You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
and the allegations turned out to be false.
Or not proven?
Its a general thing that in these sorts of cases its very hard to prove but malicious ie false claims are very rare simply because for the complainant it can be traumatic to go thru with a court appearance.
My point merely was that I am surprised no hint of this has been known before. Every other case of powerful men being sexual predators the romour mill had been in operation for a long time and we knew about it well before any court case.
Maybe there's some confirmation bias at work here?
I mean, there are always rumours, especially so if the person in question is a bit eccentric. So when someone gets Yewtreed we can all go "see, we knew it!" but all the other rumours get quietly forgotten (Cliff Richard for instance).
And can you honestly say you've not been surprised by any of the previous revelations? Did you always suspect that Stuart Hall was a wrong 'un? I believe Hall was 'known' at the time by those around him but not to the general public. How about Fred Talbot?
Eat the Pudding, are you not a prolific anti Indy/SNP poster on here?
google tasmina ahmed-sheikh and draw your own conclusions.
What about her?
Fair point cougar. Its just with all the political enemies I am suprised nothing has come out before. Hall and Talbot did not have the political enemies Salmond has but yes I had heard the rumours about Hall
I really do not know what to make of this.
Bowglie - he doesn’t have to lead any defense, the crown has to prove its case.
IRC - I suspect come May we will see the internet (and twitter especially) full of experts on the Moorov doctrine, despite the fact that plenty of Judges, QCs etc see it as far from black and white.
Trial begins today.
Mr Salmond must be thanking his lucky stars for
Covid-19..
Best of luck to them, trying to get 15 folk that won't pre-judge possibly the most divisive man in the history of Scots politics.
I can't help feeling that at some point in his trial he'll blame this all on the English.😁
A good friend of mine has worked at the parliament since independence. He said it was known that women shouldn't be in a room/lift etc with him alone.
A good friend of mine has worked at the parliament since independence. He said it was known that women shouldn’t be in a room/lift etc with him alone.
And yet this was completely refuted by witnesses at the trial (makes you think).
Actually his chief of staff more or less agreed that this was the case ( that Salmond was a groper not to be left alone with women) when he stated he went to a room where Salmond with a woman with no one else present.
Its clear to me that despite the lack of rumours that Salmond was a bit too touchy feely with staff ( at best) but given the inconsistent evidence from the prosecution I do not see how he can be convicted but who knows.
I am certainly suprised by some of the stuff that Salmond admitted.
Salmond’s former policy chief, Alex Bell, told the court earlier on Thursday he had been in Bute House, the first minister’s official residence, the night that a senior civil servant was allegedly forced by Salmond to reenact a painting showing an older man kissing a young woman in late 2010.
......................
Bell said “B” was on her own with Salmond in the drawing room as the then first minister’s team prepared for first minister’s questions, known as FMQs, the next day. Bell, who was then Salmond’s head of policy, said two other members of Salmond’s staff asked him to go up because B was alone with Salmond.
“I do recall as we were midway through FMQs prep, after the meal, that I went down to the office, and Graeme Roy and Sarah Govan said to me: ‘You’ve left [B] alone in the office. Would you go up?’” he told Salmond’s defence lawyer, Shelagh McCall QC.
Bell could not recall where B and Salmond were standing, but said he had coughed or cleared his throat before entering the room. He did not remember B seeming upset. Alex Prentice QC, the lead prosecutor, asked Bell why he went back upstairs. “To ensure that the welfare of my colleague was OK,” Bell said.
Disagree with you TJ. Obviously none of us have been in court, but Salmond in his evidence came out with the 'politically motivated fabrications' line. However his own defence counsel used the defence that he isn't a nice person, but what he is accused of isn't criminal. This seems to me to be a bit desperate & contradictory.
It's either a fabrication or it happened, the fact that his own counsel admits that something happened & that whatever it was, wasn't very nice rules out fabrication. Just based on that: I'd be voting guilty.
