Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 10:34:AM

Title: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 10:34:AM
what i would like to know is did he excercise his right to a solicter the same right he tried to deny to other people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47001028?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3-D3xq7uwpM9zCqtDFh7wNGXAXkG4efJ3WkefCN4rzrt3NdL1Y7EAH2wI
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2019, 04:41:PM
what i would like is did he excercise his right to a solicter the same right he tried to deny to other people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47001028?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3-D3xq7uwpM9zCqtDFh7wNGXAXkG4efJ3WkefCN4rzrt3NdL1Y7EAH2wI
Apparently there had been a previous investigation into some of the allegations in 2003, though it had been handled badly and some of the pertinent emails may have been destroyed, according to Scotland's chief civil servant, Leslie Evans. It's all very strange. Of course the allegations will have to be tested in front of a jury, but we should give Salmond the right of presumed innocence until found guilty.

I don't know what you mean about denying the right of others to engage a solicitor.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on May 22, 2019, 04:56:PM
Apparently there had been a previous investigation into some of the allegations in 2003, though it had been handled badly and some of the pertinent emails may have been destroyed, according to Scotland's chief civil servant, Leslie Evans. It's all very strange. Of course the allegations will have to be tested in front of a jury, but we should give Salmond the right of presumed innocence until found guilty.

I don't know what you mean about denying the right of others to engage a solicitor.

in scotland you did not have an atomatic right to a solicter when qustioned a supreme court rulling changed that and salmond bitterly opsed the decisn.

so under those crcumstances id like to know if he excercised the right he treid to deny other people/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on May 22, 2019, 05:00:PM
in scotland you did not have an atomatic right to a solicter when qustioned a supreme court rulling changed and salmond bitterly opsed the decisn.

so under those crcumstances id like to know if he excercised the right he treid to deny other people/
Yes I suppose looking at it like that it does seem hypocritical. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/oct/27/detention-without-access-lawyer-scotland-ends
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2020, 09:26:PM
Is Alex Salmond a sex pest..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51926614
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 18, 2020, 11:14:AM
craig murray has an intresting take on it.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 18, 2020, 05:51:PM
Is Alex Salmond a sex pest..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51926614

It seems like the same pattern as Cosby and Weinstein.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 19, 2020, 07:35:PM
craig murray has an intresting take on it.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-7/
To accept one's own mortality..

In many ways it would be the same familiar story women have endured for centuries: rape allegations, kissing lips, touching hair, fondling buttocks, all dismissed as horseplay by a figure who could be the man down the pub, the guy next door, the man in the street or for that matter, the local Catholic priest.

But this isn't just any ordinary man. In 2014 he came within a whisker of leading a nation of five million to independence for the first time in 300 years, a Robert the Bruce-type figure, destined to liberate the Scots from their English yoke. A clue came when he described one of his victims as Ursula Andress, whom, one recalls, emerged from the crystal-clear waters of the Caribbean in white bikini and conch, no doubt succumbing to Alex's James Bond charm, as his self-deception at Bute House and other loci in the course of his employment continued, using his position and status to garner sexual fringe benefits from women unable or unwilling to answer back.

As the trial continues, with his 82-year-old spouse no doubt paraded in the public gallery at the behest of Defence barristers and a glimmer of hope with some inconsistencies in Prosecution evidence, he could do worse than to recall the Seven Ages of Man speech given by Jacques in Shakespeare's As You Like It, to accept his own mortality, stage three being the lover, but the message contained therein as the trial continues at the Edinburgh High Court is that there comes a time when "all succumb to second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."  https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/your-man-finally-in-the-public-gallery-the-alex-salmond-trial-day-8/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 20, 2020, 06:14:PM
Craig Murray was barred from the courtroom yesterday: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-long-dark-night-of-the-soul/

Is it my imagination or was this the offending piece:

The day was dramatic enough, mostly consisting of Alex Salmond in the witness stand giving evidence. That evidence was startling. He stated that some of the accusations were deliberate fabrications with a political purpose. He specifically accused Ms A of fabrication, and of recruiting and encouraging five of the other accusers also to make fabrications against him. Crucially he described Ms A, whom he accused of orchestrating the fabrications, as extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon, and did so in terms so graphic and detailed that I cannot repeat them as it would identify Ms A.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 20, 2020, 11:11:PM
Craig Murray was barred from the courtroom yesterday: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/the-long-dark-night-of-the-soul/

Is it my imagination or was this the offending piece:

