Is Alex Salmond sex pest? - Page 5 - Politics - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Is Alex Salmond sex pest?


andreimack

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, aaid said:

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

If it was going to be nefarious that one seemed the most likely for me. "The Establishment" are so desperate for Salmond to fail they will jump on anything to help.

The biggest tragedy would be if Salmond was guilty yet in their haste to get him the Establishment fuck it all up.  Now it just looks really bad which is exactly why there is meant to be no contact so you can tell the fake from the real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Oh how it would  please me if alec started up another pro indy party, with agreements in place not to stand againt snp in specific seats so the votes dont split, we need two serious pro indy parties 

How would that be any different from the SNP in respect of its policies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

That needs to be pasted...

Quote

 

The Salmond Stitch-Up – the Incredible Facts, and why Mackinnon and Evans Must Be Sacked

Judith Mackinnon joined the Scottish government in 2017. She was slotted into the highly remunerated non-job of Head of People Advice. That really is her title. I saw it in the Record and did not believe it, but just phoned the Scottish Government and they confirmed it. Judith Mackinnon is Head of People Advice at the Scottish Government. She was previously Head of Human Resource Governance at Police Scotland. A senior policeman tells me that appeared in practice to mean professional feminist.

As might be expected from somebody with such pointless job titles, Mackinnon writes gobbledegook rather than English. Here is an extract from her Police Scotland submission to the consultation on the Scottish Government bill on gender equality on boards.

I confess I got no further than answer 1), my bullshit meter having exploded. I felt very sorry for Jackie McKelvie.

It is vital to note that, in her peculiar non-job at the Scottish Government, Mackinnon had no normal professional contact with the alleged “complainants” against Alex Salmond. It is still more vital to note that the “complainants” did not approach Mackinnon. In January 2018, shortly after starting at the Scottish Government, Mackinnon sought them out and – as it was carefully put in court today (tremendous twitter stream report here), spoke to them in a manner “bordering on encouragement to proceed with formal complaints” against Alex Salmond. It appears this was a process, not just one meeting. Again in the language used in court today, there was a “significant amount of direct personal contact” between Mackinnon and the complainants.

At this stage the complaints were brought to the attention of Leslie Evans, the Permanent Secretary – assuming she was not the one who instigated Mackinnon to act originally. Incredibly, Evans then appoints Mackinnon as the formal investigating officer for the case.

Even more incredibly, Mackinnon and Evans then together work on a new Civil Service Code which specifically makes the retrospective actioning of these complaints possible.

So Mackinnon instigated the complaints, investigated the complaints and drafted the code changes which made the complaints actionable.

Judith Mackinnon has been a human rights professional operating for over 25 years. It is impossible that Mackinnon did not realise that this method of pursuing a stitch up is absolutely illegitimate, as was today conceded in court. It is equally impossible that the Head of the Civil Service, Leslie Evans, did not realise these measures were completely illegitimate.

The actions of these civil servants are not just reckless, they are a deliberate stitch-up of an individual amounting to the crime of misconduct in public office. It is most certainly a sacking offence and it is Evans and Mackinnon who should be the subject of police investigation. Apart from their deliberate and cold malice towards Salmond, they have cost the taxpayer £350,000 wasted on this case.

Leslie Evans issued a statement today which is breathtaking in these circumstances in its impudence and its tendentiousness. She appears to try to say that she did not know until last month of Mackinnon’s role in instigating the complaints.

After reassessing all the materials available, I have concluded that an impression of partiality could have been created based on one specific point – contact between the Investigating Officer and the two complainants around the time of their complaints being made in January 2018.

The full picture only became evident in December 2018 as a result of the work being undertaken to produce relevant documents in advance of the hearing.

This amounts to an incredible accusation against Mackinnon by Evans. To save her own skin, Evans appears to be alleging that at the time of Mackinnon’s appointment as investigating officer, Mackinnon did not reveal to Evans her role in initiating the “complaints”; and presumably also left that out of the investigative reports if Evans did not find out until December.

