Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
andreimack

Is Alex Salmond sex pest?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, thplinth said:

It has achieved its purpose. I suspect the cops will say insufficient evidence or something that leaves a doubt in peoples minds. 

You've already decided it's a stitch up then.  The two women aides are spies.  It's the only explanation.  

The procedure on arbitration may be flawed, even unfair.  That's fine and Salmond had every right to challenge it in Court.
That's totally separate to whether it should be investigated or not.  It wouldn't matter the procedure, some on here have already decided what the cause of this is based on zero evidence.

Nicola Sturgeon has had no choice but to go along with it.  She can't be changing the procedure, she can't be seen to get involved. It's also totally correct.  

An investigation had to be called whether people like it or not.  It will have achieved its purpose when the investigation is complete, not before.

Edited by PapofGlencoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

You've already decided it's a stitch up then.  The two women aides are spies.  It's the only explanation.  

The procedure on arbitration may be flawed, even unfair.  That's fine and Salmond had every right to challenge it in Court.
That's totally separate to whether it should be investigated or not.  It wouldn't matter the procedure, some on here have already decided what the cause of this is based on zero evidence.

Nicola Sturgeon has had no choice but to go along with it.  She can't be changing the procedure, she can't be seen to get involved. It's also totally correct.  

An investigation had to be called whether people like it or not.  It will have achieved its purpose when the investigation is complete, not before.

In your opinion... and I have mine.

I have not decided because I cannot possibly know what the result of the police investigation will be. At this point I am highly skeptical which is what I actually posted and the part you removed from my quote.

If this is a stitch up the goals of it will already be achieved was my other point. Go back and read the indyref2 thread when the story broke... you can see it. I can see it in your posts above as well.This is why it was dragged out and forced into the public eye while denying Salmond access to the details of what he was accused of IMHO. The papers ran amok in the time it took to challenge it in the court. That is what will be mostly remembered even if he is 'cleared' but as I said I think it will be a lack of tangible evidence / not proven type thing so it leaves a doubt in peoples minds. 

Or he gets charged.  

What do you think is more likely at this point?

I am also thinking the only evidence that will essentially be presented is the corroborating effect of having two women accuse him. Again a guess on my part if that makes you feel better about it.

We will see but if we cannot speculate on here about this shit where the hell can we.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 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.

Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland are two separate bodies, important distinction as was made clear to me by someone I know who works at the SPA when I mentioned one of the previous cock-ups of PS to them.  The Police Authority oversee the Police. 

That said, I wonder how big, i.e. how many people it employs, that the SPA is that it needs to have a Head of HR governance which would intuitively be a role for much larger institutions.  I'd be amazed if the staff of the SPA were bigger than a couple of hundred, give or take.  

Therefore I wonder whether the role isn't to ensure HR governance in the SPA but to oversee HR within Police Scotland.

ETA. To your point, if the role is purely internal within the SPA, then you would expect that role to have very limited interaction and involvement with Police Scotland itself as an organisation or individuals within it.  If its an oversight role on PS, then it would be entirely the opposite.

All that said, it beggars belief that a bunch of senior civil servants and apparently experienced HR professionals could have made such a fundamental mistake.    It's either incompetence or deliberate and in both cases should be a case for being fired.

 

Edited by aaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Alec is more centre,than sturgeons centre left, for example salmonds politics suites the nort east scotland, mor, gourdon ect where as the current snp policies suits the likes of dundee, glasgow and central belt.

 

Fair enough but I don't see how that would work in practice.   The point for the SNP to split is after, not before, independence.

Share this post


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

Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland are two separate bodies, important distinction as was made clear to me by someone I know who works at the SPA when I mentioned one of the previous cock-ups of PS to them.  The Police Authority oversee the Police. 

That said, I wonder how big, i.e. how many people it employs, that the SPA is that it needs to have a Head of HR governance which would intuitively be a role for much larger institutions.  I'd be amazed if the staff of the SPA were bigger than a couple of hundred, give or take.  

Therefore I wonder whether the role isn't to ensure HR governance in the SPA but to oversee HR within Police Scotland.

ETA. To your point, if the role is purely internal within the SPA, then you would expect that role to have very limited interaction and involvement with Police Scotland itself as an organisation or individuals within it.  If its an oversight role on PS, then it would be entirely the opposite.

All that said, it beggars belief that a bunch of senior civil servants and apparently experienced HR professionals could have made such a fundamental mistake.    It's either incompetence or deliberate and in both cases should be a case for being fired.