The day was dramatic enough, mostly consisting of Alex Salmond in the witness stand giving evidence. That evidence was startling. He stated that some of the accusations were deliberate fabrications with a political purpose. He specifically accused Ms A of fabrication, and of recruiting and encouraging five of the other accusers also to make fabrications against him. Crucially he described Ms A, whom he accused of orchestrating the fabrications, as extremely close to Nicola Sturgeon, and did so in terms so graphic and detailed that I cannot repeat them as it would identify Ms A.
    No details have been given for the alleged "possible contempt". It is more likely that Mr.Murray's reporting has presented both the prosecution and defence cases and reported proceedings accurately. His reporting on both this case, and the circus that passes for due process in the Assange  farce, has been invaluable. The BBC, Guardian et al have been very selective in their reporting of events in a way that is beneficial to the prosecution and detrimental to the defence. The coverage in the media, as with Assange, is so jarringly biased that anyone with an above room temperature IQ should see through it.
    Read Craig Murray's daily report of proceedings and it is eye opening if you have been relying on MSM coverage.
    One of the most startling aspects, to me at least, was the questioning of the witnesses called by the defence. Despite several witnesses giving evidence that directly contradicted prosecution witness claims, none of them were cross examined by the prosecution. They were not challenged on their evidence even though it could not be true if the prosecution claims were true.
    From Craig Murray's blog;
   
That concluded the day’s proceedings. It was a day on which defence witnesses directly contradicted evidence from the accusers on a number of key points, most importantly but by no means solely on the question of whether Ms H was present at all at the event where she claimed to have been the victim of attempted rape. It was also given in evidence that people had not reported incidents they said they had reported, and there was no civil service policy against women working alone in the evening with Alex Salmond – which claim had been one of the MSM’s most lurid headlines.

     Read the full coverage for the details of this but it is telling that you would know none of this if you relied on the BBC, Guardian and the rest of the MSM.
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 20, 2020, 11:33:PM
im not salmond fan i want him to be guilty but i do wonder if hes being set up here.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 12:35:AM
im not salmond fan i want him to be guilty but i do wonder if hes being set up here.
   Regardless of anyone's view of Salmond the evidence should be weighed objectively. I have gone beyond wondering if Salmond is being set up. It is a show trial and the case against is so threadbare that it should never have made it to court.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2020, 02:18:AM
   Regardless of anyone's view of Salmond the evidence should be weighed objectively. I have gone beyond wondering if Salmond is being set up. It is a show trial and the case against is so threadbare that it should never have made it to court.

i am coming to that veiw myself.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 04:14:PM
    One particular exchange stands out where what isn't discussed is more telling than what is, hinting at the wider untold story behind the sham proceedings.
    It was day 8 of the trial and the following exchange took place, copied directly from Craig Murray's blog;
 
    The final witness of the day was Ms Ann Harvey, who worked in the SNP whips’ office at Westminster from 2006-9 and 2011 to present. She had been present at the Glasgow East by-election. In response to a question from Gordon Jackson, she replied that she had witnessed nothing inappropriate there when Alex Salmond visited.

Gordon Jackson asked whether she had more recently been asked anything relevant? Ms Harvey replied that on 31 October 2017 she had received a series of 16 text messages to her private number asking for information and whether she could disclose anything about the past. Gordon Jackson asked what the messages said specifically and who they were from.

At this point, Alex Prentice rose for the prosecution and objected to this line of questioning. The jury was dismissed and a legal argument was held on the admissibility of this information. I am not allowed to report the legal discussion. In the end the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible and Ms Harvey was dismissed.

    There is a lot of evidence about Whatsapp groups "discussing" the allegations and strikingly similar language is used throughout by the different anonymous accusers. The accusers have lifelong anonymity orders. The text messages, which the prosecution do not want discussing in front of the jury, we can only guess at their nature and content. We can make a fairly educated guess, however, and it looks like fishing and collusion to me.
    A number of non anonymous women, as well as men, gave evidence for the defence which directly contradicted the prosecution witnesses evidence. Both versions could not be simultaneously true and not one was challenged or cross examined by the prosecution. How can any jury member find guilt after this?
     Who sent the messages and their content is to remain a secret.

