Is Alex Salmond sex pest? - Page 3 - Politics - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Is Alex Salmond sex pest?


andreimack
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Bobster said:

Hey thplinth. Good to see you back.

I’ve re-read the post too and I read it different. Seems to me that G-Man is referring to how other people associate innocent (until proven guilty) with proven paedophiles.

But both of you are smarterer than me so I’ll leave you to it 😀

Understood. I was just a little horrified at the 4 examples that came to mind, Glitter, Townsend, Polanski and Woody feckin Allen! lol.

I do agree with Trump when he said recently "it is a scary time for (young) men in America". Well it is not just America and is not just young men. You have people openly advocating guilty until proven innocent and that people should believe accusations without evidence or a fair hearing. This is crazy stuff and very dangerous. There is seemingly zero repercussions to anyone who is found to have made false accusations while the accused is effectively destroyed even if found innocent in the end.

In such a legally stacked environment men will simply attempt to avoid being in a work situation that puts them at risk of a false accusation (i.e. being left alone with a woman). This is going to have a big impact on women as well as men but that is another discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I cannot believe I watched 2 hours of run of the mill Tom Clancy Tv last night when this was playing out...

Being a pretty simple person I have a pretty simple take on this. My doubts about the accusations appeared the minute I read the woman in one of the cases went to his bedroom. As I mentioned in the indyref thread,  any woman who goes to a guys bedroom in the evening after drinking knows the score. I really struggle to sympathise, unless of course there is violence , but I am pretty sure that is not being suggested.  Women need to take responsibility  too. At worst he is guilty of cheating on his wife. Whilst it is wrong, he is hardly unique in that respect and it certainly isnt a crime. 

I have never met Alex Salmond. I dont know him, so cannot make a judgement on him. I do admire him though, as do some of the more  rational unionist friends I have , even though they dont like him.  He is an easy target, so many people want him to disappear as he is still a threat. Unlike many people,  i dont think he is finished. He didnt steer Indyref into a whisker of success by lying back and letting folk walk over him. You may disagree thPlinth, as you think he is too nice, but I am not convinced Trump tactics would work in Scotland. Nor would I want them too. How far off the planet does a nation need to be to think Trump is the answer to the problem? 

FWIW I do not agree with this judicial process. It is imperative women have the right to feel safe and protected but i am not sure this is the answer, it has swung too much the other way.  Perhaps I would feel different if I was in that position right enough . 

As for G-Man, the worst she can be accused of is overdosing on sugar and love. Thats the problem with clever people, they think too much. You should all join my world 🙂

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

First up it would not be a rape trial as sexual penetration needs to take place for that and the accusers have not alleged that. Salmond is alleged to have sexually abused them (if my memory serves correctly). None of us here know the truth of what happened so to blindly leap in and claim he is innocent makes us no better than unionists who blindly stick up for the Westminster government. If Thplinth you are angry with the SNP for pursuing this they have to otherwise they will be accused of looking after one of their own a la Westminster with Ted Heath.

Where are you getting this from? There is a big difference between abuse and harassment. I think he has been accused of the latter although, because it's all been done in secret, I don't know if anybody is very sure about what he is supposed to have done. Which is the whole point of the court case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Where are you getting this from? There is a big difference between abuse and harassment. I think he has been accused of the latter although, because it's all been done in secret, I don't know if anybody is very sure about what he is supposed to have done. Which is the whole point of the court case.

 

Well I did say if memory serves - evidently it doesn't. Apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

It's not really about memory though. I am trying to work out how the word "assault" got into your head in the first place? Was it something you read?

It is about memory. Read back to my original posts on the topic and you will see how I thought it was a non-story trying to be made into something by yoon newspapers. Therefore when you accept something as a non-story it quickly fades from your mind. Sorry if it was a poor choice of words but I will re-iterate this is a non-story about a man whose political career is over in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It is about memory. Read back to my original posts on the topic and you will see how I thought it was a non-story trying to be made into something by yoon newspapers. Therefore when you accept something as a non-story it quickly fades from your mind. Sorry if it was a poor choice of words but I will re-iterate this is a non-story about a man whose political career is over in any case.

