[Closed] Where is the Alex Salmond thread?

Salmon and Sturgeon ....bit fishy innit

You noticed my typo before I edited..

I always thought a slime ball like that had no plaice running our country..

Simple question.

When someone is accused of sexual assault whats the "proper" way to deal with it;

a) Report it to the police and let them deal with it. Or,

b) Invite the accused into the process to "resolve the matter properly and amicably"

Quote from Salmond:

"Even now I have not been allowed to see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me.

"I have not been allowed to see the evidence. I have tried everything, including offers of conciliation, mediation and legal arbitration to resolve these matters both properly and amicably."

"This would have been in everybody's interests, particularly those of the two complainants. All of these efforts have been rejected."

So basically he would have done _anything_ to prevent the allegations going to the police, and claims that this would have been in the complainants interests....

In some ways I'm filled with grudging admiration. The man could pull a rhetorical victim card out of his arse if he was found eating a tesco lasagne over the bones of Shergar.

<p>

I always thought a slime ball like that had no plaice running our country..

Pollocks

Tbh he can carp on as much as he likes about his innocence, but he's well and truly been knocked off his perch with this revelation.

He haddock coming if you ask me...

Guilty until proven innocent? 😆

Lynch first, ask questions later.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Guilty of trying to cover it up

Why release a statement that he fully understands would end up in the press? Guilty of trying to bully and intimidate his alleged victims?

I don't agree with it, but the current method seems to be media first, innocent-until-proven-guilty later. The justification being that it may encourage others to come forward. T<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">he irony being that this wouldn't be in the media if Salmond didn't put it there (pre-emptive strike?).</span>

His chance to face the complaints will surely come through the police as part of the whole justice and due process gubbins. I'd much rather have a in-house complaints procedure that just passes credible complaints on instead of trying to resolve them behind closed doors.

I don't see his treatment is any different to anyone else that has been in a similar position, so claims of an anti-Alex conspiracy ring a little hollow. Except, as some of the faithful seem keen to report, he is quite obviously innocent while I'm sure every other alleged perpetrator clearly had it coming.

Not to play down the accusations against him (until we know what they are at least), but given they have been sitting on this since January I can't help but think its been designed to thwart any political come back he might have planned. There are some splits showing over the timing of a second referendum and from what I can see he had different ideas from the current leadership.

The guy isn’t even in office and still makes news. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty.  What kind of process doesn’t even let the accused see what the “evidence” is.

I don’t agree with it, but the current method seems to be media first, innocent-until-proven-guilty later. The justification being that it may encourage others to come forward.

How do you think Stuart Hall was convicted?

Alex who?

How do you think Stuart Hall was convicted?

Personally, I would make it require an application to a judge to release the name of the accused. Anonymity on both sides, unless there are objective reasons to name someone. Turn "the public interest" into a legal test. In some cases, it does encourage others to come forward. In others, it simply gets the tabloids all excited. Lets have some checks and balances in place.

And Nicola's statement on this issue, to me, is very responsible and balanced. I don't agree with her most of the time, but the attitude she expresses here is one that rather a lot of people could learn from when these allegations are made.

Im no fan of Alex or his views but has he been found guilty? Sir Cliff? The guy standing in for Steve Wright just now, would Dave Lee Travis have been done for a bit of fondling? , Paul Gambachini never got done.

Im no fan of Alex or his views but has he been found guilty?

Not in a court but the Government investigation has now been completed and he obviously doesn't like the result which implies it hasn't totally exonerated him:

"Ms Sturgeon said she had been told by the Scottish government's top civil servant, Leslie Evans, earlier this week that she had completed her investigation and that she intended to make the complaints public."

For myself, I think these things should be dealt with exclusively by the Police and names of accused and accuser should not be revealed until after conviction.

Always thought the man was an arrogant bully

I've been in a few meetings with Salmond and I can 100% confirm this is true. He was quite Trump-esque actually.

"Here's [England's] proposal"

"Well - we're going to do our own version in Scotland, and it'll be bigger and better than yours, and no we won't share"

Eck has been a crafty wee wordsmith in the past and at times amusing,but anyone that arselicked Trump on his way to the Menie deal and then an honorary award from Robert Gordon should be fed to the hordes.

Salmond is the one who is pushing it out into the public arena, and it's because he has not been made aware of the actual charges and evidence against him.

It's either a brave move, or foolhardy.

Sounds like someone was trying to hold it as a threat over his head.

I'll wait for the court to decide on the evidence.

anyone that arselicked Trump on his way to the Menie deal

This Alex Salmond?

See this is a good example of why the place we are in now with this type of issue is so corrupted, negative an counter productive.

