Is Alex Salmond sex pest?

[Ally Bongo]

2 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

So, this is one of the ‘sexual assaults’ as listed above ? 

Indeed

Craig Murray's view

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/yes-minister-fan-fiction/

 

[ParisInAKilt]

That Record front page is so bad. 

Trial in March?

Can’t really see how he can get a fair trail.

[TDYER63]

35 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Indeed

Craig Murray's view

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/yes-minister-fan-fiction/

 

I am keeping an open mind on this whole thing but that ‘sexual assault’ is pathetic and Murrays blog scarily believable. 

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I am keeping an open mind on this whole thing but that ‘sexual assault’ is pathetic and Murrays blog scarily believable. 

Murray's blog is also highly likely to be a contempt of court as well, but anyway.

Like you, I'm keeping an open mind as regards this case until the evidence is presented but context is everything and the charges themselves tell us nothing about the context.

Sexual assault covers a range of types and severity of contact and isn't restricted to certain parts of the body and whether it's through clothing or not isn't relevant.

That doesn't mean that any contact with someone's arm, for example, constitutes a sexual assault but I can see situations where it would be and presumably that will form the basis of the prosecution's case.   

Im sure you could imagine a situation where - for example, and I'm not suggesting this is what happened in this case - a man was to start stroking your arm in a way that clearly implied some form of sexual intention, which was completely unwelcome and made you feel uncomfortable.  That is a sexual assault.

 

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

Murray's blog is also highly likely to be a contempt of court as well, but anyway.

Like you, I'm keeping an open mind as regards this case until the evidence is presented but context is everything and the charges themselves tell us nothing about the context.

Sexual assault covers a range of types and severity of contact and isn't restricted to certain parts of the body and whether it's through clothing or not isn't relevant.

That doesn't mean that any contact with someone's arm, for example, constitutes a sexual assault but I can see situations where it would be and presumably that will form the basis of the prosecution's case.   

Im sure you could imagine a situation where - for example, and I'm not suggesting this is what happened in this case - a man was to start stroking your arm in a way that clearly implied some form of sexual intention, which was completely unwelcome and made you feel uncomfortable.  That is a sexual assault.

 

That’s interesting. I didn't realise stroking someone's arm was classed as a sexual assault.

Whilst I can definitely understand why a woman may feel uncomfortable in that situation , I also feel that referring to it as sexual assault undermines far more serious sexual charges.
I dont think a lot of people are aware of the range of ‘situations’ the term covers,  and are probably aghast at the number of charges against him , and assuming they are all violent attacks. 
I am a little sceptical about where these charges have suddenly appeared from. To me it looks like they are trying to drag up anything to pad out the charge sheet.
Take the above charge for example. It quotes that the attack  happened in 2010 or 2011.
Now admittedly I am making the assumption that there is a degree of uncertainty about the date this happened , as the victim is unsure. That may not be the case . However if I was sexually assaulted to the extent I felt I had to take the person to court I think i would remember what YEAR it happened.   

Tbh , if I had to take every bloke to court that has made a tit of himself I would be in court more often than Judge Judy. I have found a polite ‘ take your hands off me ya fucking creep’ usually works. 

That of course is a slight exaggeration but I am sure you get the point. 

No matter what the outcome Salmond will be finished. 
 

 

[thplinth]

On 1/13/2019 at 5:23 PM, Orraloon said:

At the time I made that post, I was starting to think that there might be a slight chance (just a slight one) that this had been instigated by Nicola or someone very close to her. There are some rumours to that effect. Had that been shown to be the case, I don't think she would have lasted very long. But I am now convinced that this isn't what is happening here. This isn't a Sturgeon v Salmond thing. I don't know what it is, or who instigated it , but I am now convinced it wasn't Nicola.

I think referring herself is a smart move. Sounds like something Alex himself would have done in the same situation.

 

On 1/13/2019 at 8:11 PM, thplinth said:

Yeah I think so.

No idea why her fans are her fans.

Her bizarre inability to criticize these two women who have orchestrated much of this is very curious. I think she is up to her neck in it. If so she has blown up her own party for identity politics bullshite just when they were on the verge... I suppose that would be poetic justice to some.

