Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

True - actually the nature of the offences is almost certain to be different, as well as the standard of evidence. Employment conduct and disciplinary codes are unlikely to include criminal offences as those are to be dealt with by the judicial system. They will, however, have charges of gross misconduct - and acting in a manner that brings a criminal charge is likely to be considered as an example of gross misconduct and would be investigated internally in that manner too.

So there are actions that may lead to criminal charge and internal disciplinary proceedings - with the latter much more likely to be successful as the 'offence' is less prescripted and the standard of evidence less stringent. There are also matters which will lead to internal disciplinary charges that wouldn't be a criminal or civil offence in the wider justice system.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

He isn't under investigation (currently) by the SNP but by the Scottish Parliament. It is true that currently he doesn't hold office but that shouldn't prevent an internal investigation with charge of misconduct or gross misconduct (for example) proceeding. This is firstly about justice, but secondly were he found guilty of gross misconduct in public office he could be barred from serving in public office again (or for a period of time). So although he isn't holding public office now if found guilty he might be barred from holding public office again in the future.

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.

True, although that is speculation. However, as pointed out upthread, not being charged with a criminal offence doesn't mean that you have no case to answer in an internal investigation. However being charged with a criminal offence is likely to mean you would be likely to be determined to have a case to answer in an internal inquiry as the nature of the charges and burden of proof are less stringent.

Also, of course, if the police charges related to incidents that happened within the context of his public office and had not been identified in the internal investigation then these too will be added to the dossier of incidents to be investigated by the internal inquiry once (or if) it re-starts after the criminal investigation is completed.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

Given my point was speculation about how things might be seen, then declaring it 'wrong' as if we are talking about facts here is missing the point in such a spectacular way as to to be entered in the dictionary for the definition of 'category error '.

[SteveH]

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?

In other words- to hell with the evidence, I want to believe the worst. This is a charter for curtain-twitchers, Nosey-Parkers and Zeal-of-the-Land Busys to harass and demonise anyone they like.

[ProfessorDavey]

In other words- to hell with the evidence, I want to believe the worst. This is a charter for curtain-twitchers, Nosey-Parkers and Zeal-of-the-Land Busys to harass and demonise anyone they like.

On the contrary, it is all about the evidence.

My point is that just because there isn't sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal charge of assault 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean there is insufficient evidence to sustain a claim of gross misconduct in an employment disciplinary process 'on the balance of probabilities'.

And this isn't about 'believing the worst' it is about how the law operates in the UK and the nature of evidential tests in different types of case. In criminal cases there is a presumption of innocent - the charge is presumed not to be proven unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the individual is guilty. The same does not apply in law in civil cases and in employment disciplinary cases where the starting point is neither a presumption the the charge is proven, nor not proven (in other words neither a presumption that the individual is innocent, nor guilty) - the starting point is strict neutrality. Hence the evidence test is 'on the balance of probabilities' - in other words it is more likely than not that the individual is guilty.

That's the law - if you don't like it, take it up with your friendly local legislator, but good luck with trying to change something that is a fundamental part of our legal system.

[Nearly Sane]

Not clear whether this will have any generalised impact on the election prospects of the SNP - but certainly not a help.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50486713

[Gordon]

Looks like he'll plead today, with the trial in March - but as you say not ideal for the SNP, but no doubt the Labour manifesto will take top billing later.

A lot will depend on whether voters have, by now, separated Salmond and his antics (such as his 'show' on a Russian TV channel) from the current SNP hierarchy and election campaign. There is a risk though that Sturgeon's position could be compromised given her previous handling and the case Salmond won against the Scottish Government.

I suppose the issue is just how much influence this case might have over the next 3 weeks as the electioneering escalates, and how much the other parties draw attention to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Looks like he'll plead today, with the trial in March - but as you say not ideal for the SNP, but no doubt the Labour manifesto will take top billing later.

A lot will depend on whether voters have, by now, separated Salmond and his antics (such as his 'show' on a Russian TV channel) from the current SNP hierarchy and election campaign. There is a risk though that Sturgeon's position could be compromised given her previous handling and the case Salmond won against the Scottish Government.

I suppose the issue is just how much influence this case might have over the next 3 weeks as the electioneering escalates, and how much the other parties draw attention to it.

It's going to be difficult to make too much of it publicly as a party but I imagine there will be semi - official efforts on social media - indeed I've already seen a couple elsewhere. The main impact will happen when the case goes to court - and given the timing there is no chance of indyref2 before it. I'm of the opinion that Sturgeon is in a great of deal of danger that what is revealed about who knew what when and actions surrounding that may scupper her. I also think that there will be an almighty struggle in the SNP if that happens and that I can't see them getting an indyref this side of the Scottish elections. I would then think that they may well lose seats in the 2021 election (Note I think they will gain a number in this WM election). The problem though with predicting things out as far as 2021 is that any number of things could happen before then.

