Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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!).

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Good piece by Dani Garavelli


https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-what-woman-would-put-herself-through-this-1-4793591/amp

[Roses]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[jeremyp]

I agree. Sad state of affairs. Victims matter least.

So Salmond is definitely guilty?

[Rhiannon]

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?

[Roses]

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.

[Rhiannon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/02/salmond-crowdfunding-could-put-off-victims-say-campaigners

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.