 

 

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Indeed

Craig Murray's view

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/yes-minister-fan-fiction/

 

If this is true what is your view of it? WTF man...

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

That’s interesting. I didn't realise stroking someone's arm was classed as a sexual assault.

Whilst I can definitely understand why a woman may feel uncomfortable in that situation , I also feel that referring to it as sexual assault undermines far more serious sexual charges.
I dont think a lot of people are aware of the range of ‘situations’ the term covers,  and are probably aghast at the number of charges against him , and assuming they are all violent attacks. 
I am a little sceptical about where these charges have suddenly appeared from. To me it looks like they are trying to drag up anything to pad out the charge sheet.
Take the above charge for example. It quotes that the attack  happened in 2010 or 2011.
Now admittedly I am making the assumption that there is a degree of uncertainty about the date this happened , as the victim is unsure. That may not be the case . However if I was sexually assaulted to the extent I felt I had to take the person to court I think i would remember what YEAR it happened.   

Tbh , if I had to take every bloke to court that has made a tit of himself I would be in court more often than Judge Judy. I have found a polite ‘ take your hands off me ya fucking creep’ usually works. 

That of course is a slight exaggeration but I am sure you get the point. 

No matter what the outcome Salmond will be finished. 
 

 

 

This is in the general sense of these sort of cases and I'm not implying on inferring anything on this specific case.

Assault in its general sense is unwanted physical contact of any sort but that doesn't mean that every time someone touches you that they'll be convicted of it.

It's of course very difficult to prove a lot of cases of sexual assault or even rape because by their very nature they tend to be acts that aren't witnessed by others and even if there's physical evidence the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't consensual and its even more difficult to prove in historic cases.

That's why the approach taken by prosecutors in pursuing these cases is to basically rack up the charges from as many different witnesses as possible so as to demonstrate that there is a pattern of behaviour.  Put simply, if you have 10 people - and especially if they're all unrelated to each other - and they have a similar experience in similar circumstances then the tendency is to believe that they all can't be lying or mistaken.    With that in mind, I don't think its a case of "minor" charges undermining more serious examples of sexual assault but that they are used to assist in gaining convictions for the more serious cases.

This is also one of the reasons that prosecutors are so reluctant to grant anonymity to anyone accused of a sexual offence before conviction - as is the case with victims.    They rely on the publicity - particularly for high profile cases - to encourage other complainants to come forwards

That might sound unfair, that each case should be treated independently, however the other side of that coin is that serial abusers, particularly men in positions of power, influence or celebrity have relied on for years, ie. who are you, you're nothing, I'm something, who's going to believe you.

It's a really difficult situation - in the general sense - as you can see both sides.

In this case if all they'd come up with was some cases of someone being a bit "handsy", I doubt it would ever get anywhere near the court but these "additional" charges need to be seen in this light.

I agree with you, even if he's completely exonerated, Salmond is finished, in truth he was finished from the point this all became public.    The bigger concern to the me how far any contagion spreads within the Scottish Government, SNP and wider Yes movement.   Especially as once the trial concludes, there's a couple of parliamentary inquires lined up.

[Orraloon]

11 minutes ago, thplinth said:

 

 

If this is true what is your view of it? WTF man...

If what is true? Craig Murray's post? He makes it perfectly clear that it is a piece of "fan fiction". 

If he has more information that he isn't telling us about, he might be prepared to reveal it after the court case.

I am still convinced that Nicola is not behind this. I've seen nothing in the past year to make me change my mind. 

Let's see what happens in court. Could be interesting?

 

 

[thplinth]

I am not going to spell it out...

I did however get to thinking about whether, had I indeed toddled off on my next great adventure, I would regret holding information which I had not imparted to you. Well, I couldn’t in those circumstances regret not having imparted it as I would be deid, but you know what I mean. As it happened the thing I found I was most worried about not being able to impart was not, at least on its surface, a case of world sweeping importance, but rather of individual injustice. Though the surface often hides a great deal.

....

