Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
andreimack

Is Alex Salmond sex pest?

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, thplinth said:

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?

 

Good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual process as published on 23 August 2018, if you are interested, its worth reading this.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/handling-of-harassment-complaints-involving-current-or-former-ministers/

In the first instance, regardless of who is complained against - it is escalated to the Director of People, currently Nicola Richards.   In both cases, it is the DoP, not the Permanent Secretary who appoints the Investigative Officer so it seems she has questions to answer as well.

It looks like they've failed to follow the process in three major points and not one. 

Firstly, appointing an investigative officer that had no prior involvement.

10. In the event that a formal complaint of harassment is received against a former Minister, the Director of People will designate a senior civil servant as the Investigating Officer to deal with the complaint. That person will have had no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter being raised. The role of the Investigating Officer will be to undertake an impartial collection of facts, from, the member of staff and any witnesses, and to prepare a report for the Permanent Secretary. The report will also be shared with the staff member.
   
Secondly, by not informing Alex Salmond of the allegations against him and giving him an opportunity to respond.

11. If the Permanent Secretary considers that the report gives cause for concern over the former Minister’s behaviour towards current or former civil servants the former Minister should be provided with details of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond. The former Minister will be invited to provide a statement setting out their recollection of events to add to the record. They may also request that statements are taken from other witnesses.  If additional statements are collected the senior officer will revise their report to include this information and submit this to the Permanent Secretary and share with the staff member.  The Permanent Secretary will consider the revised report and decide whether the complaint is well-founded. The outcome of the investigation will be recorded within the SG. The Permanent Secretary will also determine whether any further action is required; including action to ensure lessons are learnt for the future.

Thirdly, by not informing the FM of the allegations against Salmond in her role both as FM and party leader - The FM has stated that it was AS, and not the Permanent Secretary that informed her of the allegations.

12. For complaints involving a former Minister who is a member of the Party of the current Administration, the Permanent Secretary will inform the First Minister both in this capacity and in their capacity as Party Leader, of the outcome when the investigation is complete.  In their capacity as First Minister, they will wish to take steps to review practice to ensure the highest standards of behaviour within their current Administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, they knew how utterly flawed their process was - they had just drafted the rules themselves that they then totally disregarded.

I now think they did this deliberately as a way for them to be able to collapse it themselves before it got to the courts. Because they know it is flimsy as fuck is my hunch. They have consistently denied Salmond a fair hearing from the start and when he was about to get one finally then and only then they withdrew it so denying him the opportunity for a fair hearing again.  They dont want these allegations and facts getting scrutinized in public. And that tells you everything about these wankers.

They totally knew they were at it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 6:35 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.

 

 

 

Yeah I mentioned Richards earlier above, #metoo as well. As I had a peak at all the talks she has given.

So she was the appointing officer. Plus was also copied into drafts of the new ministerial code according to that quote i didn't source, but i think it was a guardian article. So she knew the new code and still made the appointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

Did I say the process was fair?  Why even take the effort to type if it's just going to be made up pish?

I have no agenda other than hoping all allegations are properly investigated without any unfairness on both sides.   I donated to Mr Salmond's fund so that the procedure he is judged by meets ethical standards.  I also equally want due process for the women involved.  I think it would be awful if any women I know made a complaint and then every tom, dick and harry shrieks conspiracy.  The women themselves made the complaint whether coached, encouraged or whatever you want.  It was them that made it and they deserve to be treated seriously.  Everything after the complaint is another matter and if its not been done properly that's great it's been noted and hopefully rectified for the future.  I've even made my opinion known by speculating.  I'm not sure what more you want, I stand by everything I have written on this subject.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the purposes of the Judicial Review was to establish the legality of the procedure as written. Because they didn't even follow that procedure, the SG caved in before that happened. That procedure is still in place and could be used again. Either against Salmond or somebody else. We still don't know if that procedure is lawful or not.

Share this post


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

Did I say the process was fair?  Why even take the effort to type if it's just going to be made up pish?

I have no agenda other than hoping all allegations are properly investigated without any unfairness on both sides.   I donated to Mr Salmond's fund so that the procedure he is judged by meets ethical standards.  I also equally want due process for the women involved.  I think it would be awful if any women I know made a complaint and then every tom, dick and harry shrieks conspiracy.  The women themselves made the complaint whether coached, encouraged or whatever you want.  It was them that made it and they deserve to be treated seriously.  Everything after the complaint is another matter and if its not been done properly that's great it's been noted and hopefully rectified for the future.  I've even made my opinion known by speculating.  I'm not sure what more you want, I stand by everything I have written on this subject.

FFS are you for real. This is not just some guy. He is a massive target. To not take that into account is beyond naive.

The people denying us and the accused the facts of the allegations are the same bad actors who have been orchestrating a fantastically biased and unfair disciplinary process, which was likely created with this very purpose in mind.