However as a former member of the senior civil service myself, I can tell you that the truly disgusting Leslie Evans is here attempting to give that impression by weasel drafting. She is saying that “the full picture” only became clear in December. In fact, Evans already knew a great deal more than she is here attempting to portray. Perhaps she didn’t know whether Mackinnon and the complainants drank tea or coffee together, hence not the “full picture”.

There is a still more important and extraordinary misrepresentation in Evans’ statement, She claims:

All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed

I cannot understand this at all. There has been no judgement issued in the case. The Scottish Government caved in once it was ordered to reveal the incriminating emails and minutes that told the above story. The Scottish Government caved in and settled out of court; therefore the case was dismissed by the judge. It is totally false of Evans to claim that this amounts to Salmond’s other claims being “dismissed” in the sense she intends to convey, and indeed is the opposite of what the Scottish Government’s own QC specifically stated in court. He said that the Government disagreed with Salmond on the other points but that this was “now academic”.

The misrepresentations in Leslie Evans’ statement are simply appalling in a civil servant. She has to go.

All documents in this case should now be released. It is a matter of essential public interest, relating to a politically motivated attempt to impact on the bid for Independence of the entire Scottish nation. One thing that those documents will make clear is whether or not the First Minister’s office was as entirely insulated from events as is claimed.

Nicola Sturgeon must now move to demand the resignation of both Evans and Mackinnon. Both fully deserve to lose their jobs. If Sturgeon moves to protect them, she will attract suspicion that she is motivated by keeping them silent about the extent of her own involvement in the sorry process. To avoid this rumour she has to act swiftly and decisively and invite them to resign tomorrow morning.

 

If Nicola Sturgeon does not come out and condemn this pish and get this wanker sacked I for one am done with her. It is fucking outrageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know what Sturgeon is playing at

Does she know the complainants stories are pish and it's better to let this go the whole way and expose the bias

or

Does she know there is substance

or

Does she not want to be seen to be making this a Westminster Unionist insidious attack on Independence for what happens in the media after she does that 

I have since read that she cannot sack Evans as she was appointed by Mundell/ Westminster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Oh how it would  please me if alec started up another pro indy party, with agreements in place not to stand againt snp in specific seats so the votes dont split, we need two serious pro indy parties 

 

19 minutes ago, aaid said:

How would that be any different from the SNP in respect of its policies? 

Well I am struggling to vote for a Nicola Sturgeon led SNP whereas I voted when Salmond was in charge no bother.  I think she is slowly proving to be a virtue signaling empty suit with bad judgement.

If there were two parties offering Nicola's vision and one offering Alex's I think it would actually mop up more votes than either solely leading the SNP. Nicola is starting to really annoy me in the same way I guess Alex annoyed some people. So having a choice might work. Mystic Loon should always be heeded...

For one thing I personally  really don't think Salmond would have kept the higher rate of income tax after England dropped it. These little things have all accumulated. To the point I am naffed off with the SNP right now which is crazy considering how pro independence I feel.

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

I dont know what Sturgeon is playing at

Does she know the complainants stories are pish and it's better to let this go the whole way and expose the bias

or

Does she know there is substance

or

Does she not want to be seen to be making this a Westminster Unionist insidious attack on Independence for what happens in the media after she does that 

I have since read that she cannot sack Evans as she was appointed by Mundell/ Westminster

or

She lacks the fortitude and intelligence to make the right move and instead reverts to playing it safe, sitting on her hands, while leaving Alex out to dry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 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

Both should be under a microscope at this point but yeah Judith looks like the real project manager sent from God knows where... It is an Op.  Man folk swallowed this shit pretty much the instant when they did it. I mean like SNP supporters...