Minister But surely nobody will believe my own Private Secretary – and she was involved in putting the dossier together and in discussions on handling the case. Nobody is going to believe her. And (gasps in horror) it really leads straight back to me being behind it, doesn’t it?
Perm Sec It can’t be traced back to you, Minister.
Minister Phew, that’s a relief. It can’t be traced back to me you say. How does that work?
Perm Sec Accuser anonymity, Minister.

Minister Accuser anon… oh yes! Oh yes! I am beginning to see!! They are sexual allegations so…
Perm Sec The identities of the accusers can be kept hidden by the court under penalty of severe jail sentences for anybody who reveals them so…
Minister …the accusers can just be my closest political cronies and the public will never be aware of that! That’s brilliant, Perm Sec!
Perm Sec Thank you, Minister (Canned Laughter)

....

Minister What? Oh too right. I was just thinking, Permanent Secretary, you know I am starting to get the hang of this. What about old Marmalade? He is very keen to get back into parliament and sees himself as a potential successor.
Perm Sec Marmalade? Well I suppose if we start adding in gay allegations, it does give a slightly more exotic tinge for the tabloids.
Minister I was thinking more of his wife, Permanent Secretary. If the old Marmalade family want a nice safe seat in the capital, let them do something to earn it.
Perm Sec Indeed, Minister. And is the wife not a former Special Adviser?

......

Robertson make marmalade right?

 

 

 

 

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

 

This is in the general sense of these sort of cases and I'm not implying on inferring anything on this specific case.

Assault in its general sense is unwanted physical contact of any sort but that doesn't mean that every time someone touches you that they'll be convicted of it.

It's of course very difficult to prove a lot of cases of sexual assault or even rape because by their very nature they tend to be acts that aren't witnessed by others and even if there's physical evidence the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't consensual and its even more difficult to prove in historic cases.

That's why the approach taken by prosecutors in pursuing these cases is to basically rack up the charges from as many different witnesses as possible so as to demonstrate that there is a pattern of behaviour.  Put simply, if you have 10 people - and especially if they're all unrelated to each other - and they have a similar experience in similar circumstances then the tendency is to believe that they all can't be lying or mistaken.    With that in mind, I don't think its a case of "minor" charges undermining more serious examples of sexual assault but that they are used to assist in gaining convictions for the more serious cases.

This is also one of the reasons that prosecutors are so reluctant to grant anonymity to anyone accused of a sexual offence before conviction - as is the case with victims.    They rely on the publicity - particularly for high profile cases - to encourage other complainants to come forwards

That might sound unfair, that each case should be treated independently, however the other side of that coin is that serial abusers, particularly men in positions of power, influence or celebrity have relied on for years, ie. who are you, you're nothing, I'm something, who's going to believe you.

It's a really difficult situation - in the general sense - as you can see both sides.

In this case if all they'd come up with was some cases of someone being a bit "handsy", I doubt it would ever get anywhere near the court but these "additional" charges need to be seen in this light.

I agree with you, even if he's completely exonerated, Salmond is finished, in truth he was finished from the point this all became public.    The bigger concern to the me how far any contagion spreads within the Scottish Government, SNP and wider Yes movement.   Especially as once the trial concludes, there's a couple of parliamentary inquires lined up.

Thanks. I realise you are talking in a general sense and dont mean specifically this case. At least thats what I’ll tell the judge at your trial 🙂

And yes, Salmonds innocence or guilt aside, the wider implications for independence are a concern. The Daily Mail had 17 pages per day on the Harry/ Meghan fiasco. Can you imagine what Salmonds court case will be like? 

Re the second bit in bold above. I wasnt meaning the minor charges in this case undermining more serious charges.
 I was just meaning that, in general, a lot of people associate the term ‘sexual assault’  with rape , or at some degree of violence.  If we lump unwanted arm stroking ( just as an example )  into this category I feel it reduces the  impact  of more serious offences. Its probably just my own interpretation of the term that is skewed but it does seem to cover a pretty wide range. 
 

 

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Re the second bit in bold above. I wasnt meaning the minor charges in this case undermining more serious charges.
 I was just meaning that, in general, a lot of people associate the term ‘sexual assault’  with rape , or at some degree of violence.  If we lump unwanted arm stroking ( just as an example )  into this category I feel it reduces the  impact  of more serious offences. Its probably just my own interpretation of the term that is skewed but it does seem to cover a pretty wide range. 
 