Ninja editing may have taken place
What I think is that there is a foundation in truth in the allegations and that Salmond is a groper - but the allegations have been exaggerated out of all contact with reality and some of thje allegations are outright lies politically motivated
the prosecution case seems very thin as well. My guess is that had it not been such a prominent person and not for the "me too" movement this would never have come to trial on such a thin case but if the PF had dropped it then there would have ( rightly?) been a huge outcry. Less than 10% of sexual assault allegations end up in court IIRC
I haven't read every word of the trial but that my view. He is ruined by his own admissions anyway. My guess? "Not proven" as a verdict rather than "not guilty" or "guilty".
And yet this was completely refuted by witnesses at the trial (makes you think).
Defence witnesses? Presumably not the accusers, who are witnesses.
Salmond is a groper
But TJ. Get with the zeitgeist. Groping is sexual assault and a criminal offence.
Oh indeed it is. Imnotverygood. I understand this.
I just find the whole case odd in a number of ways.
Cynic Al - read my piece above from the trial transcripts - thats one of salmonds allies confirming that there was a policy of not leaving him alone with women
Seems to me that "not proven" will be how it goes
Some good insight into the trial here
Not an impartial source but decent analysis once you allow for the bias
A summary of the trial. Jury's out.
Acquitted on all charges
Not proven on the attempt to rape charge
From the BBC article - what's he on about?
Speaking outside court after his acquittal, Mr Salmond told journalists: "As many of you will know, there is certain evidence I would have like to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so.
"At some point, that information, that facts and that evidence will see the light of day."
In that Guardian link, his QC seems to be hinting at some conspiracy or other too...
Gordon Jackson QC, Salmond’s advocate, rejected Prentice’s claims in his final address to the jury. He said there were no direct witnesses to the alleged assaults, and that inconsistencies and contradictions repeatedly cropped up in the testimonies and evidence. And, he alleged, there were signs some of the charges were orchestrated.
“This comes out of a political bubble with no real independent support of any kind. I said already it smelt and I don’t apologise for that one bit,” he said. “It’s the same pattern all of the time. All the time – I can’t say that strongly enough – it is the same pattern over and over and over again. It’s scary.”
So - is he a phantom groper & did the accusers over-egg the pudding to the extent inconsistencies appeared & the case went tits up, or is it all a big orchestrated conspiracy against him?
Reading reports of the trial from a distance I was expecting "not proven" - just seemed to many inconsistencies in the evidence.
I'd like to see his legal team put their money where their mouth is though
The Judicial Review of the failure of process resulted in Alex Salmond receiving over £500,000 in damages (subsequently distributed to various deserving causes). At the time, the Scottish Govt. admitted it had breached its own guidelines by appointing an investigating officer who had "prior involvement" in the case. It's obviously difficult to go further without identifying individuals but those words "prior involvement"?
mcj78
My reading of it is he is over familiar and too touchy feely. The main complainant was passed over for a candidate, decided to get back at him by making the accusations, contacted other with gripes against him or he had been over familiar / too touchy feely with and then they reinforced each others experiences by positive feedback. This is a known psychological phenomonen where people inadvertently reinforce things so they end up truely believing the incidents were more serious than they were. Similar to "false memory syndrome"
I don't believe some overarching conspiracy. I believe one malicious accusation and the rest minor incidents blown out of all proportion
If it had not been a prominent figure and the allegations made public before trial it would never have gone to trial on such thin evidence.
However his own admissions in the case ruin him for ever. I wasnever a huge fan but his own admissions show a stupendous lack of judgement
There has also still to be a Parliamentary Enquiry. That might throw more light on the role of Nicola Sturgeon in the investigation.
This must be a very disappointing result for the Unionists, but it may have the desired result for them because it has exposed a fault line in the SNP.
I wonder if the rumbling from the ranks will led to another independence party that is more aligned to the sovereignty angle rather than following the Westminster process.
