Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh and surely there wasn't an actual outcome in the Scottish govt investigation?

Read what I said.

The judicial review never made any comment whatsoever as to whether the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police) was correct or otherwise. Although there remains so doubt as to whether or not they dismissed Salmond's other claims, the only matter they have clearly ruled on was that the person conducting the inquiry had had prior contact with the accusers, and that was incorrect procedurally.

That the Police in their independent investigation have determined that charges should be brought vindicates the Scottish govt's inquiry findings (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police). Indeed surely on the basis the police have brought a significant number of charges of serious offences would mean that the Scottish govt would have been failing in its obligations had it not concluded its inquiry in finding sufficient evidence to support handing over the investigation to the police.

[Nearly Sane]

Read what I said.

The judicial review never made any comment whatsoever as to whether the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police) was correct or otherwise. Although there remains so doubt as to whether or not they dismissed Salmond's other claims, the only matter they have clearly ruled on was that the person conducting the inquiry had had prior contact with the accusers, and that was incorrect procedurally.

That the Police in their independent investigation have determined that charges should be brought vindicates the Scottish govt's inquiry findings (that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough to be handed over to the police). Indeed surely on the basis the police have brought a significant number of charges of serious offences would mean that the Scottish govt would have been failing in its obligations had it not concluded its inquiry in finding sufficient evidence to support handing over the investigation to the police.

  I did read what you said - there wasn't a full outcome of the investigation - which was why I phrased my comment as a question as your posts seemed unclear.

I also noticed what you didn't say as regards Steve - I take it you accept you were wrong to say he didn't have a right to say shut the fuck up?

[Roses]

  I did read what you said - there wasn't a full outcome of the investigation - which was why I phrased my comment as a question as your posts seemed unclear.

I also noticed what you didn't say as regards Steve - I take it you accept you were wrong to say he didn't have a right to say shut the fuck up?

It would have been better if he hadn't used the 'F' word, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

It would have been better if he hadn't used the 'F' word, imo.

Which is irrelevant to him being perfectly within his rights to say it

[ProfessorDavey]

  I did read what you said - there wasn't a full outcome of the investigation - which was why I phrased my comment as a question as your posts seemed unclear.

The investigation I was talking about was the one conducted by the Scottish Government (note the judicial review) - there was a clear outcome to that investigation, namely that there were allegations serious enough and with sufficient evidence to warrant concluding that Salmond had a case to answer and that the details should be handed over to the police as some of the allegations appeared to be potentially criminal in nature.

That the police, having completed their own (independent) investigation, have concluded that Salmond should be charged with a number of criminal charges in my view vindicates the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation.

[Roses]

Which is irrelevant to him being perfectly within his rights to say it

I agree it isn't against forum rules, but it is still unpleasant.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree it isn't against forum rules, but it is still unpleasant.

It's not just about the forum rules, It's that Steve has a perfect right despite what the Prof wrote to say that everyone should shut up about the case. The use of the word fuck is entirely irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

The investigation I was talking about was the one conducted by the Scottish Government (note the judicial review) - there was a clear outcome to that investigation, namely that there were allegations serious enough and with sufficient evidence to warrant concluding that Salmond had a case to answer and that the details should be handed over to the police as some of the allegations appeared to be potentially criminal in nature.

That the police, having completed their own (independent) investigation, have concluded that Salmond should be charged with a number of criminal charges in my view vindicates the outcome of the Scottish govt investigation.

  And I don't see that as being a full outcome since they stopped their own procedures because of the leak.

Still avoiding the point about Steve, I see

[ProfessorDavey]

  And I don't see that as being a full outcome since they stopped their own procedures because of the leak.

That isn't how I understood it. I thought they had got to a conclusion which was that there was sufficient evidence that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough that they needed to be handed over to the police. Of course having done that the internal process needed to stop while the police conducted their own inquiry and a conclusion was reached in those proceedings. They didn't stop due to a leak - they paused because the matter had been passed to the police.

Still avoiding the point about Steve, I see

I think his comment was unnecessarily aggressive and rude and as it wasn't directed at an individual and a specific post it came across to me as a general demand for everyone to stop talking about the issue. It is, of course, now an irrelevance given that we are continuing to discuss the matter.

[Nearly Sane]

That isn't how I understood it. I thought they had got to a conclusion which was that there was sufficient evidence that Salmond had a case to answer and that the allegations were serious enough that they needed to be handed over to the police. Of course having done that the internal process needed to stop while the police conducted their own inquiry and a conclusion was reached in those proceedings. They didn't stop due to a leak - they paused because the matter had been passed to the police.
I think his comment was unnecessarily aggressive and rude and as it wasn't directed at an individual and a specific post it came across to me as a general demand for everyone to stop talking about the issue. It is, of course, now an irrelevance given that we are continuing to discuss the matter.

He has a perfect right to say it. You stating that he didn't was simply wrong.

[jeremyp]

Oh and surely there wasn't an actual outcome in the Scottish govt investigation?

Well it's finished isn't it? There may have been an outcome that will never see the light of day because they had to concede in Salmond's case against them.

[Nearly Sane]

Well it's finished isn't it? There may have been an outcome that will never see the light of day because they had to concede in Salmond's case against them.

That didn't preclude starting again after the police investigation, though whatever the outcome of any court case, I doubt it will restart now.

[ProfessorDavey]

That didn't preclude starting again after the police investigation, though whatever the outcome of any court case, I doubt it will restart now.

Most internal HR processes are designed in stages, each of which comes to a natural conclusion (and indeed may be the end of the matter).

The Scottish Govt have completed their initial investigation and have released the outcome (namely that on the balance of probabilities they consider that Salmond does have a case to answer and that the nature of the allegations is such that it should be handed over to the police). That is where we are now.