If they cant see through this Skripal like crap how on earth are they going to achieve independence. I despair I really do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Both should be under a microscope at this point but yeah Judith looks like the real project manager sent from God knows where... It is an Op.  Man folk swallowed this shit pretty much the instant when they did it. I mean like SNP supporters...

If they cant see through this Skripal like crap how on earth are they going to achieve independence. I despair I really do.

Colin Wallace cover was in Admin as well. When he tried to blow the whistle the authorities were saying "he's a walter mitty, guy works in HR or admin"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aaid said:

How would that be any different from the SNP in respect of its policies? 

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.

 

i am with plinth and am starting to question whether she has the intelligence/savvy to navigate the hostile scotish media   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes 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.

 

i am with plinth and am starting to question whether she has the intelligence/savvy to navigate the hostile scotish media   

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.

Edited by thplinth
missed out 'not'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, phart said:

Colin Wallace cover was in Admin as well. When he tried to blow the whistle the authorities were saying "he's a walter mitty, guy works in HR or admin"

Press officer it was. Just went and checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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.

 

 

It stinks really bad. It is so much worse than I thought it would be. She needs sacked and all the documents that the court was going to see should be made public.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 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.

 

 

 

I am really getting a very bad feeling about this now. Is Nicola Sturgeon really backing these two? If she is she can fuck off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments to that Craig Murray piece are also worth a read. I have found NS actions and comments on this affair off from the start. I am starting to see why that might have been.  She is up to her neck in it as well. They have played her like an absolute rube I fear. She is a lawyer, how could she not see how incredibly unfair this procedure was. And still she back them... fucking wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two separate women made a complaint.

Whether they were encouraged to do (by the way, so what?  it's still their choice...two of them separately) does not negate that fact.

15 paragraphs from Craig Murray on the procedure after a complaint being made does not change it either.

Yes Craig Murray and the Court correctly point out wrongs in the post-complaint procedure.  

Sturgeon sacking anybody investigating this misconduct charge would be political suicide.

I say this as a huge Salmond fan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that is giving me an itch is this;

If this really was a malicious attempt to damage Salmond/Sturgeon/SNP/Independence then surely the perpetrators would have been aware that it wouldn't take all that much for it to unravel and thereby damaging whoever was behind it (Westminster/Unionists)

Maybe that will still happen however it does give me concern 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can gather NS would have approved this new disciplinary process. I think they may have exploited her hard core feminist views to get a ridiculously biased against men set of procedures approved and then she has sat back in horror and done fuck all while it was then almost immediately used to smear the shit out of her mentor. No wonder she was acting weird from the outset. She actually seemed to add credibility to the accusations was my feeling at the time.

We will see where the police investigation goes but this by itself is shocking.

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The damage is done. Go back and review the papers. The wings site has some corkers. If Salmond is exonerated it will not matter. Mud sticks. That is why they have done this and it has worked. I think we are starting to see the fruition of just some very poor decision making... grim.

The connection back to the police that phart highlights is a real concern as well. Is that investigation going to be fair I wonder. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Two separate women made a complaint.

Whether they were encouraged to do (by the way, so what?  it's still their choice...two of them separately) does not negate that fact.

15 paragraphs from Craig Murray on the procedure after a complaint being made does not change it either.

Yes Craig Murray and the Court correctly point out wrongs in the post-complaint procedure.  

Sturgeon sacking anybody investigating this misconduct charge would be political suicide.

I say this as a huge Salmond fan.

 

Well if you were going set-up a stitch up you would definitely need more than one and two is the bare minimum which is what we have here. The mere fact it is more than one is more than enough 'proof' of guilt for many people.

The reason I am highly skeptical about these accusations and these disciplinary procedures is they way they have been carefully exploited to the absolute maximum at every step to inflict damage on Salmond. This looked planned to me. Salmond made repeated offers to go to arbitration and it was denied and then he was told they were going to go public forcing him to instigate the judicial review... and what did it reveal.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...
×
×
  • Create New...