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.