He's not been accused of sexual assault, but rather 'sexual misconduct'. In a work setting that could range from anything from a misplaced comment through to actual touching, which could be construed as assault.

If he's propositioned someone, then while potentially a dismissable offence, he's not actually broken the law (ssuming there was nothing specifically coercive about it I guess) so there would be nothing to refer to the police and it would have to be handled by a tribunal.

Conflating misconduct with assault is the corrupted and counter productive part of the process as is not been told anything about what you've been acused of. I'm not surprised he feels the situation stinks.

Still maybe if the press are going to do him like a dinner on this, maybe for balance they'll get on the ball about the 50 parliamentary paedophiles, and also have a look at an ex PM too.

I agree that allegations should be kept out of the news until at least someone is charged.

Apparently Alex had already taken legal action to prevent the complaints being made public, which he's now waived himself.

Of course that relies on him actually having taken "legal advice" this time, instead of just making it up at random 🙂

As far as Nichola's statement goes: "This focus on process cannot deflect from the fact that complaints were made that could not be ignored or swept under the carpet."

Good for her, perfect statement in the circumstances.

The perfect ending for me would be one where Russia Today dissociate themselves from him for being bad for their brand.

Sexual misconduct can also include, frinstance, making an inappropriate joke. Which you shouldn't do, but it's more understandable how it happens. So it covers all sorts of activities.

He's always been a fanny tbh, ironically in some ways a bit Trumpish- people tolerated the fact that he was a fanny, because they thought he got things done. Since he retired I think most SNP supporters just wish he'd shut up and go away, and personally I'll not be surprised or disappointed if it's true. But that remains to be seen.

I agree that allegations should be kept out of the news until at least someone is charged.

But there are cases where a suspect cannot be charged without the evidence gathered from publicising his name.

The Herald website has three separate headlines, one refering to assualt, one to misconduct and one to harassment. Quality journalism. He could have been accused of anything from forcing someone to perform oral sex to having a quick scratch of his arse when he thought he was out of sight.

Aye scotroutes,wee Eck is just off camera waiting till McConnell has finished toadying up 😉

epicyclo

"50 plus parlimentary pedos"

paedogeddon!

You do realise that all of that was based on the word of one man (recipient of much "compensation") and led to a massive well funded police operation, which found no corroboration. And the main protagonist is now facing charges for having child porn on his computer?

Of course all of that is the result of the workings of the (harumph) deep state ........

ransos

But there are cases where a suspect cannot be charged without the evidence gathered from publicising his name.

Yes I've heard of those cases. I think they are called "cases with insufficient evidence", or "cases with no case".

In principle I agree that peoples names should be released in some circumstances, but not as a matter of course, and only with a genuine legal justification, not a fishing expedition.

The latest  http://archive.fo/jtft4

Going to be interesting to see how this pans out. She is accusing him of lying basically.

Guilty of trying to cover it up

Cover what up?

Yes I’ve heard of those cases. I think they are called “cases with insufficient evidence”, or “cases with no case”.

Like Stuart Hall, Rolph Harris and Jimmy Savile you mean?

Gotcha.

Eck

If you can be bothered to find out you can find the page on the Scottish Government process for this type of accusation. It would appear that the accusers have gone through the "work" route, in other words reported it up their management chain, who have put the internal processes into play (same as would happen in your work place). They are free at any time to go to the police for it to be investigated. It would appear that after the report was concluded internally. He does seem to have an issue with how it was carried out and possibly the processes themselves.

Reading epi's link it would appear that the findings were to be published but still no real indication of a police investigation.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-accused-touching-womans-13134675.amp?__twitter_impression=true

It's almost as if there was a general election about to be called and they do not want him standing as a candidate...

It’s almost as if there was a general election about to be called and they do not want him standing as a candidate…

Quick - fetch the tin foil!

Mmm, tricky moral dilemma. On one hand the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a vital cornerstone of our judicial and moral codes. On the other hand Salmond is an arrogant bore, an obnoxious bully and a proven liar.

So hey, swings and roundabouts etc.

It's certainly good that it's Alex Salmond that is the first to come up against this recently introduced "process". Most lesser mortals would have buckled immediately rather than face the tortuous process of taking it to court.

Meanwhile, what process is in place for identifying and disciplining the person/persons responsible for leaking the details to the press?

Alex Salmond should be investigated just like anyone else in the same circumstances. If the procurator thinks there is a case then he should be prosecuted.Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply to the media though.

Meanwhile, what process is in place for identifying and disciplining the person/persons responsible for leaking the details to the press?

Think of Alistair Carmichael, they'll probably get a knighthood or a KBE if they haven't already got one.

