Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[Udayana]

...
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 and Craig Murray:

   " 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 If there were any findings on the significant points why would they not be published?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.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm going by the views of Tickell and Craig Murray:

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If there were any findings on the significant points why would they not be published?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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

Short on detail currently:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46984747

[jeremyp]

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.

[Roses]

If guilty of sexual misconduct, I hope they throw the book at him, it is a very unpleasant crime.

[jeremyp]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

14 charges including two of attempted rape and 9 of sexual assault.

Blimey

[SteveH]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Robbie]

Me too. It's all so depressing, I don't want to know any more until it's over.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[SteveH]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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'.

[Robbie]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[SteveH]

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.