically the independent inquiry not finding that Sturgeon breached the ministerial code, with the parliamentary committee finding that she misled the inquiry.
Ok thanks for withdrawing the accusation of bias.
I think MPs voting along party lines means I don't have much confidence in the Committee's findings. I think Salmond is mainly concerned about saving himself - not surprisingly as I get the impression that a lot of people who go into politics seem to spend their time trying to win fights or score points rather than a more collaborative approach. I can see though why the "genuine failure of recollection" is hard to believe as not being deliberate. But on the other hand I am not sure what difference it makes if she knew on 29 March as opposed to early April as she told Parliament.
What I think the focus should be on is that that the women's complaints seem to have been hijacked for political reasons rather than pursuing a course that was in the best interests of the women.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/salmond-accusers-reluctant-to-go-to-police-before-being-sounded-out-msps-told/ar-BB1bwUma
The Scottish government's response seems to have been to manipulate the situation for their own purposes, so once again some suggestion of ignoring the issue of consent of the women - in this case consent to how they wanted their complaint dealt with.
I also want to consider what is the public interest justification for retrospectively applying this change of policy on harassment at work. We all know that work place harassment was not always dealt with correctly in the past as some women just considered it "banter" or "no big deal" and weren't upset by it while others were. I think all this time and money on these various court cases and inquiries would have been better spent focusing on educating people now to act more respectfully - both men and women - to make it clear that times have changed and that certain types of "banter"/ interactions in the work place or on the street will no longer be acceptable or tolerated or overlooked even if some women say they do not mind it.
-
Indeed I suspect you are right.
What I thought was very interesting in his evidence to the inquiry was that he repeatedly mentioned his success in the Judicial Review (arguable whether he did win as the case fell on a single point which wasn't one of the ones that Salmond had raised) and his acquittal in the criminal trial.
Now the former is a 'balance of probabilities case', which makes it easier for a complainant to win and the latter is a 'beyond reasonable doubt case' which makes it easier for a defendant to be acquitted.
He quietly neglected to mention that the original complaint was in a 'balance of probabilities case' context, which is therefore significantly easier for those bringing the complaint to win, yet of course that original case has never been heard.
Given the behaviour he admitted to under oath in the criminal case isn't it highly likely that the complainants allegations would be upheld on both a lower threshold of proof and also as the allegations of harassment are less serious than those heard in the criminal case, those being sexual/indecent assault and attempted rape.
I found the Scottish government's refusal to hand over documents to the inquiry and their various efforts to dodge accountability more worrying than Salmond's lack of comments about the allegations of harassment against him.
-
I found the Scottish government's refusal to hand over documents to the inquiry and their various efforts to dodge accountability more worrying than Salmond's lack of comments about the allegations of harassment against him.
I don't think it is an either/or option.
My primary concern, as it has been right from the beginning, is that the women who brought the complaints are given the opportunity to have those complaints fully considered with the context that they raised them, namely an employment-based process with balance of probabilities as the burden of proof. That still has not happened, even though they raised the complaints over three years ago now.
When I raised this previously you suggested that a new inquiry into the complaints couldn't proceed while the other investigations were ongoing. Well now they have completed and reported. Do you agree that we need to rapidly start the process of investigating the complaints again to ensure the women have had the opportunity for their complaints to be considered to a completion of the process. I'm not prejudging what that outcome may be but surely they deserve to have their complaints considered to completion.
Everyone else seems to have had their 'day in court' - so to speak - in other words to have had a process that is completed - except the two women on the basis of the complaints they originally brought forward.
-
And it's off to court again, no doubt with another crowdfund
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56513358
-
And it's off to court again, no doubt with another crowdfund
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56513358
I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.
-
I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.
I agree.
I was surprised to discover that Salmond's wife, Moira, is 82, 16 years older than him.
-
I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.
And again the women in the original complaint are mere pawns.
-
I don't think it is an either/or option.
Agreed. That's why I said I found the government's actions more worrying than Salmond's lack of comment. It's a comparison of the 2 rather than an either/ or.
My primary concern, as it has been right from the beginning, is that the women who brought the complaints are given the opportunity to have those complaints fully considered with the context that they raised them, namely an employment-based process with balance of probabilities as the burden of proof. That still has not happened, even though they raised the complaints over three years ago now.
When I raised this previously you suggested that a new inquiry into the complaints couldn't proceed while the other investigations were ongoing. Well now they have completed and reported. Do you agree that we need to rapidly start the process of investigating the complaints again to ensure the women have had the opportunity for their complaints to be considered to a completion of the process. I'm not prejudging what that outcome may be but surely they deserve to have their complaints considered to completion.
Everyone else seems to have had their 'day in court' - so to speak - in other words to have had a process that is completed - except the two women on the basis of the complaints they originally brought forward.
If that's what the women still want and if the harassment policy and procedures have been checked to see if they are fit for purpose and workable and if the government are competent to apply the process correctly - so for a start if they can manage to appoint someone who has not had any prior involvement in the case or contact with the parties involved to look into the women's allegations without creating the appearance of bias then yes I think the women's allegations should be looked into.