<p>

It’s almost as if there was a general election about to be called and they do not want him standing as a candidate…

Is there a suggestion that salmond boobed again here?

the SNP don't want Salmond back and don't be surprised if Sturgen is gone soon either.  The issue here is the leak to the press which can only have come from the party.  The only purpose of this is to shame Alex.  Nothing will happen with the police or the internal investigation by the party unless there is corroboration which I believe there isn't.

 The issue here is the leak to the press which can only have come from the party.

Or the civil service.

Or the civil service.

Civil service has nothing to do with the SNP.

The leak - it could have come from the Civil Service.

The leak – it could have come from the Civil Service.

no it couldn't.  The civil service has nothing to do with the SNP.

Why couldn't it have come from the Civil Service?

(Hint :"they have nothing to do with the SNP." is not an answer)

It could have come from St Andrew's house - I suspect the assumption is that the civil service has little to gain, expect perhaps personal vendetta, by doing so.

"The party" knows nothing about these allegations more than we do. That's why he isn't suspended. If their rules are that the party has to suspend someone, then they can't be suspended if the party can't reasonably be briefed on the complaint. Sturgeon knows as FM, but the details are still confidential.

The complaint was made to the civil service (as the authorities that run Holyrood) and they were dealing with it confidentially. There are probably quite a few people that know about it, including the complainants.

The civil service have decided, under their process which Sturgeon approved, that there is enough of a case to answer so the matter is now referred to the police. Salmond thinks he should have had a chance to get involved and stop it going to the police, so he's taking the Scottish Govt to court over it separately to any police investigation.

don’t be surprised if Sturgen is gone soon either.

Why's that then?.

"Nothing will happen with the police or the internal investigation by the party unless there is corroboration which I believe there isn’t."

I thought there was two separate complaints. In which case if they are similar in nature they may be able to corroborate each other - the Moorov Doctrine.

poah wrote

don’t be surprised if Sturgen is gone soon either.

who's that then?

Salmond has resigned from the SNP and is looking for a few quid for his legal fund...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45350523

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/AlexSalmond

It seems obvious that Nicola feels under pressure from other political parties to suspend me from SNP membership, given recent party precedents. For my part I have always thought it a very poor idea to suspend any party member on the basis of complaints and allegations. Innocent until proven guilty is central to our concept of justice.

However, I did not come into politics to facilitate opposition attacks on the SNP and , with Parliament returning next week, I have tendered my resignation to remove this line of opposition attack. Most of all I am conscious that if the Party felt forced into suspending me it would cause substantial internal division.

Seems like a well thought through decision.

Yip, best all round for the parliament, our elected representatives can get back to business.

That's him hors de combat for any forthcoming elections.

Wow, nearly £11k donated already on crowdfunding. Lots of donors suggesting this is all part of an elaborate Westminster attempt to undermine the Indy movement. If Westminster really wanted to undermine the Indy movement there are much easier and more credible ways of doing that such as basic economic analysis.

  If Westminster really wanted to undermine the Indy movement there are much easier and more credible ways of doing that such as basic economic analysis.

Aye, they could wheel out the big £350M bus again!...

Good point well put Nobeer.  All the same, it is a bit of a stretch to think this would be orchestrated by Westminster.

I agree, not a chance it's orchestrated IMO.

It might well have been orchestrated but I can't see how it could have possibly been so by Westminster.

Correct response from Salmond.  Whatever he has done or not done resigning the whip limits damage to the party and to him personally.  Mind you threatening to sue is stupid IMO

I have heard Salmond called many things over the years but never a groper.

I have no doubt at all this has been used for political capital.  How much influence the various players had over the timing and publicity of events I don't know but sure as hell its being used for political advantage.

threatening to sue is stupid IMO

Yes. It would be.

I have heard Salmond called many things over the years but never a groper.

I think if #MeToo has taught us anything it's that we just don't know.

Well, that's the crowdfunder over-subscribed already, £53,000 at  this point.

Must be nice to be able to get other people to pick up your legal bills whenever you are accused of something inappropriate!

Fair enough if he's done nothing wrong. If it at some point it comes out that we can list 'groping pervert' to his list of failings however, I'm hope that those who contributed feel a bit daft.

The crowd funding isn't for a case to determine his innocence or guilt it is to obtain an independent judicial review of the process that has recently been put in place by the Civil Service in Scotland. As I already posted above, it's good that Alex Salmond is the first (that we know of) to be affected by this process. A less well known person would likely have found it more difficult to fight.

As yet, we have no idea if the charges will ever make it to court.

The attitude that led him to crowdfund this is the reason hes a nobber regardless of the truth of the allegations.

For those who have doubts about how this has come about. What if this is just how the process works?

Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable.

For those who say this was "timed", ask yourself honestly. What time/date would have satisfied you that this was not a conspiracy of some kind?