They are manipulating your brain, Craigie lad. They have got you use the word "assault" and you don't know why you used it. You also used the word "rape" even if you do say that's not what happened. Then you chuck in the name of somebody who has been accused of kiddie fiddling. Other folk compare the situation with that of convicted sex offenders. It's what they want people to do. They want folk to sling lots of mud around and they don't care if any of it sticks. They just want lots of mud and his name in the same conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

They are manipulating your brain, Craigie lad. They have got you use the word "assault" and you don't know why you used it. You also used the word "rape" even if you do say that's not what happened. Then you chuck in the name of somebody who has been accused of kiddie fiddling. Other folk compare the situation with that of convicted sex offenders. It's what they want people to do. They want folk to sling lots of mud around and they don't care if any of it sticks. They just want lots of mud and his name in the same conversation.

Jeez I sit here typing in messages at a quick rate and type in a word about a case that broke in the news two months ago. Sorry again if I used a word that offends or is erroneous but we all do it now and again just my mis-fortunate it struck a raw nerve. And my point on using Ted Heath was because his allegations were covered up by Westminster so if we who push for something better now and after independence then Holyrood not trying to sweep this under the carpet is the right thing to do unlike Westminster. The evidence is flimsy at best against Salmond anyway and I cannot see the charges being made to stick on such flimsy evidence.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Jeez I sit here typing in messages at a quick rate and type in a word about a case that broke in the news two months ago. Sorry again if I used a word that offends or is erroneous but we all do it now and again just my mis-fortunate it struck a raw nerve. And my point on using Ted Heath was because his allegations were covered up by Westminster so if we who push for something better now and after independence then Holyrood not trying to sweep this under the carpet is the right thing to do unlike Westminster. The evidence is flimsy at best against Salmond anyway and I cannot see the charges being made to stick on such flimsy evidence.

 

What "charges" are you talking about?;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

 

 

FWIW I do not agree with this judicial process.

 

What do you mean by that bit?

The judicial review has been instigated by AS. The purpose of this judicial review is to try to determine whether the Civil Service procedures used to investigate this situation are lawful.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

What do you mean by that bit?

The judicial review has been instigated by AS. The purpose of this judicial review is to try to determine whether the Civil Service procedures used to investigate this situation are lawful.  

 

Apologies, I meant complaints process not judicial process. Too many processes,  not enough brain 🙄

I dont feel the new process for dealing with complaints is entirely fair.  I really cannot see how someone can defend themselves without knowing what they are being accused of. 

 Thanks for highlighting 👍 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Hey G-man sorry for jumping down your throat.

You've been a bit quiet. :(

I’m still aghast at Ally claiming a woman in a tartan dress with a wee yellow belt and boringly blonde hair was better than a casually dressed woman with gorgeously coloured hair and a beautiful smile.  I’ll never be held up as a style icon or even as someone able to colour coordinate but ffs that’s mind blowing. Then to put the proverbial cherry on the cake Ormond defended her and called out Ally’s outdated views. Ormond? Our Ormond from Largs who I think had to flee Scotland after leaving his sperm on the curtains of most of the munters and mingers from these shores. And finally my team didn’t bottle it today. Thank goodness I dye my hair as I’m sure all these shocks have turned it grey. 

You, my lovely love will never be able to make me fall out with you. You’ll try again I’m sure and although you’ve abandoned the other board and left @exile  to ensure my abandonment issues don’t go into overdrive I tend to float about there in a wee happy quiz bubble. 😘

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G-Man said:

I’m still aghast at Ally claiming a woman in a tartan dress with a wee yellow belt and boringly blonde hair was better than a casually dressed woman with gorgeously coloured hair and a beautiful smile.  I’ll never be held up as a style icon or even as someone able to colour coordinate but ffs that’s mind blowing. Then to put the proverbial cherry on the cake Ormond defended her and called out Ally’s outdated views. Ormond? Our Ormond from Largs who I think had to flee Scotland after leaving his sperm on the curtains of most of the munters and mingers from these shores. And finally my team didn’t bottle it today. Thank goodness I dye my hair as I’m sure all these shocks have turned it grey. 