 

True but look at the remit

The Scottish Police Authority is responsible for maintaining the Police Service. It is accountable to Ministers and Parliament and it is supported by a senior officer and small staff team to help it perform its role. Its functions are:

  • Allocate resources
  • Hold Chief Constable to account for all her functions, including operational policing
  • Appoint senior officers and staff
  • Require information and reports from the Chief Constable if necessary - though Chief can appeal to Ministers if of the view it might prejudice an operation or the prosecution of offenders
  • Prepare and publish Strategic Plan and Annual Plan - setting out objectives and arrangements for achieving those objectives
  • Prepare and publish Annual Report – assessment of progress against objectives
  • Establish and maintain forensic services – separate from Chief Constable’s direct line of command

Pretty mad we'd not have known any of this if the government had won it's appeal to keep the emails/correspondence secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is another prediction if Salmond does not get charged with anything. It will be because there is simply no tangible evidence in existence that the allegations are true... or equally that they are untrue. So they cannot ever proven or disproven (spellchecker is telling me that is not a correct word but fuck it). It will come down to essentially one persons word against another in the end... but crucially it will be two persons word against one persons word and that will be enough to taint Salmond forever. It is just mind bendingly impossible for people to believe that two women could falsely accuse... it must be true if there are two even if they can't prove it right. Not like Salmond would be target for this shit or anything... totally ridiculous right... I mean there is two! 

 

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


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

 

Pretty mad we'd not have known any of this if the government had won it's appeal to keep the emails/correspondence secret.

I don't buy for a second that the first time the SG - by which I mean the Civil Service arm -  only became aware of the "potential perception of bias" was when they were preparing the documentation for the case, it may well be that it was the first time the lawyers found out about it and realised the case was unwinnable and that's no doubt why they tried to stop this being disclosed and when that was denied they looked to settle as quickly as possible.

I doubt we'll ever get to the point where we'll ever know the reality of what's gone on as - for different reasons, I don't think that any politicians want to pursue it.

SNP MSPs who may well believe that Senior Civil Servants have conspired to deliberately target Salmond know that regardless of how much or how little involvement the FM had - and I think she is savvy enough to have had as little involvement as possible - that would reflect badly on her and the Government in general - political side - and so they won't want to go there as it will give opponents political capital.   That was evident in the tone and substance of questions to her in HR yesterday.

Opposition MSPs won't want to go there either as they obviously it wouldn't suit them for Salmond to be seen as any kind of victim here.

As Machiavellian manoeuvring its a bit of genius really. 

 

 

Share this post


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

In your opinion... and I have mine.

I have not decided because I cannot possibly know what the result of the police investigation will be. At this point I am highly skeptical which is what I actually posted and the part you removed from my quote.

If this is a stitch up the goals of it will already be achieved was my other point. Go back and read the indyref2 thread when the story broke... you can see it. I can see it in your posts above as well.This is why it was dragged out and forced into the public eye while denying Salmond access to the details of what he was accused of IMHO. The papers ran amok in the time it took to challenge it in the court. That is what will be mostly remembered even if he is 'cleared' but as I said I think it will be a lack of tangible evidence / not proven type thing so it leaves a doubt in peoples minds. 

Or he gets charged.  

What do you think is more likely at this point?

I am also thinking the only evidence that will essentially be presented is the corroborating effect of having two women accuse him. Again a guess on my part if that makes you feel better about it.

We will see but if we cannot speculate on here about this shit where the hell can we.

 

 

I pulled that out separately as it was a definite statement; therefore revealing.. and something i wanted to pick up on, that's all.  i read your whole piece.

I know, i'm happy to speculate too.  It may even be a stitch up!  MI5 are not above it.  But i'm speculating that its not.

On the balance of probabilities I think its more likely something happened than didn't.  The women were sought for suggests something had been brought up informally before.  Allegations are from pre indy ref.  If it was a stitch up, it would have happened well before now in my opinion.

The line of what is all that bad has definitely blurred over the last few years.

People calling for Sturgeon to act are in the wrong regardless though.  There's nothing she can do.  I feel sorry for her and all involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

On the balance of probabilities I think its more likely something happened than didn't.  The women were sought for suggests something had been brought up informally before.  Allegations are from pre indy ref.  If it was a stitch up, it would have happened well before now in my opinion.

The line of what is all that bad has definitely blurred over the last few years.

People calling for Sturgeon to act are in the wrong regardless though.  There's nothing she can do.  I feel sorry for her and all involved.

TBH, that's my view as well.   It's worth looking at Salmond's answer to Brian Taylor when questioned after the case yesterday, this ties in with what he's said all along.  

Brian Taylor -  Are you entirely innocent of any claims of Sexual Misconduct?
Alex Salmond - I'm certainly not guilty of any criminality, I'm certainly not guilty of what the Permanent Secretary is saying, I've never suggested, incidentally that I was an angel.

