Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?'

[ProfessorDavey]

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.