You, my lovely love will never be able to make me fall out with you. You’ll try again I’m sure and although you’ve abandoned the other board and left @exile  to ensure my abandonment issues don’t go into overdrive I tend to float about there in a wee happy quiz bubble. 😘

 

😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, G-Man said:

I’m still aghast at Ally claiming a woman in a tartan dress with a wee yellow belt and boringly blonde hair was better than a casually dressed woman with gorgeously coloured hair and a beautiful smile.

 

I never said it was better and i complimented her

Only an observation :(

On 10/26/2018 at 12:01 AM, Ally Bongo said:

It's a pity oor Hannah prefers the women albeit since she came out she has became less feminine

She has nice assets and a big bottom

I am not that shallow x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is how it works with historical allegations.  The publicity generated means that other allegations are made.  Some of these may be malicious and without foundation and some may have some substance.  They all need to be investigated and either dismissed or taken further.  The fact the alleged incident was 10 years ago is irrelevant.  This is part of how the police managed to build cases against the likes of Rolf Harris, Max Clifford and Stuart Hall.  Each individual case taken separately would be difficult to prove but by building up mutiple cases with a similar modus operandi over a period of years shows a pattern of behaviour and is what enabled them to be convicted.

I'm not saying Salmond is guilty or not guilty but it's absolutely critical that any allegations are fully investigated.  These things can no longer be covered up just because it's politically inconvenient.  That's pure Westminster behaviour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, aaid said:

This is how it works with historical allegations.  The publicity generated means that other allegations are made.  Some of these may be malicious and without foundation and some may have some substance.  They all need to be investigated and either dismissed or taken further.  The fact the alleged incident was 10 years ago is irrelevant.  This is part of how the police managed to build cases against the likes of Rolf Harris, Max Clifford and Stuart Hall.  Each individual case taken separately would be difficult to prove but by building up mutiple cases with a similar modus operandi over a period of years shows a pattern of behaviour and is what enabled them to be convicted.

I'm not saying Salmond is guilty or not guilty but it's absolutely critical that any allegations are fully investigated.  These things can no longer be covered up just because it's politically inconvenient.  That's pure Westminster behaviour. 

I agree they need to be investigated however if a “incident” happened at a airport my guess is that it would be no more than a passing comment nothing to justify splashing it across the front pages of every tabloid. Would any other politician recieve the same level as exposure as alec if the shoe was on the other foot? No definitely not m. The allegations will come to nothing but the media will have achieved their objective by tarnishing alecs name 

Edited by hampden_loon2878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I agree they need to be investigated however if a “incident” happened at a airport my guess is that it would be no more than a passing comment nothing to justify splashing it across the front pages of every tabloid. Would any other politician recieve the same level as exposure as alec if the shoe was on the other foot? No definitely not m. The allegations will come to nothing but the media will have achieved their objective by tarnishing alecs name 

I'm not suggesting that there isn't an agenda here between who leaked it and who reported it but it is newsworthy as it shows the investigation is widening out.

Its hard to say if any other politician would receive the same exposure as there are few current or ex politicians with the same profile as Salmond.   

Incidentally, I know someone who works at Heathrow and deals with VIPs, getting them through the airport and onto and off the plane.  I asked them who was the most obnoxious person they'd had to deal with and they replied Alex Salmond, which surprised me as I was expecting some Diva style supermodel or the like.   I asked why, and they recounted a couple of dealings they'd had with him.  Nothing remotely illegal or abusive but just a couple of things that made him look like an arrogant twat.

To get an idea if there was any bias, I asked what they thought about Nicola Sturgeon and all they said was she's absolutely tiny  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aaid said:

I'm not suggesting that there isn't an agenda here between who leaked it and who reported it but it is newsworthy as it shows the investigation is widening out.