 

I understand that and tend to agree with you and I think that's probably the outcome but not the intention if that makes sense,

The issue here is that assault - in the general sense - covers any physical contact that doesn't cause any physical harm, spitting on someone is assault.    The same thing happens with sexual assault where the next step up is rape and of course rape has a very specific definition and is a crime which only someone with a penis can commit.

[TDYER63]

19 minutes ago, aaid said:

I understand that and tend to agree with you and I think that's probably the outcome but not the intention if that makes sense,

The issue here is that assault - in the general sense - covers any physical contact that doesn't cause any physical harm, spitting on someone is assault.    The same thing happens with sexual assault where the next step up is rape and of course rape has a very specific definition and is a crime which only someone with a penis can commit.

👍

[euan2020]

37 minutes ago, aaid said:

I understand that and tend to agree with you and I think that's probably the outcome but not the intention if that makes sense,

The issue here is that assault - in the general sense - covers any physical contact that doesn't cause any physical harm, spitting on someone is assault.    The same thing happens with sexual assault where the next step up is rape and of course rape has a very specific definition and is a crime which only someone with a penis can commit.

not sure that is true - sexual assault is now used interchangeably with rape - not sure if its because it's a nicer word - but many times sexual assault is used, and then find out it is rape

[aaid]

7 minutes ago, euan2020 said:

not sure that is true - sexual assault is now used interchangeably with rape - not sure if its because it's a nicer word - but many times sexual assault is used, and then find out it is rape

Maybe in the press but not in law.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_(Scotland)_Act_2009

[phart]

7 hours ago, thplinth said:

I am not going to spell it out...

I did however get to thinking about whether, had I indeed toddled off on my next great adventure, I would regret holding information which I had not imparted to you. Well, I couldn’t in those circumstances regret not having imparted it as I would be deid, but you know what I mean. As it happened the thing I found I was most worried about not being able to impart was not, at least on its surface, a case of world sweeping importance, but rather of individual injustice. Though the surface often hides a great deal.

....

Minister But surely nobody will believe my own Private Secretary – and she was involved in putting the dossier together and in discussions on handling the case. Nobody is going to believe her. And (gasps in horror) it really leads straight back to me being behind it, doesn’t it?
Perm Sec It can’t be traced back to you, Minister.
Minister Phew, that’s a relief. It can’t be traced back to me you say. How does that work?
Perm Sec Accuser anonymity, Minister.

Minister Accuser anon… oh yes! Oh yes! I am beginning to see!! They are sexual allegations so…
Perm Sec The identities of the accusers can be kept hidden by the court under penalty of severe jail sentences for anybody who reveals them so…
Minister …the accusers can just be my closest political cronies and the public will never be aware of that! That’s brilliant, Perm Sec!
Perm Sec Thank you, Minister (Canned Laughter)

....

Minister What? Oh too right. I was just thinking, Permanent Secretary, you know I am starting to get the hang of this. What about old Marmalade? He is very keen to get back into parliament and sees himself as a potential successor.
Perm Sec Marmalade? Well I suppose if we start adding in gay allegations, it does give a slightly more exotic tinge for the tabloids.
Minister I was thinking more of his wife, Permanent Secretary. If the old Marmalade family want a nice safe seat in the capital, let them do something to earn it.
Perm Sec Indeed, Minister. And is the wife not a former Special Adviser?

......

Robertson make marmalade right?

 

 

 

 

 

[Shaundy]

Looking forward to this case seems an inappropriate sentence. 
Have only once read the charges a while ago and thought it wasn’t more than a contrived attempt at someone who wouldn’t get a mention in other political party behaviour. 
Still, even typing this has my pad jumping around like never before and the stink of the shadow folk is tangible. 
Is he a sex pest ? Personally doubt he’s as bad as most I know after a few sherbets, quite the opposite I reckon . Not the sort to give an elephant drinking a pint impression or goose someone ( tbh I have always thought goosing a severe assault even in my states) .

i don’t mean to be flippant but the charges seem weak and the extrapolation is what I am intrigued about. Especially the sources and their evidence. Will fill in the days before the next game . 
met him in st ettiene in 98 and he’s aged better than my deviant lifestyle has afforded 

[Shaundy]

Needs It’s own new boot

i reckon no more than any other dick . 

