Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

PD - you're back on here. In which case you can address this post you wrote about me where you claimed I admitted I was biased in favour of Salmond. Which post number are you referring to? Or were you lying?

Morning Gabriella

As you inferred I've not been posting much on this thread over the past few weeks and my posts over the last few days certainly contain no accusation of bias against you.

I've no desire to go wading through 27 pages of posts on this thread to find the post which I felt indicated you to be biased, so I will withdraw that accusation.

Now perhaps you might give your views on the current developments - specifically the independent inquiry not finding that Sturgeon breached the ministerial code, with the parliamentary committee finding that she misled the inquiry.

[ProfessorDavey]

Summary of the committee findings:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56494852

Not that this is particularly news as much had already been leaked.

[Nearly Sane]

I'll read the committee findings later today. But below is Andy Wightman's blog


https://andywightman.scot/committee-on-the-scottish-government-handling-of-harassment-complaints

[Roses]

The no confidence vote against Sturgeon failed.  31 MSPs backed it,  65 were against it and 27 abstained.

[Nearly Sane]

The no confidence vote against Sturgeon failed.  31 MSPs backed it,  65 were against it and 27 abstained.

Labour and Lib Dems abstained. Interesting move.

[Sebastian Toe]

Labour and Lib Dems abstained. Interesting move.

Well there was no chance of the vote carrying so I guess it looked better to not side with the Tories!

[Anchorman]

The no confidence vote against Sturgeon failed.  31 MSPs backed it,  65 were against it and 27 abstained.

   



I thought Smith's closing remarks were appalling.

[ProfessorDavey]

Labour and Lib Dems abstained. Interesting move.

I think it was a pretty smart move by Labour and the LibDems.

They weren't going to win the vote so why chain yourself to the losing side. But also it allows them to position themselves above the political infighting which turns off so many voters and to make the Tories seem both opportunistic and also isolated.

[ProfessorDavey]

   



I thought Smith's closing remarks were appalling.

Not sure who you are talking about as down south we didn't get much coverage of the non-confidence vote. What did he or she say?

[Nearly Sane]

Salmond to make statement today

[ProfessorDavey]

Salmond to make statement today

Hmm

What I would like to hear Salmond say in his statement:

'We have come to the end of the various inquiries into the original investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It is time to return to the reason why we have been through all this. I recognise that two women brought complaints several years ago and have never had those complaints considered to completion within the context in which they brought them, that being to their employer. It is time for those complaints to be heard and I will fully co-operate with a fresh investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer and if so I will cooperate fully in any formal process that follows.'

What I least expect Salmond to say in his statement - see above:

[Roses]

Hmm

What I would like to hear Salmond say in his statement:

'We have come to the end of the various inquiries into the original investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It is time to return to the reason why we have been through all this. I recognise that two women brought complaints several years ago and have never had those complaints considered to completion within the context in which they brought them, that being to their employer. It is time for those complaints to be heard and I will fully co-operate with a fresh investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer and if so I will cooperate fully in any formal process that follows.'

What I least expect Salmond to say in his statement - see above:

I wish, but doubt it will happen.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm

What I would like to hear Salmond say in his statement:

'We have come to the end of the various inquiries into the original investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It is time to return to the reason why we have been through all this. I recognise that two women brought complaints several years ago and have never had those complaints considered to completion within the context in which they brought them, that being to their employer. It is time for those complaints to be heard and I will fully co-operate with a fresh investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer and if so I will cooperate fully in any formal process that follows.'

What I least expect Salmond to say in his statement - see above:

Yes, if he says that, other than a passing reference to tye women, then I would suspect drugs.

More likely is something like 'Me, Me, and thrice Me. Vindicated, innocent, honest Me. Scottish govt pile of shite unlike Me. Court and committee and Me all agreed. Scottish civil service failing, Me successful. Poor women failed by Scottish govt and civil service, just like Me.'

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, if he says that, other than a passing reference to tye women, then I would suspect drugs.