 
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2020, 04:15:PM
This is the worst alleged incident and might stand alone from all the other allegations of "high jinks", inappropriate as they all may be. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/alex-salmond-rape-trial-woman-h-sexual-assault-scotland-a9393021.html

It's the same old story of perpetrator and victim, hunter and hunted, by a man in a position of power, made randy by overwork and unable to fulfil his natural sexual desires through the marital relationship, he set out to conquer women who may well have been overawed at his position and were resolved politically on the same goal. Did Salmond really feel no sense of impropriety or wrongdoing during these alleged assaults, or should the women involved have been grateful for his attentions, flattered that the first man about to lead an independent Scotland since 1707 was spending time with them as companion, rather than what may be nearer the truth: that of an enervated 58-year-old middle-aged man looking like thousands of others down the pub of a weekend.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2020, 04:23:PM
    One particular exchange stands out where what isn't discussed is more telling than what is, hinting at the wider untold story behind the sham proceedings.
    It was day 8 of the trial and the following exchange took place, copied directly from Craig Murray's blog;
 
    The final witness of the day was Ms Ann Harvey, who worked in the SNP whips’ office at Westminster from 2006-9 and 2011 to present. She had been present at the Glasgow East by-election. In response to a question from Gordon Jackson, she replied that she had witnessed nothing inappropriate there when Alex Salmond visited.

Gordon Jackson asked whether she had more recently been asked anything relevant? Ms Harvey replied that on 31 October 2017 she had received a series of 16 text messages to her private number asking for information and whether she could disclose anything about the past. Gordon Jackson asked what the messages said specifically and who they were from.

At this point, Alex Prentice rose for the prosecution and objected to this line of questioning. The jury was dismissed and a legal argument was held on the admissibility of this information. I am not allowed to report the legal discussion. In the end the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible and Ms Harvey was dismissed.

    There is a lot of evidence about Whatsapp groups "discussing" the allegations and strikingly similar language is used throughout by the different anonymous accusers. The accusers have lifelong anonymity orders. The text messages, which the prosecution do not want discussing in front of the jury, we can only guess at their nature and content. We can make a fairly educated guess, however, and it looks like fishing and collusion to me.
    A number of non anonymous women, as well as men, gave evidence for the defence which directly contradicted the prosecution witnesses evidence. Both versions could not be simultaneously true and not one was challenged or cross examined by the prosecution. How can any jury member find guilt after this?
     Who sent the messages and their content is to remain a secret.

 
The bottom line is that many of these alleged assaults of a sexual nature must have occurred, the Prosecution relying on their sheer number: thirteen charges against nine women.

You have to put yourself in the position of these women at the time, who were hired to further the highly controversial policy of Scottish independence, and its greatest asset and advocate, namely Alex Salmond. Should a woman sacrifice herself on the altar of sexual impropriety for the sake of the common good, not to mention a highly-paid, relatively secure job in a society where these are becoming few and far between.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2020, 04:38:PM
I have removed three recent posts from this thread.  We have to remember that the trial is ongoing and we do have to be mindful of the law relating to contempt of court.  I will restore the posts following the conclusion of the trial.  In the meantime please exercise restraint.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 04:42:PM
     Why did the prosecution not challenge the defence witnesses evidence that Ms. H was not even at Bute House when the alleged incident took place? They have accepted, without challenge, that this specific allegation couldn't be true.
     Both Samantha Barber, interestingly a friend of Ms. H, and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, give evidence that Ms. H was not at Bute House and that her allegations cannot be true. If you only read one side, Steve, then that is all that you will know.
     I was already aware of the story that you posted, as is everybody. Were you even aware that this is contradicted or didn't the Independent report that?
    Do you know what Samantha Barber and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh said in evidence? Does it matter to you or are you happy to decide guilt only by hearing the prosecution side? No defence witnesses required.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 04:43:PM
I have removed two recent posts from this thread.  We have to remember that the trial is ongoing and we do have to be mindful of the law relating to contempt of court.  I will restore the posts following the conclusion of the trial.  In the meantime please exercise restraint.
    Have I said something? :-[
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2020, 04:57:PM
    Have I said something? :-[

No - It was three posts by another member.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 05:07:PM
No - It was three posts by another member.
    I realise that now having read back, NGB.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 21, 2020, 07:49:PM
is this the same alex salmond who more or less declared nat frazer guilty before his retrial.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 21, 2020, 09:57:PM
is this the same alex salmond who more or less declared nat frazer guilty before his retrial.
   What did he say?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 23, 2020, 01:11:PM
    Two jurors dismissed the remaining 13 informed by the judge that a 8 are still required for a verdict. Reasons for dismissal described as "various reasons".
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 23, 2020, 03:06:PM
He has just been acquitted on all charges.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 23, 2020, 03:09:PM
He has just been acquitted on all charges.
    Just read it myself, NGB. The fall out from this charade will be forthcoming.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 23, 2020, 03:17:PM
hes been cleared.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 23, 2020, 03:50:PM
    Just read it myself, NGB. The fall out from this charade will be forthcoming.