[thplinth]

Naw I don’t think folk should be intimidated into some sanitized fearful thread by these wankers. This trial is really shaping up into a shit show. 

[Ally Bongo]

It really does look as if they are doing their best to get the case dismissed and have Salmond's innocence or guilt subjective for eternity

[thplinth]

On 1/24/2019 at 10:56 PM, Auld_Reekie said:

😄 You what?

I see nothing much has changed on here. People like me are probably keeping an open mind and are willing to let a court of justice determine his guilt. I certainly won't be backing Salmond until his innocence is clear nor will I be donating to a crowdfund or some other crass licking of Alex's bumhole just because of my political biases.

Yeah people like you. With 'friends' like you he sure did not need enemies. Well worth a re-read this thread as well.

[thplinth]

On 1/8/2019 at 8:35 PM, phart said:

That boys twitter feed is worth a read as well, he was in court covering it and is referenced in the Murray piece.

 

I'm Glad Murray has pointed out Judith Mackinnon  I was completely unaware, the fact she has a nothing job is suspicious as fuck and Murray is hinting a bit i think.

" Officer was also “actively involved” in drafting govt’s new complaints procedure" So Judith gets a job in SG, drafts the proposals for complaint procedure get's it signed off by Evans and then SNP. Then actively has direct contact with the complainees " “bordering on encouragement to proceed with formal complaints”.

But everyone is talking about Leslie Evans and me included I thought she was the one. This Judith is worth the watching

 

On 1/9/2019 at 7:08 AM, phart said:

Also Judith Mackinnon  was Head of HR Governance for the Scottish Police Authority as well, so is that the Police Inquiry prejudiced as well?

I have kept a running thread with all the dodgy shit going on at Police Scotland internally at senior ranks so interesting to find out she was there as the Head of Governance just until last year where she moved into a non-job for the SG actively helped create new processes for complaints (you know what i mean) she then coaches some people thinking of coming forward against Alex Salmond, then shortly after the new rules come is then tasked with using the rules she drafted to take the complaints forward.

 

She is blowing up my spook meter so bad.

 

On 1/9/2019 at 7:35 AM, phart said:

https://www.gov.scot/about/how-government-is-run/directorates/people/nicola-richards/

 

Nicola Richards is the other person who was involved.

" MacKinnon had met the two women at the same time as she had been copied into a series of draft versions of the Scottish government’s new ministerial complaints code in November 2017, as had Evans and MacKinnon’s boss, the Scottish government’s director of people, Nicola Richards."

 

Their whole defense is "oh sorry officer we didn't know we couldn't do that" Yet the folk who did do it actually wrote the Scottish government’s new ministerial complaints code so how they could be unaware they weren't meant to assign the case to the person coaching them?Then they tried to fight to stop that becoming public knowledge.

 

Some of this #metoo is reminding me of the crucible.

 

 

 

 

On 1/9/2019 at 8:05 AM, phart said:

I hate sophistry like this

" She(Evans) said the full picture about MacKinnon’s contacts with the complainers only became clear in December 2018 after additional papers were released after a court order, for which Evans apologised. She said she had ordered an internal review of that sole issue.

 

Aye we didn't bother looking at the "additional papers" ourselves we just didn't think to do it, till the court ordered it then suddenly we realised "oh look a conflict of interest". It's not like they weren't in contact they had just worked together on the new ministerial complaints code. Could have just asked each other when you met, but no it's the sly plausible deniability then trying to spin by talking about "sole issue". Aye coaching the complaints and at the same time drafting the changes to the rules in which those coached complaints will be heard is a "sole issue".

 

She then goes on to vaguely deny what Salmonds solicitor is saying but conceded the whole case. It can't be both.

 

 

 

On 1/9/2019 at 10:47 PM, phart said:

The fact you've come on here and made up arguments shows your agenda. thplinth never said the two women are spies yet here you are trying to say he said it's the only explanation. When he never.