The next Scottish election should be interesting - I reckon the SNP will be looking for a convenient excuse to delay it, e.g. Corona virus.
Yes - Something feels not right there Scotroutes Certainly her meeting with him after the complaints were known is again a stupendous lack of judgement - and usually Sturgeon has such good judgement.
He was also her mentor and friend for many years. Surely she would have been in a position to know if he was a groper?
More to come out yet for sure. I shall look forward to reading Craig Murrys blog on it - but of course with my tinfoil hat on.
............but it may have the desired result for them because it has exposed a fault line in the SNP.
I wonder if the rumbling from the ranks.............
Are there? I know nowt of this. Not saying you are wrong and the SNP are very good at news manafgement but is this a real thing?
Ms Cherry has spoken (well, Tweeted...)
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1242110086593613828?s=20
Well I reckon some people will be looking to engage their lawyers for advice on the forthcoming inquiry and any possible civil proceedings Alex Salmond might be contemplating. Lawyers eh, making money even in the direst circumstances 😊
Impression is probably as above for tjagain. Seems slightly friendly - overly so clearly - and very sure of himself (that good conceit Scots phrase). Do others not see it, or is it only in certain situations it comes to light (or not). Certainly folk (and folk I know that would not mince words) seem surprised at that level of allegations. Who knows.
I've just read that the defence were not allowed to cross-examine the "celebrity guest" who identified one of the accusers as being at Bute House prior to the alleged attempted rape. That seems like a bizarre legal situation?
The celeb was not in called as a witness - just the statement to the police used in court and that is always given little weight as evidence.
dunno why in this case but its not unheard of
My guess is the celeb is not in Scotland - but thats only a guess.
Edit:
If they are non UK based its very hard to force them to attend court. But that means that the evidence is effectively hearsay so is of little value and the judge would make that point
Witnesses have given evidence via video link in Scottish rape trials previously (I was at the first).
~True - but its very hard to force someone based overseas to give evidence. The implication of course of them not showing up to give evidence is that they do not want to face cross examination or risk perjury / lying to the police a a competent defense counsel would be sure to point this out. The evidence is almost worthless especially when opposed by someone that is present and can be cross examined
Again I don't know who or why in this case but I am sure we will find out. why they remain unnamed seems even odder to me. Why is their privacy being protected? they are a witness not a complainant. Someone who does not want it known they were at Bute house?
its certainly more than a bit odd.
I have been thinking about this a lot. I have followed the hints from those closer to the SNP than me and seen the split that was hidden between the "fundamentalists" and the "gradualists" and between those for whom independence is the only thing that matters and those who have other things they feel important as well
Its obvious Salmond think folk were out to get him and the party machinery was used to do this and its clear he has no proper understanding of 21st century sexual politics.
Clearly there is a load of suboptimal decision making ( at best) around his investigation, arrest and trial and clearly he feels a man wronged and wants to lash out at those who wronged him. But for the sake of the country, the party and the independence project he MUST not make this into a battle. One thing above all else the public hate is split parties and this is a critical moment for the SNP. IMO they are in danger of going down the labour road of factional infighting and more attention being paid to internal party politics than external issues and how they appear to the public at large
Sturgeon may have made errors here but I simply do not see her as being malicious and if he damages her reputation where it is not needed the party risk losing a tremendous asset - her basic competence and good raport with the public.
I hope he has a good sit down and a long think about what to do next and frames his next actions in a spirit of " whats best for the country" ( which could include heads rolling and so on) but that he does not act out of a desire for "revenge" Despite the aquittals has not come out of this well as by his own admission some of his actions are abhorrent. He can rehabilitate himself or he can take folk down inflames. His choice and I hope he picks the right one but I fear a vengeful man with no eye on the damage he will do
On Salmond - despite a "fishing expedition" that involved contacting over 400 women, and a degree of collusion between the parties doing the fishing, the accusations turned out to be falsehoods, some outright lies, some exaggeration and one illicit, consensual, sexual encounter. A jury, of mostly women, came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of any of them. You should also look at the timing of the accusations and that they were first reported to the SNP hierarchy and not the Police. Some of those involved within the SNP were doubling down yesterday, seeking to cast aspersions on the jury and the legal system because it didn't reach the conclusion they had so much desired.