By all accounts the process stayed quiet from January to August. Does that sound like a leaky civil service to you?

The rest of the fluff is just an attempt to distract from whats actually alleged.

Salmond is clutching at the "process" because if this flies hes finished and he knows it, he just needs to try to cast enough doubt in the minds of his supporters (the people who thought it was OK, or even good, that he got a job with RT, who deny GERS, think theres oil under the Clyde and claim exported whisky is taxed on the way out of the U.K. :O) so that he can keep milking them for the forseeable (crowdfunder).

Hence the twitter (and crowdfunder) comments about conspiracy and the the "deep state" (who for some reason despite their infinite knowledge failed to bring all this up in the run up to the indyref? Really?)

Weirdly, the timing is one of the things that rings truest for me.

Look at how people are reacting to these accusations now. Then imagine what would have happened during the independence campaign?

The women involved would have faced very significant consequences, accused of being liars, political tools, agents, traitors. It would have been the everyday treatment that women get when they accuse powerful men squared (this was before #metoo).

Salmond won't go away as long as there are people to listen and roubles on the table. As reality squeezes he'll squeak louder until he becomes the Scottish Alex Jones, without the vitamin sales.

The crowd funding isn’t for a case to determine his innocence or guilt it is to obtain an independent judicial review of the process that has recently been put in place by the Civil Service in Scotland. As I already posted above, it’s good that Alex Salmond is the first (that we know of) to be affected by this process. A less well known person would likely have found it more difficult to fight.

As yet, we have no idea if the charges will ever make it to court

I realise its not to establish his guilt. But it's clearly aimed at casting doubt over the entire process that has led to this, with him the sole beneficiary. Do you honestly believe he would have set up to crowd fund this if it had been any other member of the Parliament that had been the subject to it, as it's so unfair?

As I say, fair enough if he's innocent of charges. But if it turns out that he's guilty of anything, and the process is upheld ....then do you agree he has a moral obligation to pay the money back?

tpbiker

...But it’s clearly aimed at casting doubt over the entire process that has led to this, with him the sole beneficiary.

...Do you honestly believe he would have set up to crowd fund this if it had been any other member of the Parliament that had been the subject to it, as it’s so unfair?

...But if it turns out that he’s guilty of anything, and the process is upheld ….then do you agree he has a moral obligation to pay the money back?

Yes, there should be doubt cast over the entire process. It was done in secret and then leaked. He was not given details of the charges against him. That's why the crowdfunding is in place - it is not a fair and open process.

I don't understand why you think it's up to Salmond to set up a crowdfund for someone else. Surely that should be up to that person. However I can't think of any parliamentarian who would attract so much support, except maybe Dennis Skinner.

He has already said that any surplus will be given to charity. That's believable because he has a record of massive contributions to charity, more so than any other politician I can think off.

The fight is for a Judicial Review of a manifestly unfair secret process, not the charges. We will all benefit from that.

Any charges subsequently laid by the police will be another fight altogether.

BTW the fund now exceeds £70,000

"Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable."

ETP there was nothing officially released to the press till Friday.

According to their article the record were tipped off in October before the complaints process was in place and having uncovered further information were able to go ahead and publish as reporter's "sources" verified that info on Thursday night. This is all available on their editor's Twitter account.

I believe the first statement from the Scottish government came on Friday morning after the information was made public.

70k!! - pounds or rubles?

It's those worthless pounds.

And it's almost £75,000 now.

The fight is for a Judicial Review of a manifestly unfair secret process, not the charges. We will all benefit from that.

IYO it's unfair - what if the process is found to be perfectly fair? Just that wee eck didn't like it as it has been detrimental to him. Which I suspect is more likely the reason for his challenge. How is that beneficial to us?

As I say, if the process is found to be fair, and he is subsequently found to be 'guilty' as charged (and FYI I personally don't think that this should be a criminal matter).. Does he have the moral obligation to pay the money back?

Lets be honest here, there are plenty of unfair policies and processes in the workplace, and I'm sure plenty of unfair dismissals. Salmond is taking advantage of his popularity with his gullible supporters, as he has done for years, to benefit himself. Noone else..

Dealing with these complaints in confidence (aka secret) is the way it should be done. Basic due diligence to investigate whether there is a basis to the complaint doesn't require the accused to have a chance to answer them. With that due diligence done, it appears the complaint has some merit and so now it moves to a phase where Salmond will get his say. That's pretty much how these things are meant to work.

Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable.

There was no decision to release it. The government were considering whether there was public interest in releasing the details, at which point Salmond jumped the gun and went public himself. The leak to the Record happened after that. If Salmond had kept his big gob shut, we may have never found out.