Why even take the effort to type if it's just going to be made up pish?

Judith is alleged to have sought out the women and coached them while at the same time creating the rules upon which the person who they were making the complaint against would be judged.

This isn't an OK process, how can you know where the "will" to complain came from now. You can't. So it isn't OK that the process was allowed to continue and both the government and the courts agreed hence why it was stopped.

Sturgeon did change the procedure though, she signed it off just before The complainees made their official complaint, though, they had been getting informal help which was ruled illegal.

It's the substance of the investigation and how it was carried out, not that there was an investigation, which people have problems with.

 

On 1/10/2019 at 10:49 AM, aaid said:

Murray Foote, the former editor of the Record, author of the Vow and all that, a man who "has gone on a journey" and now supports Indy, said there were three possible explanations and I agree with him.

1. That senior individuals had set out to deliberately get Salmond.

2.That the process was deliberately compromised at the start so as to invalidate it and clear him.

3. Incompetence.

I don't buy 3 and in this case 2 looks unlikely which leaves you with the obvious explanation of 1.

One thing I'd add though based on what's come out in the last couple of days, I think the agenda is more likely to be a #MeToo one rather than an anti-Indy, anti-SNP one.   

 

On 1/10/2019 at 12:08 PM, thplinth said:

Oh they were out to get him. I would not be at all surprised if the disciplinary rules were specifically changed with this in mind. But if what G-man says is correct then he provided the chink in the armour for them. A tiny one but one all the same... and they took it.

What I would have liked from Sturgeon was some acknowledgement that the disciplinary process that Salmond was being subjected to was manifestly unfair in practice but of course she approved it all so it must have induced an enormous bout of cognitive dissonance. If a former SNP FM can get treated like that while the SNP are in power I cannot imagine what it must be like for a normal person accused of something under these rules. I still can't get my head around how she thought all that was cool. I am really sad it did not go to the court of session because I would like to have seen what they said about the whole process in general. I think they would have shredded them on many points...

And I would just say - if these allegations were so robust why the need to railroad Salmond like that and refuse legal arbitration? Salmond was trying to face the allegations head on but they did not want that - why not? Surely if these allegations are so damning they would have agreed and let the facts speak for themselves. The whole thing just stank and am really shocked NS could not see that as it was happening. Given what surfaced recently that caused them to collapse the process I am even more amazed she is apparently backing them again. She should be asking herself why the fuck a former FM has to raise 100 grand to go the court of session just to get a fair hearing. 

 

On 1/10/2019 at 12:08 PM, aaid said:

Pretty much unsubstantiated guess on my part but it does make sense to me.

Judith MacKinnon (JM) seems to be the main actor here and I can sketch out a scenario in my mind that makes sense - to me anyway.

She joins the SG in 2017 under the somewhat slightly nebulous job title of Head of People Advice, which sounds like some sort of "Minister without portfolio" role within HR.    #MeToo blows up in late 2017 and - in common with most major organisations - the SG decides it needs to review its processes and they give the job - wholly or partly - to review those and come up with a new set of processes and procedures.   In my experience, that seems to be the sort of project you give to people with roles that are less undefined.    

As part of that exercise she reviews the existing policies and then goes back through previous cases to see if there were any cases that were dealt with incorrectly, not from a point of view of reopening any cases but to look at how any future process could be improved - that's what I would do in this case.

In there she found the two allegations against Salmond - these were originally dealt with under the previous code and were dismissed.   

NS said that the contact with the complaints from JM was part of the counselling process or something similar and that might well be the case but that in itself begs a question as to how - when does someone who only joined the SG in 2017 get involved in counselling people over incidents that occurred in 2013/4.   I'm going to take it as read unless there's evidence to the contrary that the allegations were genuine, ie. the women involved were sincere in their belief.    That doesn't necessarily mean there's any substance to them or that Salmond's done anything wrong, and wrong of course is a very subjective concept anyway.  For the sake of argument, let's assume it's was a similar situation to that which G-Man outlined, ie. getting a bit "handsy" at the Christmas Party.

