Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[SteveH]

Salmond denies allegations - Salmond shunted everything?
https://youtu.be/cbskoBOHyc8

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

   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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Anchorman]

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.

[Rhiannon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/30/alex-salmond-crowdfunding-scottish-independence

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Roses]

Just to be clear, it isn't his defence that the crowdfunding is raising money for.

So what is it for then?

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.