[Walter]

I see Alex Salmond is really in deep water now , looks like he's ditched in the drink .
Mind you, I've always thought there was something fishy about that bloke

[Walter]

I wonder if he ever sniffed around that sturgeon ?

[Nearly Sane]

Surprised that Channel 4 didn't pick this up immediately


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50630054

[ippy]

Looks like he'll plead today, with the trial in March - but as you say not ideal for the SNP, but no doubt the Labour manifesto will take top billing later.

A lot will depend on whether voters have, by now, separated Salmond and his antics (such as his 'show' on a Russian TV channel) from the current SNP hierarchy and election campaign. There is a risk though that Sturgeon's position could be compromised given her previous handling and the case Salmond won against the Scottish Government.

I suppose the issue is just how much influence this case might have over the next 3 weeks as the electioneering escalates, and how much the other parties draw attention to it.

I've not got a lot of time for that Sturgeon or her SNP but I fail to see why any of these goings on with Alex Salmond should reflect on the S N P or anyone else associated with that party, unless of course it's a party member mixed up with Alex's goings on in some way.

ippy.

[Robbie]

If the allegations against Alex Salmond are found to be true, I suppose you could say he chanced his arm on more than one occasion.

[Nearly Sane]

I've not got a lot of time for that Sturgeon or her SNP but I fail to see why any of these goings on with Alex Salmond should reflect on the S N P or anyone else associated with that party, unless of course it's a party member mixed up with Alex's goings on in some way.

ippy.

There are going to be lots of questions about how it was handled and when Sturgeon knew of the allegations. We've already had the pay out on Salmond's legal fees which doesn't look good. There is also a jockeying for position in the party based on the possibility that Sturgeon may have to resign. Part of that also seems bound up with the internal split on reforms of the Gender Recognition Act which was reflected in the GE with different reactions to the suspension of Neale Hanvey with some suggesting it was due in part to his views on the Trans issue.

[Roses]

There are going to be lots of questions about how it was handled and when Sturgeon knew of the allegations. We've already had the pay out on Salmond's legal fees which doesn't look good. There is also a jockeying for position in the party based on the possibility that Sturgeon may have to resign. Part of that also seems bound up with the internal split on reforms of the Gender Recognition Act which was reflected in the GE with different reactions to the suspension of Neale Hanvey with some suggesting it was due in part to his views on the Trans issue.

If it is proved Sturgeon knew of the allegations before they were public knowledge, but covered them up, she should be forced to resign, if she doesn't do so of her own volition .

[Nearly Sane]

If it is proved Sturgeon knew of the allegations before they were public knowledge, but covered them up, she should be forced to resign, if she doesn't do so of her own volition .

It's more complex than that,  and it's unlikely that in the case it would be proven since that isn't what is being established.

[Robbie]

If it is proved Sturgeon knew of the allegations before they were public knowledge, but covered them up, she should be forced to resign, if she doesn't do so of her own volition .

All depends on circumstances: she may have heard rumours of allegations and not believed them. It's difficult to believe the worst of someone you know and respect (we've seen similar in other situations). I hope she doesn't go and...what NS said above me.

[Roses]

All depends on circumstances: she may have heard rumours of allegations and not believed them. It's difficult to believe the worst of someone you know and respect (we've seen similar in other situations). I hope she doesn't go and...what NS said above me.

Allegations should always be checked out, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

Allegations should always be checked out, imo.

What allegations are you talking about?

[Roses]

What allegations are you talking about?

The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.

Has it? And who has made those allegations? After all there was an investigation  into them, so the 'did nothing' is demonstrably untrue. 

[Roses]

Has it? And who has made those allegations? After all there was an investigation  into them, so the 'did nothing' is demonstrably untrue.

Whatever, no doubt it will all come out at his trial who knew what etc.

[Nearly Sane]

Whatever, no doubt it will all come out at his trial who knew what etc.

The trial isn't an investigation into who knew what when. It's about the allegations against Salmond.

[jeremyp]

The sexual abuse ones of course, it has been thought for a while that Sturgeon knew about them, but did nothing.

Let's say Nicola Sturgeon knew about the allegations. Assuming they had been reported to the police, what was she supposed to do about them?

[Roses]

Let's say Nicola Sturgeon knew about the allegations. Assuming they had been reported to the police, what was she supposed to do about them?

I was under the impression it is claimed by some that she knew about the allegations of abuse before they were reported to the police, but did not report them herself as she should have done, if that was the case.

I have no more to say on this topic.