On the SNP - the fact is that they have been in power for so long, and are likely to remain so, that folk with many other political agenda - and some with just a lust for power - see them as the only show in town. These folk aren't just "gradualists", for them independence is a distraction, an irrelevance. In fact, as they well know, independence would likely see the break up of the SNP as the glue of fighting for self-determination would no longer exist and they'd then lose the power they so desperately sought. There's a question asked of those SNP MPs sent to Westminster - are you there to settle up or to settle down?
The likely battle for Edinburgh Central between Joanna Cherry and Angus Robertson will be a key one to watch. Joanna has the fundies on board, Angus has the wokerati. If the latter wins then you can say goodbye to any chance of an independent Scotland for a lifetime.
If Salmonds next actions (and the forthcoming Holyrood Inquiry, and the investigation into Nicola Sturgeons role) result in a bit of a clearout in the SNP that might end up being the best thing.
No issue with that so long as his actions are in the best interests ( as he sees it of course) of the country not spite or vengeance. If this is dealt with well the damage could be minimal and the party and country could come out stronger. Deal with it badly and you end up like the labour party is now - more concerned with infighting and internal issues.
Maybe its part of maturing as a political party in power not a minority pressure group?
Critical times.
Edit - that post clears up a few things for me as well. Ta
If there are entryists who are just there for a sniff at power then they need to go. There is certainly one of them on Edinburgh council.
The likely battle for Edinburgh Central between Joanna Cherry and Angus Robertson will be a key one to watch. Joanna has the fundies on board, Angus has the wokerati. If the latter wins then you can say goodbye to any chance of an independent Scotland for a lifetime.
Colin, any chance of explaining this mate? I'm not really up on SNP in party politics, but keen that Indy doesn't suffer from stuff like this.
Ta.
Nobeerinthefridge
but keen that Indy doesn’t suffer from stuff like this.
See regarding indy, current events more important than this one will probably decide if there's any life left in indy tbh. If we come out of the current woes well, and i really really hope we do. I can't see indy surviving it, there will be a surge in pro british attitudes, imo.
Joanna Cherry is a bigot. There's plenty within the SNP who want rid of her, including many of the 'fundamentalists'.
This is a great example of why predicting the future is close to pointless.
A groper and a virus are quite likey to completely change the course of Scottish Independence.
Just to say - as an interested bystander (English living in England) it's fascinating reading your thoughts and views on such an important issue about which we hear nothing down here.
Thank you all for informing us
I'm not that informed on internal SNP stuff. Just my musings from the little I know
Restores my faith in humanity to see that politics everywhere is mainly about petty internal party turf wars and no one gives two hoots about the good of the people etc 😉
Looks like he is going to go full on for vengeance. That would be foolish in my view. He should wait for the review. Obviously if things were wrong then that needs to be addressed and maybe some heads should roll but to take the nuclear option will do untold damage.
In order to avoid said untold damage, several members of the SNP should be considering their positions and stepping down. In fact, if I was Nicola Sturgeon, I'd be making sure they did. The next inquiry will likely raise further question marks over the way the case was handled and it would be best that resignations were in beforehand rather than having to be dragged out as a consequence.
Seems fair enough. I do not know enough of the internal stuff really. Anything solid about misdeeds? I see hints from interested parties but nowt solid. I guess that will come out in time.
If people in the party were out to get Salmond why? One complainant passed over for being a candidate but if the conspiracy rather than cock up is true then whats the motivation? Thats whats got to me thru all this.