So putting these allegations aside for now - until we are not denied all the facts - the only person who has been treated appallingly here for sure is Alex Salmond. And every one of the aforementioned bad actors was a female... screwing over a male. Now, does that fucking bother you at all or is it just your nauseating virtue signalling shite we are all supposed to care about?

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


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

FFS are you for real. This is not just some guy. He is a massive target. To not take that into account is beyond naive.

The people denying us and the accused the facts of the allegations are the same bad actors who have been orchestrating a fantastically biased and unfair disciplinary process, which was likely created with this very purpose in mind.

So putting these allegations aside for now - until we are not denied the all the facts - the only person who has been treated appallingly here for sure is Alex Salmond. And every one of the aforementioned bad actors was a female... screwing over a male. Now, does that fucking bother you at all or is it just your nauseating virtue signalling shite we are all supposed to care about?

You're leaping. 

The allegations can't be put aside when you're dealing with this.  But if you're asking me how I feel about it you only need to read what I've already written.  I'm sad about it all.  Must be the third time I've said that.

It bothers me that you think you're points are strengthened because of the mere fact women are involved.  No, it doesn't bother me that women, even two (!!!) can make complaints against a man.  

It does bother me the procedure was flawed and that's why I donated to Salmond's fund.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Did I say the process was fair?  Why even take the effort to type if it's just going to be made up pish?

I have no agenda other than hoping all allegations are properly investigated without any unfairness on both sides.   I donated to Mr Salmond's fund so that the procedure he is judged by meets ethical standards.  I also equally want due process for the women involved.  I think it would be awful if any women I know made a complaint and then every tom, dick and harry shrieks conspiracy.  The women themselves made the complaint whether coached, encouraged or whatever you want.  It was them that made it and they deserve to be treated seriously.  Everything after the complaint is another matter and if its not been done properly that's great it's been noted and hopefully rectified for the future.  I've even made my opinion known by speculating.  I'm not sure what more you want, I stand by everything I have written on this subject.

 

 

The woman(complainees) have been disgracefully let down by Nicola Richards, Judith Mackinnon and Leslie Evans. Who ignored their own rules that they had written just days before and therefore collapsed any chance of them getting Justice or Salmond getting Justice.

The civil service didn't treat it seriously by leaking the contents to the press and not following their own guidelines.

Salmond took it seriously and tried to engage at every point.

 

Edited by phart

Share this post


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

The woman(complainees) have been disgracefully let down by Nicola Richards, Judith Mackinnon and Leslie Evans. Who ignored their own rules that they had written just days before and therefore collapsed any chance of them getting Justice or Salmond getting Justice.

The civil service didn't treat it seriously by leaking the contents to the press and not following their own guidelines.

Salmond took it seriously and tried to engage at every point.

 

Hard to disagree with any of that. 

Share this post


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

You're leaping. 

The allegations can't be put aside when you're dealing with this.  But if you're asking me how I feel about it you only need to read what I've already written.  I'm sad about it all.  Must be the third time I've said that.

It bothers me that you think you're points are strengthened because of the mere fact women are involved.  No, it doesn't bother me that women, even two (!!!) can make complaints against a man.  

It does bother me the procedure was flawed and that's why I donated to Salmond's fund.  

Leaping? Naw it is not at this point. 

I will show you leaping however...

On 8/24/2018 at 5:16 PM, PapofGlencoe said:

Nah i think the idea you've got two separate women making an allegation against the most powerful man in Scotland is not a conspiracy.  I think we look like tinpots if we allow ourselves to think so.   Sorry not wanting to sound offensive, i just don't see it being a conspiracy.

Whether the allegations are with merit or not is a different scenario.

Regardless, he's finished and independence has just taken a massive hit.

 

On 8/24/2018 at 4:56 PM, PapofGlencoe said:

more i think about this the worse it is.

The man is inextricably linked to the cause.  what a mess.

im gutted.  I'm no fanboy of anybody and can't be arsed with zealots but Salmond is/was a political hero.  So so disappointing.

 

On 8/24/2018 at 4:59 PM, mariokempes56 said:

Fuksake man. You've just bitten the bait.

All they ever had to do was "allege" something, proof would never be needed anyway.

Your response is exactly what they want.

 

With pals like you I am not sure he needs enemies.

Share this post


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

...and that's why I donated to Salmond's fund.  

So did I. And like me maybe you noticed that there were people in the crowd fund actually sending money to Salmond just so they could leave a nasty message. They would send the bare minimum ( a pound I think) and that meant they were given the opportunity to leave a message. I don't know about you but I do not dislike anyone anywhere near enough to actually send them my money just for the opportunity of posting some abuse. Salmond has a lot of people out there who really dislike him and some are in powerful positions. 