You can read into that what you want but he's a very experienced politician and always chooses his words carefully and to me that reads that the complaints aren't completely fabricated but that they've been blown up beyond any proportion to what actually happened and I'm prepared to believe that is the case.   

That doesn't mean that the complainants lied or have made things up but it does look like they've been encouraged to pursue this by those with a different agenda.

It used to be said that there is no smoke without fire however these days it seems that the slightest smouldering ember is enough to finish someone's career, particularly in politics..

Share this post


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

I pulled that out separately as it was a definite statement; therefore revealing.. and something i wanted to pick up on, that's all.  i read your whole piece.

I know, i'm happy to speculate too.  It may even be a stitch up!  MI5 are not above it.  But i'm speculating that its not.

On the balance of probabilities I think its more likely something happened than didn't.  The women were sought for suggests something had been brought up informally before.  Allegations are from pre indy ref.  If it was a stitch up, it would have happened well before now in my opinion.

The line of what is all that bad has definitely blurred over the last few years.

People calling for Sturgeon to act are in the wrong regardless though.  There's nothing she can do.  I feel sorry for her and all involved.

So if he is 'certainly not guilty of any criminality' and 'certainly not guilty of what the Permanent Secretary is saying' what are you thinking this will actually be about? I also noticed he left some wriggle room in that reply below.

Salmond is no angel - always remember the much missed Flora I think it was saying on here years ago that while he really liked Salmond he would not buy a used car from him or words similar.

But what are we talking about here - flirting? 

51 minutes ago, aaid said:

TBH, that's my view as well.   It's worth looking at Salmond's answer to Brian Taylor when questioned after the case yesterday, this ties in with what he's said all along.  

Brian Taylor -  Are you entirely innocent of any claims of Sexual Misconduct?
Alex Salmond - I'm certainly not guilty of any criminality, I'm certainly not guilty of what the Permanent Secretary is saying, I've never suggested, incidentally that I was an angel.

You can read into that what you want but he's a very experienced politician and always chooses his words carefully and to me that reads that the complaints aren't completely fabricated but that they've been blown up beyond any proportion to what actually happened and I'm prepared to believe that is the case.   

That doesn't mean that the complainants lied or have made things up but it does look like they've been encouraged to pursue this by those with a different agenda.

It used to be said that there is no smoke without fire however these days it seems that the slightest smouldering ember is enough to finish someone's career, particularly in politics..

Unless you were Sir Jimmy Saville or Cyril Smith or a shit load of others who were allowed to get away with for decades.

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Record story not say he touched someone's arse when he'd had a few at a Christmas doo or something ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Did the Record story not say he touched someone's arse when he'd had a few at a Christmas doo or something ?

 

FFS... this is it? (and that should be allegedly BTW surprised a big SNP man like yourself would omit that)

What is the other accusation if you know?

4 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Who appointed the two women involved in this case?

I read a comment maybe on the Murray piece that said Sturgeon is given only a choice of preselected candidates and only has the discretion to choose one not select who the candidates are. It is Westminster who selects the candidates. (This is the Perm Sec job - not sure about the very suspicious one, McKinnon was it)

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it's the rancid Labour Daily Record i assumed i didnt need to say allegedly 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-accused-touching-womans-13134675

DwbTSgNXcAI4kUw.jpg

Edited by Ally Bongo

Share this post


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

As it's the rancid Labour Daily Record i assumed i didnt need to say allegedly 

Ok I dont mean to be pissy but what is the other allegation if you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the only one thats been leaked afaik

I have searched google and there is a press reader page that has now been deleted

The google search shows - Daily Record October 31 2017 - Acting on a tip off we asked the Scottish Government if there had been any allegations against Salmond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

You've already decided it's a stitch up then.  The two women aides are spies.  It's the only explanation.  

The procedure on arbitration may be flawed, even unfair.  That's fine and Salmond had every right to challenge it in Court.
That's totally separate to whether it should be investigated or not.  It wouldn't matter the procedure, some on here have already decided what the cause of this is based on zero evidence.

Nicola Sturgeon has had no choice but to go along with it.  She can't be changing the procedure, she can't be seen to get involved. It's also totally correct.  

An investigation had to be called whether people like it or not.  It will have achieved its purpose when the investigation is complete, not before.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thplinth said:

FFS... this is it? (and that should be allegedly BTW surprised a big SNP man like yourself would omit that)

 

Sorry I pressed quote with the intention of saying that Ally probably didn’t feel the need to add allegedly as he was quoting from the Record. Saw his answer but I don’t know how to remove quotes.

11 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Who appointed the two women involved in this case?

I’ve been trying to get a definitive answer to this since last night but only had guesses at best. 