More likely is something like 'Me, Me, and thrice Me. Vindicated, innocent, honest Me. Scottish govt pile of shite unlike Me. Court and committee and Me all agreed. Scottish civil service failing, Me successful. Poor women failed by Scottish govt and civil service, just like Me.'

Indeed I suspect you are right.

What I thought was very interesting in his evidence to the inquiry was that he repeatedly mentioned his success in the Judicial Review (arguable whether he did win as the case fell on a single point which wasn't one of the ones that Salmond had raised) and his acquittal in the criminal trial.

Now the former is a 'balance of probabilities case', which makes it easier for a complainant to win and the latter is a 'beyond reasonable doubt case' which makes it easier for a defendant to be acquitted.

He quietly neglected to mention that the original complaint was in a 'balance of probabilities case' context, which is therefore significantly easier for those bringing the complaint to win, yet of course that original case has never been heard.

Given the behaviour he admitted to under oath in the criminal case isn't it highly likely that the complainants allegations would be upheld on both a lower threshold of proof and also as the allegations of harassment are less serious than those heard in the criminal case, those being sexual/indecent assault and attempted rape.

[Gordon]

The final FMQs at Holyrood was today, before the election campaign starts, and it was interesting to see that Ruth Davidson (in her final appearance at Holyrood) chose to not mention the Salmond case in any of her questions, which surprised me given how vitriolic the  Scottish Tories have been on this issue - perhaps they were chastened that their 'no confidence' motion of yesterday turned out to be a damp squib after Scottish Labour decided to abstain.

Maybe they will raise it more during the election campaign or maybe, after the Hamilton report outcome, they've decided there is little mileage left in this that they could benefit from - time will tell. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Morning Gabriella

As you inferred I've not been posting much on this thread over the past few weeks and my posts over the last few days certainly contain no accusation of bias against you.

I've no desire to go wading through 27 pages of posts on this thread to find the post which I felt indicated you to be biased, so I will withdraw that accusation.

Now perhaps you might give your views on the current developments - specifically the independent inquiry not finding that Sturgeon breached the ministerial code, with the parliamentary committee finding that she misled the inquiry.

Ok thanks for withdrawing the accusation of bias.

I think MPs voting along party lines means I don't have much confidence in the Committee's findings. I think Salmond is mainly concerned about saving himself - not surprisingly as I get the impression that a lot of people who go into politics seem to spend their time trying to win fights or score points rather than a more collaborative approach. I can see though why the "genuine failure of recollection" is hard to believe as not being deliberate. But on the other hand I am not sure what difference it makes if she knew on 29 March as opposed to early April as she told Parliament.

What I think the focus should be on is that that the women's complaints seem to have been hijacked for political reasons rather than pursuing a course that was in the best interests of the women.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/salmond-accusers-reluctant-to-go-to-police-before-being-sounded-out-msps-told/ar-BB1bwUma

The Scottish government's response seems to have been to manipulate the situation for their own purposes, so once again some suggestion of ignoring the issue of consent of the women - in this case consent to how they wanted their complaint dealt with.

I also want to consider what is the public interest justification for retrospectively applying this change of policy on harassment at work. We all know that work place harassment was not always dealt with correctly in the past as some women just considered it "banter" or "no big deal" and weren't upset by it while others were. I think all this time and money on these various court cases and inquiries would have been better spent focusing on educating people now to act more respectfully - both men and women - to make it clear that times have changed and that certain types of "banter"/ interactions in the work place or on the street will no longer be acceptable or tolerated or overlooked even if some women say they do not mind it.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed I suspect you are right.

What I thought was very interesting in his evidence to the inquiry was that he repeatedly mentioned his success in the Judicial Review (arguable whether he did win as the case fell on a single point which wasn't one of the ones that Salmond had raised) and his acquittal in the criminal trial.

Now the former is a 'balance of probabilities case', which makes it easier for a complainant to win and the latter is a 'beyond reasonable doubt case' which makes it easier for a defendant to be acquitted.

He quietly neglected to mention that the original complaint was in a 'balance of probabilities case' context, which is therefore significantly easier for those bringing the complaint to win, yet of course that original case has never been heard.