There has to be some sort of trigger, someone has to approach the two complainants and put a metaphorical arm around their shoulder and that looks like it was JM. 

For JM, this is too good an opportunity to miss, to bring down the ultimate alpha male Scottish politician of his generation and that ambition skews her judgement.

When this first broke, I had a look at the new investigative process - it's on the SG website - and I commented on an apparent anomaly as to how allegations against current serving ministers were treated and how former ministers were treated.  Essentially, for serving ministers they were informed of the details of any allegations - and so capable of providing a defence or explanation - whereas for former ministers they weren't.  At the time I thought that might be to do with different sensitivities as to how minsters work.   It looks more like this is the "get Salmond" clause.

Up until this point, Leslie Evans may well not be directly involved.   But having "tee-ed up" the complainants and having been involved in constructing the process, she should have never appointed - assuming she made the appointment - of JM as investigative officer and JM - if she was truly impartial - should never have accepted that role.   

As I said before, lots of questions to answer but I doubt they ever will be.   Especially as the opposition seem to think the biggest problem here is the 2 meetings and 3 phone calls that NS and AS had.

Interesting though that the Times leader today - no great supporter of the SNP - is saying that Leslie Evans position is untenable and NS should sack her.

Politically, I doubt she can do that at least not at the moment or until the police investigation is concluded.   I did think that NS's declaration of "Full confidence" in LE did have the ring of a football chairman about it.

I doubt either LE or JM will have long careers in the SG though.

 

On 1/10/2019 at 12:35 PM, Orraloon said:

I would like to see some some savvy investigative journalist type person have a closer look at the background of this Judith MacKinnon.

 

 

On 1/10/2019 at 1:03 PM, thplinth said:

In fact the only person who wanted all the facts out in the open was Alex Salmond. Again what does that tell you.

This whole thing fucking stinks.

 

On 1/10/2019 at 5:32 PM, Orraloon said:

I wonder if we might be looking for a new First Minister soon?

 

On 1/15/2019 at 6:24 PM, thplinth said:

This one maybe?

SCOTTISH SUN SAYS 

There can be no doubt now there is a fight to the death being conducted between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon

"There can be no doubt..."

... well that's it settled then. 

Still it does look like there is something no right here. I am just calling it unexplained weirdness at the mo, fight to the death seems a bit over the top for now.

WTF is really going on here I wonder. Has Alex perceived Nicola has maybe been helping them screw him over in some tacit way or worse in an active way.  Cannot understand why she is unable to criticize the horribly flawed and failed procedure and put the blame for it where it deserves to be. Instead she almost immediately refers herself and puts AS & herself back in the shtook and on the back foot again. It is a curiosity... 

 

On 1/24/2019 at 5:13 PM, phart said:

It's going to cause a rift in the party. I've actually sat on a jury for a rape case. It's fucking horrendous.

 

 

On 1/24/2019 at 6:06 PM, phart said:

Having a quick look around reddit etc, The SNP base need to disown him or variations there of are very prevalent.

 

On 1/24/2019 at 6:22 PM, Ally Bongo said:

Charges are clearly trumped up IMO

 

Just a few of the more eye catching posts...

I see curious attempts to future proof NS in some of the posts above, to insulate her from the potential future blowback should it happen (and it is happening).

I expect a few scapegoats will now be offered as a sacrifice to keep her in her job.

Too little too late.

[Alan]

9 women v 1 man.

Textbook result. 

Rich. White. Powerful.  Male. 

The Gammon Strikes Back.

[Orraloon]

CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES.

 

[Squirrelhumper]

Gordon Jackson running his mouth on a busy train i see.

[Orraloon]

16 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Gordon Jackson running his mouth on a busy train i see.

You would think these sort of folk would be smarter than that. Or maybe he is quite happy for the names to get out, and thinks he can get away with it? If the names get published because of this video it won't really be his fault. It will be the fault of whoever took the video and whoever decides to make it public. As far as GJ QC is concerned he was just having a "private" conversation on a train. 

He can say that he didn't  know folk were eavesdropping or videoing him. Although I think that if I was on a train and somebody started videoing me, I think I would notice.