Why go after him after he resigned as first minister? ~Whats to be gained from it?
I am not saying yo are wrong but it all seems so weird to me.
Please let Fergus Ewing be part of the collateral damage from this!
Ummm. His own QC thinks he is a sex pest.. Doesn’t sound like it was a conspiracy that brought him down now does it?
His own QC thinks he is a sex pest.
His own QC was heard to say the words "sex pest" in a conversation about Alex Salmond, the allegations and the accusers. He was not heard to call Alex Salmond a sex pest. The QC is likely to be severely disciplined for using the names of two of the accusers in that same conservation.
Meanwhile, the accusers, in concert with Rape Crisis Scotland are doubling-down, with an open letter in The National. I reckon the Scottish legal profession are going to be kept very busy for a couple of years and Alex Salmond will end up a very wealthy man (OK, I know, he gave the last lot to charity).
One thing fairly impressive. Salmond clearly wants all the dirty washing out in the open / his vengeance ( delete according to political views). However he made one statement on the steps of the court which included ( to paraphrase) "now is not the time because of Corona. I'll shut up until the crisis is over" and so far he has.
Reading transcripts of the trial its clear that at best a lot of the evidence was very thin at worst much of it completely made up. Some of the witnesses should be facing trial for perjury the evidence was so obviously false.
The only problem for Salmond is his admissions of his own behaviour is the sort of thing that was barely acceptable in the 50s and certainly is not now. Not illegal just inappropriate.
Not illegal just inappropriate.
So if I can just lay my hands on someone and you think it's just "inappropriate"?
He is obviously a creepy, lecherous old man, who behaved in a way that he got away with for years, because of his position.
How would you feel if it was your wife, sister or daughter that he had a quick feel of?
I think he was lucky to get off with it.
Hope it ruins him in the end.
Point missed gobuchal. Its about boundarys and personal space not groping. Read the transcripts. Dont rely on the reports in the media.
Not a single credible allegation of anything lecherous. Not one.
Please - read the transcripts. I do not like Salmond and hope and believe this should be the end of him in scottish politics but having actually read the transcripts its clear what went on here and he is no sexual predator
Reading it from afar, I'm inclined to agree with TJ - the guys got no boundaries but, like the jury who heard the evidence, he didn't commit a crime.
His QC is an idiot though. People need to understand that you can't talk work on trains. I used to catch the Derby- London train for work, and the number of times I could overhear DWP managers who must have got on at Leeds discussing work and colleagues loudly used to make me cringe
read the transcripts its clear what went on here and he is no sexual predator
the guys got no boundaries but, like the jury who heard the evidence, he didn’t commit a crime.
He was not found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. He also had a not proven.
If there was a deliberate conspiracy to destroy him, they wouldn't of chosen this route, unless they had a reason to think he would of been found guilty.
Maybe he isn't a "sexual predator" but definitely a lecherous and creepy bloke.
Hopefully his new fame will keep him away from situations where he is able to make women 'uncomfortable'
If you read the transcripts you will see a somewhat different picture to the one that appears in the media. So please read them.
gobuchl
If there was a deliberate conspiracy to destroy him, they wouldn’t of chosen this route, unless they had a reason to think he would of been found guilty.
You're assuming competence. Margaret Curran has apparently been besides the scenes in this, and has been gunning for Salmond for political reasons for many years. Competence is not a quality she is known for, personal and vindictive attacks, yes.
If you read the transcripts you will see a somewhat different picture to the one that appears in the media. So please read them.
I've looked for trial transcripts before and found that it's pretty rare for trial transcripts to be available, so I'm going to take a punt and say you haven't read transcripts of this trials and nobody else has been able to either. The best you'll find is the judges summing up IME.
I'd be delighted for you to prove me wrong with a linky to the transcripts for this trial.
Unofficial transcripts from a variety of sources. takes the usual pinch of salt of course.