I was at a few clients today, 2 of whom are vitriolic in their hatred of Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon/SNP/Independance and both of them are convinced that AS is innocent of whatever he’s been accused of and that it was a deliberate set up. Yet even with that knowledge they still would vote no. 

If it was a full blown conspiracy rather than a personal vendetta then it was shockingly bad but in another way it was excellent. As I’ve said before I think Alex is tainted for evermore by these claims so they’ve ‘neutralised’ him and we’ve now got SNP/Independence  supporters coming out against Nicola Sturgeon. So with this ridiculous case the biggest party in Scotland and the most important party in the independence movement has been put into disarray. I know as little as everyone else who is only a spectator but I’ll pretend I’m a radio Scotland Kaye caller and tell you what is ‘my truth’.     Alex is ‘handy’ on the drink; his room in a hotel was on same floor as these ladies and at different times he had a grope or fleeting touch of a bum or just held on a little too long; these women mentioned it at different times to different people and high heid yin’s knew and kept it at the back of their minds to be used whenever the threat of another referendum came round; lots of women were questioned but only these 2 women were open to persuasion.

There you go case closed.

And if possible could someone tell me what they think Nicola Sturgeon could or should have done? By that I mean, what should she have done that wouldn’t have been able to be used by the other parties or press as proof she was willing to overlook sexual misconduct just to protect her mentor? I heard on the news tonight that she’s been asked for more details of the meetings and calls she had with AS  of which I think there were only 5, 3 calls and 2 visits or vice versa. And back in my guise of a Kaye caller I dont believe for a moment that Nicola and Alex have been out of touch, just that they’ve been doing it through trusted 3rd parties. I also, and am sure I’ve said this before on here,  don’t think Alex ever came away with a statement without discussing it with Nicola beforehand and that she also still treated him as her trusted mentor. 

Edited by G-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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.   

 

I'm going to make an unsubstantiated guess it is indeed ideological in the #metoo sense, i've read a lot of the peoples involved social commentary that isn't readily available and there is, what i would say constitutes, identity politics going back years.

2. doesn't sound likely to me, too much maneuvering around policy etc that skewed it the other way, especially if the court case didn't go his way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


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

 

I'm going to make an unsubstantiated guess it is indeed ideological in the #metoo sense, i've read a lot of the peoples involved social commentary that isn't readily available and there is, what i would say constitutes, identity politics going back years.

2. doesn't sound likely to me, too much maneuvering around policy etc that skewed it the other way, especially if the court case didn't go his way.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When individuals win an industrial tribunal against their employers, a large percentage win because the company "failed to follow their own procedures". There can be a number of reasons why this happens. Often it is because a manager hasn't understood or even read the procedure which has been broken.

I know this wasn't a tribunal, but the case hinged on the same idea, in that the Civil Service (Government) failed to follow their own procedures.

For me, the weird thing here is that the exact same people who actually wrote the procedure, only a few weeks previously, were the people who deliberately decided not to follow that procedure that they had just written. Why did they do that? This bit should be getting investigated. It should be investigated by somebody independent.

I know that lots of companies are quite happy to sometimes ignore their own procedures just to get rid of somebody. They are prepared to take the risk of losing a few grand if they lose a tribunal, just to get rid of somebody quickly. But that doesn't seem to apply in this case. Or does it????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Orraloon said:

When individuals win an industrial tribunal against their employers, a large percentage win because the company "failed to follow their own procedures". There can be a number of reasons why this happens. Often it is because a manager hasn't understood or even read the procedure which has been broken.

I know this wasn't a tribunal, but the case hinged on the same idea, in that the Civil Service (Government) failed to follow their own procedures.

For me, the weird thing here is that the exact same people who actually wrote the procedure, only a few weeks previously, were the people who deliberately decided not to follow that procedure that they had just written. Why did they do that? This bit should be getting investigated. It should be investigated by somebody independent.

I know that lots of companies are quite happy to sometimes ignore their own procedures just to get rid of somebody. They are prepared to take the risk of losing a few grand if they lose a tribunal, just to get rid of somebody quickly. But that doesn't seem to apply in this case. Or does it????

That's absolutely true, however the one group of people you would expect to follow HR processes to the letter would be HR professionals, especially if they wrote the procedures in the first place.

That's said, I'm reminded of an HR manager I used to work with who was able to screw a great deal out of the company when they made her redundant as what they'd done was illegal.

Share this post


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

That's absolutely true, however the one group of people you would expect to follow HR processes to the letter would be HR professionals, especially if they wrote the procedures in the first place.

That's said, I'm reminded of an HR manager I used to work with who was able to screw a great deal out of the company when they made her redundant as what they'd done was illegal.

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

 

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  

×