Not sure what the government will say about looking into the complaints if there is to be another court case.
-
I agree.
I was surprised to discover that Salmond's wife, Moira, is 82, 16 years older than him.
They met when she was his boss
-
Agreed. That's why I said I found the government's actions more worrying than Salmond's lack of comment. It's a comparison of the 2 rather than an either/ or.
If that's what the women still want and if the harassment policy and procedures have been checked to see if they are fit for purpose and workable and if the government are competent to apply the process correctly - so for a start if they can manage to appoint someone who has not had any prior involvement in the case or contact with the parties involved to look into the women's allegations without creating the appearance of bias then yes I think the women's allegations should be looked into.
Not sure what the government will say about looking into the complaints if there is to be another court case.
And let's remember that we are just about to have an election so anything that happens will be after that. And I can't help thinking that this may have a significant effect on the election.
-
They met when she was his boss
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/511487/Alex-Salmond-wife-Moira-Salmond-possibly-Scotland-s-new-first-lady
Moira sounds kind of cool.
-
The final FMQs at Holyrood was today, before the election campaign starts, and it was interesting to see that Ruth Davidson (in her final appearance at Holyrood) chose to not mention the Salmond case in any of her questions, which surprised me given how vitriolic the Scottish Tories have been on this issue - perhaps they were chastened that their 'no confidence' motion of yesterday turned out to be a damp squib after Scottish Labour decided to abstain.
Maybe they will raise it more during the election campaign or maybe, after the Hamilton report outcome, they've decided there is little mileage left in this that they could benefit from - time will tell.
Oh no, it's going to be a constant particularly in any debates that are held. And it will be by all parties other than the Greens
-
I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.
I agree, but I think there is a further element here - delay. I think this allows Salmond to claim that the original complaints cannot be re-investigated as there is another process ongoing.
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/511487/Alex-Salmond-wife-Moira-Salmond-possibly-Scotland-s-new-first-lady
Moira sounds kind of cool.
I've met her briefly a couple of times. She certainly seemed pretty cool
-
And let's remember that we are just about to have an election so anything that happens will be after that. And I can't help thinking that this may have a significant effect on the election.
Yes looks like there is to be an overhaul of the Complaints process and this won't be implemented until after the May elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/scottish-government-to-overhaul-harassment-complaints-policy
-
Yes looks like there is to be an overhaul of the Complaints process and this won't be implemented until after the May elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/16/scottish-government-to-overhaul-harassment-complaints-policy
Good idea to have someone independent and external to the organisation to investigate cases involving senior ministers.
Hope this is good to go in May and that the Government re-runs the investigation using their new procedure as per the outcome of the Judicial Review. Only in that way will justice be served as there will finally be determination as to whether the allegations are upheld under the civil balance of probabilities burden of proof.
And I'm in no way prejudging what the outcome would be - perhaps with a new investigating officer the initial investigation wouldn't find that Salmond has a case to answer. And even if it did the formal proceedings might not uphold those complaints on the balance of probabilities. And even if it did Salmond might win on appeal.
Surely the claimants have the right to see their complaints considered to a conclusion and a decision, regardless of what that decision may be.
However I'm not holding my breath that the Government will hold a new investigation with the revised procedures.
-
Moderator:
Various posts in this thread that digressed into discussing the Holyrood election/Alba party have been split to form a new thread: Holyrood Election (& political party games) in order that this thread can be used to discuss any later legal matters that emerge regarding this case.
-
I thought I would see whether the new complaints procedure was going to look into the Salmond harassment accusations but it doesn't look like that is likely to happen. Apparently the 2 women do not see the point of proceeding with another complaint against Salmond. They also said they felt a bit abandoned by the Scottish government it seems.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/alex-salmond-harassment-complaints-could-be-reopened-by-scottish-ministers-with-new-procedure/ar-AASMkko?ocid=uxbndlbing&pfr=1
There is currently a police investigation into "unlawful disclosure of information" by the Scottish government - regarding their alleged leak to the papers about the harassment complaints against Salmond. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58661817
The Scottish Government's internal investigation carried out by Colin Cook into a potential data protection breach was a bit of a whitewash apparently as Cook did not interview the key witnesses.
https://johnsmytheinvestigations.wordpress.com/2021/12/30/msm-article-prime-witnesses-in-alex-salmond-leak-case-werent-interviewed-wednesday-29-december-2021-by-kieran-andrews-mike-wade/
-
I'm not sure if I'd be bringing this back into the limelight if I were Alex Salmond.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67517416
He's suing the Scottish Government for mishandling the harassment claims against him.
-
I'm not sure if I'd be bringing this back into the limelight if I were Alex Salmond.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67517416
He's suing the Scottish Government for mishandling the harassment claims against him.
I suppose there's an element of might as well be compensated for a sheep as for a lamb here. Salmond sees his reputation as still being affected by this, which it is. This won't change that but he calculates it won't make it worse, and he gets a chance at revenge. It's crying out for a dramatist to do a Shakespearean treatment (pace Anchorman).