If you read the transcripts you will see a somewhat different picture to the one that appears in the media.
After the trial, the man himself admitted that he had behaved "inappropriately".
Yep, it was established that he had a consensual sexual encounter with one of the [s] conspirators[/s] accusers while married. Of course, in some countries that's almost mandatory for a leading politician 😉
So apart from letting us know hes mad as hell with Sturgeon did we learn anything new?
does anyone think this will have much cut-through with voters?
IMO Salmonds "evidence" today has dug him a deeper hole
He said he wanted Sturgeon to intervene and that the complaints should have gone to mediation.
I am afraid he just does not get it at all. Mediation is totally inappropriate way to deal with allegations of this type and because Sturgeon wouldn't intervene on his behalf then he has gone guns blazing for her
In any decent workplace anyone behaving like him would have been sacked immediately. I would have been. Yes his behaviour was not criminal - its still reprehensible by his own admission.
No one comes out of this smelling of roses
As for the trial - the Crown office was damned either way. It was a weak case but if they had not prosecuted the cries of "cover up" would have been huge. Prosecute and he claims malicious prosecution
I am afraid he just does not get it at all. Mediation is totally inappropriate way to deal with allegations of this type...
It was a bit of a shocker when he came out with that.
he just sounds like a jilted lover seeking revenge, just a sad pathetic man
One thing I will say in his favour - he has not been shouting all over the media about this as he could have done
Were there people in the SNP delighted to see him fall? I would say yes. Was there a conspiracy to get him and was the new rules that allowed action to be taken at ex ministers aimed at him specifically? Paranoid nonsense
One thing I will say in his favour – he has not been shouting all over the media about this as he could have done
No, but the BBC have been absolutely priapic about it, no doubt fed by the Tory "PR" dept keen to keep their incompetence off the front pages. Salmond is unwittingly being played by Westminster and Unionists as it suits their agenda to seek division.
I disagree. Mediation was offered by AS when it became clear that the Scot Gov complaints process against him was unfair and unlawful and was doomed to fail. However the Scot Gov pressed on with the process eventually leading to the Judicial Review.
Despite being compelled twice by the Scottish Parliment to release the legal advice, that led to the Scot Gov losing the Judicial Review, this legal advice has never been made public.
Sadly no-one is going to come out of this well.
To those from other pars of the UK who aren't up to speed on this it is like David Cameron claiming that Boris Johnston and his close pals tried to discredit him and send him to jail. And when that failled and with-hold information to the committee and efffectively stop if from getting to the bottom of this whole sorry affair.
Next week Nichola Sturgeon has the chance to rebut thse allegations.
All this is taking place in a country with a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by fighting amongst ourselves.
All this is taking place in a country with a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by fighting amongst ourselves.
It’s like the political equivalent of the Dutch national football team.
Good job their majority is so large.
Unless I have misunderstood there are two places Salmond asked for mediation. firstly on the complaints of sexual assault / harassment which is clearly wrong ( IMO he wanted Sturgeon to sweep it all under the carpet as he does not accept he did anything wrong) and secondly instead of the judicial review / during that process which may have some validity
At the core of this tho is that he does not accept that unwanted sexual attention from a big powerful man is unacceptable and that his behavior is abhorrent. He clearly still does not accept he did anything wrong.
your behaviour can be wrong and merit disciplinary action even if it not criminal
As above if I had done what he did then I would have been rightly sacked
I always felt he was an absolutely horrible character, and today reinforced that. He's absolutely deluded and hell bent on vengeance regardless of the damage it'll cause and regardless of whether it's justified. It's borderline George Galloway stuff. His ego refuses to accept his fall from grace and he clearly expected preferential treatment
Again - to be fair there clearly was things done wrong by both the SNP and the Scottish government. That needs to be exposed. I would have far more sympathy for him tho if he had not merely said " I was acquitted" and accepted that his behaviour was wrong albeit not criminal