Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
andreimack

Is Alex Salmond sex pest?

Recommended Posts

On 12/16/2018 at 6:12 PM, Ally Bongo said:

Never heard this on Quisling TV or radio

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46572122

Alex Salmond legal win over redacted documents

 

TBF, it's not really "headline news" that some documents have been handed over, what will be headline news is when the details of what those documents contain comes into the public domain, which presumably will come out in January in the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic character assassination by the yoons cos they're feart of him. Hell be back in time for Indyref2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bzzzz said:

Classic character assassination by the yoons cos they're feart of him. Hell be back in time for Indyref2

He's definitely got them rattled, more than anyone in my lifetime and I hope he keeps it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aaid said:

TBF, it's not really "headline news" that some documents have been handed over, what will be headline news is when the details of what those documents contain comes into the public domain, which presumably will come out in January in the hearing.

It's more than that though from the article. assuming it is accurate

" Mr Clancy said the redacted documents did show that Scottish government staff were in contact with the complainers in December 2017 - one month before the start of the investigations against Mr Salmond. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, phart said:

It's more than that though from the article. assuming it is accurate

" Mr Clancy said the redacted documents did show that Scottish government staff were in contact with the complainers in December 2017 - one month before the start of the investigations against Mr Salmond. "

Which, if true, might be a big deal, depending on the context.   

The article pretty confusing though as Salmond's advocate -  or at least how it's presented - first says that because the document's have been redacted then it's not clear whether or not the process was fair or not, then the big you've quoted which suggest that it wasn't.   it's all a bit unclear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, aaid said:

Which, if true, might be a big deal, depending on the context.   

The article pretty confusing though as Salmond's advocate -  or at least how it's presented - first says that because the document's have been redacted then it's not clear whether or not the process was fair or not, then the big you've quoted which suggest that it wasn't.   it's all a bit unclear. 

My understanding was there are 300 documents he hasn't looked at them all yet, what he has seen he claims shows the above.

As you say we'll get a clearer picture come the hearing.

The problem isn't really much the context as the context will be just what they say it is, but it could be anything, could be coaching the complainants, it just looks bad. As anything could have been discussed folk will just pick what suits their narrative best and become entrenched. It's going to polarise the issue even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phart said:

My understanding was there are 300 documents he hasn't looked at them all yet, what he has seen he claims shows the above.

As you say we'll get a clearer picture come the hearing.

The problem isn't really much the context as the context will be just what they say it is, but it could be anything, could be coaching the complainants, it just looks bad. As anything could have been discussed folk will just pick what suits their narrative best and become entrenched. It's going to polarise the issue even more.

I'd be amazed if they haven't gone through the 300 documents with a fine tooth comb, looking for whatever they can find.  

I suppose part of the problem in this particular case is that you are talking about the former FM and members of his staff, the complainants are presumably senior civil servants themselves, then you need to have other senior civil servants carry out any investigation, you're not going to get Johnny from HR to look into this.

That makes it very difficult - if not impossible - to get someone who is completely independent from either party.    That's not to say it's impossible to have a fair and transparent process but of course it's not ideal and as you say people will take from that whatever suits their own narrative.

A real problem when you have any kind of complaint against the person at the top of any organisation and even more so when it's allegations of sexual misconduct which have to treated with particular sensitivity.   For obvious reasons, the SG isn't going to go the UKG but perhaps they could have gone to the Welsh or NI Civil Service for help.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 10:19 PM, phart said:

 

The problem isn't really much the context as the context will be just what they say it is, but it could be anything, could be coaching the complainants, it just looks bad. As anything could have been discussed folk will just pick what suits their narrative best and become entrenched. It's going to polarise the issue even more.

Sounds like that's exactly what's been going on, at least's that's what Salmond's advocate is arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eck wins first battle

Scottish Government admits it did not follow correct procedure and acted unlawfully

And by Scottish Government it refers to the civil servants employed by Westminster

Edited by Ally Bongo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Eck wins first battle

Scottish Government admits it did not follow correct procedure and acted unlawfully

Is that Scottish Government or Civil Service, or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DwYsvedWoAAwwpV.jpg

DwYsvefX4AAlSvP.jpg

DwYsveqWoAABrsv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salmond calling for Leslie Evans to resign, her jacket does look on a shoogly peg.

Edited by aaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groans and moans all around at the offices of the Herald, Scotsman and Daily Record as tomorrow's already pre-prepared front page has to be scrapped ......... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of 4000 plus people who crowd funded you Alex... you are very welcome.

First off it helped to pay for this extremely pleasing result and now with the award of costs it will be used again for a good cause. And best of all it might see that utter bitch forced to resign. This could be a win, win, win.

Never for one second doubted this was an absolute stitch up. Going to have a wee reread of this thread now...

 

What a fucking disgrace. She really needs to go.

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 1:43 PM, Orraloon said:

I think it would wise for her to keep her gob shut as much as possible until the judicial review is done. 

Salmond wants to sort this out by himself whilst causing as little damage as possible to Sturgeon and the SNP.

I'm not sure that anything Sturgeon says is going to help him do that.

 

So what is she saying now?

The way this was all done, with the carefully timed leaks - is she fucking blind, deaf and dumb? I am reading she is backing the civil servant. Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Groans and moans all around at the offices of the Herald, Scotsman and Daily Record as tomorrow's already pre-prepared front page has to be scrapped ......... 

They might not bother changing their planned storie?.

I wouldn't be surprised if they decided that this story isn't very "newsworthy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, thplinth said:

So what is she saying now?

The way this was all done, with the carefully timed leaks - is she fucking blind, deaf and dumb? I am reading she is backing the civil servant. Really?

I think she should still say as little as she can get away with, whilst quietly (behind the scenes) trying to "encourage" the civil servant to resign.

Nicola is not coming out too well in all of this amongst lots of party members. 

The police investigation is still under way though. I wonder how long they are going to spin that out for?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I think she should still say as little as she can get away with, whilst quietly (behind the scenes) trying to "encourage" the civil servant to resign.

Nicola is not coming out too well in all of this amongst lots of party members

The police investigation is still under way though. I wonder how long they are going to spin that out for?

 

Her comments from the start have given me the boak.

Am I wrong that these bullshit kangaroo court procedures that were introduced and then maliciously enforced by that arsehole in the civil service were done on Sturgeons watch? And then she sits back like oh what can I do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×