Its hard to say if any other politician would receive the same exposure as there are few current or ex politicians with the same profile as Salmond.   

Incidentally, I know someone who works at Heathrow and deals with VIPs, getting them through the airport and onto and off the plane.  I asked them who was the most obnoxious person they'd had to deal with and they replied Alex Salmond, which surprised me as I was expecting some Diva style supermodel or the like.   I asked why, and they recounted a couple of dealings they'd had with him.  Nothing remotely illegal or abusive but just a couple of things that made him look like an arrogant twat.

To get an idea if there was any bias, I asked what they thought about Nicola Sturgeon and all they said was she's absolutely tiny  

 

Its strange because my grandfather and a lot of acquaintances know him really well, he stays 10miles from me and all say hes a gentleman, i have stopped and spoke to him on the golf course a few times and he always had time to speak. One thing eveyone agrees on with alec is that he is a very clever and strategic man so for him to  in anyway jeopardise the snp/independence is hard for me to believe. Thats why i am very confident any allegations will not be in anyway serious, as you say possibly being a obnoxious arse but in no way anything the wrong side of the law   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone read Salmonds statement on this a while back - I cannot copy and paste it here but here is the tweet - click on the statement and then be sure to click the arrow on the right for the next two bits.

In particular about the comments about the actions of Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45294504

Quote

He (Salmond) also insisted that a new complaints procedure introduced by the Scottish government last year following wider concerns about harassment at Holyrood and Westminster was "unfair and unjust".

I am assuming it this person.

"Leslie Evans (born 11 December 1958) is the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government. In this role, Evans is the principal policy adviser to the First Minister and Secretary to the Scottish Cabinet."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Evans

It has seemed to me from the start of this that Sturgeon has been more than happy to sit back and let Salmond get thrown under the bus.

Quote

 

His successor, Nicola Sturgeon, said the complaints were made in January and were investigated through a process she had agreed to.

She said the situation was "difficult for me to come to terms with" given her long history with Mr Salmond, but claims "could not be ignored".

....

Ms Sturgeon confirmed: "Complaints were made in January relating to Alex Salmond by two individuals.

"These complaints have been considered since then under a procedure covering ministers and former ministers that was agreed by me in December 2017 in the wake of public concern about harassment.

"Although I have been aware for some time of the fact of the investigation - initially from Alex Salmond - I have had no role in the process, and to have referred to it before now would have compromised the integrity of the internal investigation, which I was not prepared to do."

'Treated seriously'
Ms Sturgeon said she had been told by the Scottish government's top civil servant, Leslie Evans, earlier this week that she had completed her investigation and that she intended to make the complaints public.

The first minister added: "Alex Salmond is now challenging the Scottish government's procedure in court. The Scottish government refutes his criticisms of its process and will defend its position vigorously.

"I have been clear on many occasions that all organisations and workplaces must make it possible for people to come forward to report concerns and have confidence that they will be treated seriously.

"For that principle to mean anything it cannot be applied selectively. It must be applied without fear or favour, regardless of the identity, seniority or political allegiance of the person involved."

 

How about she comes out and agrees that the internal judicial process by which Salmond has been accused and then had it all made public is a fucking disgrace (that presumably she oversaw being implemented). 

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Did anyone read Salmonds statement on this a while back - I cannot copy and paste it here but here is the tweet - click on the statement and then be sure to click the arrow on the right for the next two bits.

The comments about the actions of Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45294504

I am assuming it this person.

"Leslie Evans (born 11 December 1958) is the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government. In this role, Evans is the principal policy adviser to the First Minister and Secretary to the Scottish Cabinet."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Evans

It has seemed to me from the start of this that Sturgeon has been more than happy to sit back and let Salmond get thrown under the bus.

How about she comes out and agrees that the internal judicial process by which Salmond has been accused and then had it all made public is a fucking disgrace (that presumably she oversaw being implemented). 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...