Given the behaviour he admitted to under oath in the criminal case isn't it highly likely that the complainants allegations would be upheld on both a lower threshold of proof and also as the allegations of harassment are less serious than those heard in the criminal case, those being sexual/indecent assault and attempted rape.

I found the Scottish government's refusal to hand over documents to the inquiry and their various efforts to dodge accountability more worrying than Salmond's lack of comments about the allegations of harassment against him.

[ProfessorDavey]

I found the Scottish government's refusal to hand over documents to the inquiry and their various efforts to dodge accountability more worrying than Salmond's lack of comments about the allegations of harassment against him.

I don't think it is an either/or option.

My primary concern, as it has been right from the beginning, is that the women who brought the complaints are given the opportunity to have those complaints fully considered with the context that they raised them, namely an employment-based process with balance of probabilities as the burden of proof. That still has not happened, even though they raised the complaints over three years ago now.

When I raised this previously you suggested that a new inquiry into the complaints couldn't proceed while the other investigations were ongoing. Well now they have completed and reported. Do you agree that we need to rapidly start the process of investigating the complaints again to ensure the women have had the opportunity for their complaints to be considered to a completion of the process. I'm not prejudging what that outcome may be but surely they deserve to have their complaints considered to completion.

Everyone else seems to have had their 'day in court' - so to speak - in other words to have had a process that is completed - except the two women on the basis of the complaints they originally brought forward.

[Nearly Sane]

And it's off to court again, no doubt with another crowdfund


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56513358

[Gordon]

And it's off to court again, no doubt with another crowdfund


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56513358

I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.

[Roses]

I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.

I agree.

I was surprised to discover that Salmond's wife, Moira, is 82, 16 years older than him.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect the motive now is revenge: he wants at least one head to roll so as to justify himself, and if he can't get the FM he'll go for the top civil servant. Pity he isn't more concerned about his own behaviour.

And again the women in the original complaint are mere pawns.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think it is an either/or option.

Agreed. That's why I said I found the government's actions more worrying than Salmond's lack of comment. It's a comparison of the 2 rather than an either/ or.

My primary concern, as it has been right from the beginning, is that the women who brought the complaints are given the opportunity to have those complaints fully considered with the context that they raised them, namely an employment-based process with balance of probabilities as the burden of proof. That still has not happened, even though they raised the complaints over three years ago now.

When I raised this previously you suggested that a new inquiry into the complaints couldn't proceed while the other investigations were ongoing. Well now they have completed and reported. Do you agree that we need to rapidly start the process of investigating the complaints again to ensure the women have had the opportunity for their complaints to be considered to a completion of the process. I'm not prejudging what that outcome may be but surely they deserve to have their complaints considered to completion.

Everyone else seems to have had their 'day in court' - so to speak - in other words to have had a process that is completed - except the two women on the basis of the complaints they originally brought forward.

If that's what the women still want and if the harassment policy and procedures have been checked to see if they are fit for purpose and workable and if the government are competent to apply the process correctly - so for a start if they can manage to appoint someone who has not had any prior involvement in the case or contact with the parties involved to look into the women's allegations without creating the appearance of bias then yes I think the women's allegations should be looked into.

Not sure what the government will say about looking into the complaints if there is to be another court case. 

[Nearly Sane]

I agree.

I was surprised to discover that Salmond's wife, Moira, is 82, 16 years older than him.

They met when she was his boss

[Nearly Sane]

Agreed. That's why I said I found the government's actions more worrying than Salmond's lack of comment. It's a comparison of the 2 rather than an either/ or.
If that's what the women still want and if the harassment policy and procedures have been checked to see if they are fit for purpose and workable and if the government are competent to apply the process correctly - so for a start if they can manage to appoint someone who has not had any prior involvement in the case or contact with the parties involved to look into the women's allegations without creating the appearance of bias then yes I think the women's allegations should be looked into.

Not sure what the government will say about looking into the complaints if there is to be another court case.

And let's remember that we are just about to have an election so anything that happens will be after that. And I can't help thinking that this may have a significant effect on the election.