Once the police investigation and any resulting court case is complete the Scottish govt may decide to initiate disciplinary proceedings according to their internal processes. That may occur even if Salmond is not found guilty of criminal offences due to the different threshold for evidence in criminal and civil cases.

[ProfessorDavey]

He has a perfect right to say it. You stating that he didn't was simply wrong.

And I have a perfect right to say that ''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'.

Your opinion and mine (and Steve's) are just that, opinions - we aren't in the world of right or wrong.

My view was that his comment was rude and aggressive and I read it as demanding that we all shut up - we value free speech on this MB so in my opinion none of us have the right to demand that others shut up.

But hey ho, what value are opinions when NS knows right and wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

And I have a perfect right to say that ''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'.

Your opinion and mine (and Steve's) are just that, opinions - we aren't in the world of right or wrong.

My view was that his comment was rude and aggressive and I read it as demanding that we all shut up - we value free speech on this MB so in my opinion none of us have the right to demand that others shut up.

But hey ho, what value are opinions when NS knows right and wrong.

I didn't say it wasn't within your right to say that. Indeed I agree it is your right to do so. You have a right to be wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have a right to be wrong.

As do you - specifically when implying that an opinion is a matter of right and wrong.

Rather sterile discussion - I suggest we get back onto the actual topic of the thread.

[Nearly Sane]

As do you - specifically when implying that an opinion is a matter of right and wrong.

Rather sterile discussion - I suggest we get back onto the actual topic of the thread.

Except of course Steve has a perfect right to say what he said, and you arguing that you have a right to say what you said, shows you were wrong.

I can get why you think that you being wrong is sterile.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except of course Steve has a perfect right to say what he said, and you arguing that you have a right to say what you said, shows you were wrong.

I can get why you think that you being wrong is sterile.

Do you actually have anything to add on the Salmond case or are you going to carry on, mule-like, on this rather pointless track.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you actually have anything to add on the Salmond case or are you going to carry on, mule-like, on this rather pointless track.

As noted earlier, whatever the outcome I think the Scottish Govt will walk away after this.

I understand why you feel you being wrong is pointless.

[ProfessorDavey]

As noted earlier, whatever the outcome I think the Scottish Govt will walk away after this.

That may be the case, but it shouldn't be.

The standard of proof in employment disciplinary cases is markedly lower than for criminal cases. Also there are a range of things that will get you into a disciplinary process in employment that don't come close to being criminal offences. So regardless of the ultimate outcome of a criminal investigation the very notion that the police thought there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges should be sufficient for an employer to trigger disciplinary proceedings.

But as you suggest the Scottish govt may wish to wash their hands of the whole situation given that it has already caused them significant grief.

[Nearly Sane]

That may be the case, but it shouldn't be.

The standard of proof in employment disciplinary cases is markedly lower than for criminal cases. Also there are a range of things that will get you into a disciplinary process in employment that don't come close to being criminal offences. So regardless of the ultimate outcome of a criminal investigation the very notion that the police thought there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges should be sufficient for an employer to trigger disciplinary proceedings.

But as you suggest the Scottish govt may wish to wash their hands of the whole situation given that it has already caused them significant grief.

If Salmond is found guilty of any of the charges, no point in a further investigation politically. If he is found not guilty, it looks like a witch hunt even with the different burdens of proof.

If it was not proven, who knows!

[jeremyp]

Once the police investigation and any resulting court case is complete the Scottish govt may decide to initiate disciplinary proceedings according to their internal processes. That may occur even if Salmond is not found guilty of criminal offences due to the different threshold for evidence in criminal and civil cases.

It doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with threshold of evidence. An employee may break rules of the employer that have no equivalent in British law. For example, it's not illegal to be drunk in a bar while on company business, but the company might still consider it to be a sackable offence.

[Udayana]

It doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with threshold of evidence. An employee may break rules of the employer that have no equivalent in British law. For example, it's not illegal to be drunk in a bar while on company business, but the company might still consider it to be a sackable offence.

Sure, but is Salmond actually in a position he can be fired from? I think he has already resigned SNP membership.

Also, we are assuming that the offenses he has been charged with are those arising from the complaints investigated,  but it isn't necessarily so.

[jeremyp]

Sure, but is Salmond actually in a position he can be fired from? I think he has already resigned SNP membership.

It's not the SNP that was investigating him, but the Scottish government but he doesn't work for them anymore either.

Also, we are assuming that the offenses he has been charged with are those arising from the complaints investigated,  but it isn't necessarily so.

Agreed.

[ProfessorDavey]

If Salmond is found guilty of any of the charges, no point in a further investigation politically. If he is found not guilty, it looks like a witch hunt even with the different burdens of proof.

If it was not proven, who knows!

Wrong - just because Salmond is found not guilty (or not proven) of criminal charges with a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard of proof, this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be subject to disciplinary proceedings internally - presumably misconduct or gross misconduct - with a 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof. And this is anything 'politically' but about justice.

So an example:

Imagine an employee goes out at lunchtime and gets blind drunk. He returns in the afternoon to work and has a go at their boss calling her a 'f****g c**t' and takes a swing at her. The employee is so out of control that the police are called and he is arrested and ultimately charged with being drunk and disorderly and assault. He is tried but found not guilty on 'beyond reasonable doubt' - does that mean that's the end of it? Of course not - once the criminal charges have been assessed he will be subject to disciplinary action on gross misconduct by his employer and likely as not that will be proven and he will lose his job.

That is quite right and proper - the notion that because he wasn't convicted of a criminal offence means that any misconduct inquiry internally should be shelved is nonsense. In what way would it be a 'witch hunt' if this employee was found guilty of gross misconduct and sacked by his employer?