When you look at the dirty tricks played on people like George Galloway (mind they found that letter when they invaded Iraq was it) and then consider if Salmond is viewed as more or less of a 'threat' than him... I'd say he would be and thus for sure they would be looking for ways to hurt his reputation. 

Look at your initial reaction... I'd say it worked a treat no? You play lip service to innocent until proven guilty but your posts suggests you have judged him on the accusations alone because there are two of them.

Share this post


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

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

In the Tories and Labour's dreams...

 

Share this post


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

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

Why do you wonder that? something brewing in the SNP?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing brewing

It's just your typical Unionist witch hunt and continuing smear campaign aided by their media - on the same day that they couldnt bring themselves to state that it was a Tory councillor suspended over a sexual harrassment claim in Aberdeen - simply Aberdeen Councillor

DwjKNkBW0AA3X-G.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 2:00 PM, thplinth said:

So did I. And like me maybe you noticed that there were people in the crowd fund actually sending money to Salmond just so they could leave a nasty message. They would send the bare minimum ( a pound I think) and that meant they were given the opportunity to leave a message. I don't know about you but I do not dislike anyone anywhere near enough to actually send them my money just for the opportunity of posting some abuse. Salmond has a lot of people out there who really dislike him and some are in powerful positions. 

When you look at the dirty tricks played on people like George Galloway (mind they found that letter when they invaded Iraq was it) and then consider if Salmond is viewed as more or less of a 'threat' than him... I'd say he would be and thus for sure they would be looking for ways to hurt his reputation. 

Look at your initial reaction... I'd say it worked a treat no? You play lip service to innocent until proven guilty but your posts suggests you have judged him on the accusations alone because there are two of them.

I can't remember what you're annoyed about but the first few paragraphs have nought to do with me.  I think something probably happened and that it's not a conspiracy due to factors I, and other reasonable posters, have said earlier.  Whether they mean something "all that bad" happened is another matter in the age of meetoo.  

I don't know the man so i'm not in a position to judge his character and i'm uneasy about dismissing it because I'm a fan of his political career.

I'm uneasy about claims of conspiracy when two women have come forward and in the context of Salmond's comments.  Just because I don't think its a conspiracy doesn't make me a naive snowflake.  You seem genuinely annoyed I won't just agree with you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Nothing brewing

It's just your typical Unionist witch hunt and continuing smear campaign aided by their media - on the same day that they couldnt bring themselves to state that it was a Tory councillor suspended over a sexual harrassment claim in Aberdeen - simply Aberdeen Councillor

DwjKNkBW0AA3X-G.jpg

 

this is a total smear and should be condemned by even the most gutter press. of course it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.kidsnotsuits.com/fake-news-how-public-lies-begin/

One such agency was the Video Access Centre in Edinburgh, in 1993 where the Assistant Direction of Recreation, Leslie Evans, faked a Council report in order to starve a community group of funds – because she disapproved of their expediency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 9:08 PM, thplinth said:

Loon, you are so much more optimistic than me and good on you but she does not have the savvy to navigate her own civil service.

I was thinking about this earlier today, one way or another sturgeon will be gone after 2021 IMHO, unless she gets and wins a indy ref!! (Best case scenario) she will not gain a majority in Holyrood again, which would lead to her standing down. I have encountered so many folk like yourself that are indy freindly but really dislike nicola, I am actually unsure if i want her be granted a referendum as that would be our last chance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Sturgeon but she is far too authoritarian for me personally. I think outside of the politics of the UK she is highly regarded as well. You get folk from all over the world talking positively about her.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever leads the SNP will be smeared by the media

First Salmond and now Sturgeon

Surprised so many supposedly pro Indy folk fall for it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Whoever leads the SNP will be smeared by the media

First Salmond and now Sturgeon

Surprised so many supposedly pro Indy folk fall for it

Spot on.

Any minuscule thing and there is a smear campaign.

But look down South and there is one of the most incompetent PM's ever and there is no smearing. Remember she is the one who was behind Project Windrush when she was Foreign Secretary. She oversaw the Grenfell Disaster where her Tory councillors failed to act on warnings of an impending disaster. She has also made a complete and utter horlicks of the Brexit negotiations yet no smearing.

Share this post


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

Whoever leads the SNP will be smeared by the media

First Salmond and now Sturgeon

Surprised so many supposedly pro Indy folk fall for it

Yes any snp leader will be under unfair scrutiny and smears however Alec just has a knack of deflecting it and using it to his advantage, just take this “sexual harassment” claims and how he has taken the whole thing and worked it in a way that has him even stonger than at the start of the media frenzy, unfortunately nicola hasn’t got that in her and is very rigid, which  does not allow her to deviate from the script, dont get me wrong she is the best politicain in Holyrood at the moment but i dont think that is enough unfortunately 

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  

×