I agree and it will be very interesting to hear the details.  I suspect Nicola S is not happy.



Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 23, 2020, 04:23:PM
iwill watch with great intrest.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 23, 2020, 06:11:PM
I agree and it will be very interesting to hear the details.  I suspect Nicola S is not happy.

Why would that be?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 12:19:AM
Why would that be?
There was an intimation that she had conducted a lesbian relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Now where are my three posts..
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 12:55:AM
There was an intimation that she had conducted a lesbian relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Now where are my three posts..
    Alex Salmond has,I think, directly named NS as being behind the plot. Perhaps read Craig Murray or the Grouse beater and you may get a somewhat fuller picture than is available in MSM.
     Whatsapp groups "discussing" the allegations. Discussing may be a euphemism for conspiring, perhaps. Read a full account of the court proceedings including defence arguments and you would know. Fishing texts referred to in court which prosecution didn't want discussing. Lesbian relationships, real or imagined, are not what is referred to here.
    Alex Salmond in his speech today refers to the matters not to be discussed in court which the defence wanted put before the court. He also said all will be revealed in time. 
    It's politics, Steve, nobody cares about lesbian relationships. It's the machiavellian plotting and the usual tactic to bring down those seen as troublesome, sexual allegations. This time it backfired and there really will be a price to pay for the plotters.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 12:58:AM
There was an intimation that she had conducted a lesbian relationship with one of the plaintiffs.

Now where are my three posts..
   I also suspect that there will be a flurry of legal letters to many publications after their "reporting" of proceedings. That probably explains where your posts are.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 01:52:AM
    But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed.

That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.

    Steve, the above from Craig Murray today may offer the insight that currently evades you.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 05:47:AM
    But I want to make one thing quite clear. This is not a case where the major accusations failed because of the difficulty of proving what happened with two people alone in a room. In such cases it is often right to feel real and profound sorrow for the accuser with no means of proof. This was a case where there was very real evidence, from third party after third party, of certain accusers telling definite and deliberate lies. A case where eye witnesses stated categorically that claimed events did not happen. A case where eye witnesses testified people were not physically present when claimed. A case where witnesses testified that reports had not been made, and policies not instituted, as claimed by the prosecution.

A limited amount of evidence was also heard of some of the accusers conspiring together with others, including through a Whatsapp group created for the specific purpose, to fabricate and forward those lies. The vast bulk of evidence on this specific issue of conspiracy was excluded by the court both in pre-trial hearings and by dismissal of witnesses or evidence in the trial itself but, as Alex Salmond indicated from the court steps, will be out in due time.

It is also important to note that two thirds of the accusers – and indeed precisely those two thirds who were involved in lies, fabrications and conspiracy – were and are senior members of the SNP, very much part of the party machine, very much close to the leadership and especially involved in the non-independence related agenda that has taken over the party. With one exception, they are in highly paid party nominated jobs now with the tab picked up by the taxpayer. What we learned in the trial about careerism and self-promotion among those earning a very fat living out of the party’s current domination of Scottish politics was really very unedifying indeed.

That a party which has such a wonderful and committed membership – a membership who make me proud to be a member alongside them – should play host to a parasitic and highly paid professional elite with no discernible interest in Independence is a truly remarkable phenomenon. What we saw revealed in court was a procession of members of the political class who would just have happily have made their careers in the old corrupt Scottish Labour Party if it was still in charge. A major, major clearout is needed.

    Steve, the above from Craig Murray today may offer the insight that currently evades you.
I'm still not sure why this is the case. The "he said she said" scenario is always the most difficult to prove. I'm sorry if I got hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as Nicola Sturgeon was concerned. We have to acknowledge the verdict of the jury, who sat through the whole trial and the totality of the evidence. I'm just not sure the reason why nine women would lie in court when Mr. Salmond was out of the SNP mainstream and surely no threat to Nicola Sturgeon's leadership of the party.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 24, 2020, 09:13:AM

Now where are my three posts..

I restored them immediately after I posted about the acquittals.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 12:26:PM
I'm still not sure why this is the case. The "he said she said" scenario is always the most difficult to prove. I'm sorry if I got hold of the wrong end of the stick as far as Nicola Sturgeon was concerned. We have to acknowledge the verdict of the jury, who sat through the whole trial and the totality of the evidence. I'm just not sure the reason why nine women would lie in court when Mr. Salmond was out of the SNP mainstream and surely no threat to Nicola Sturgeon's leadership of the party.
    It wasn't a case of he said, she said. It was they plotted, conspired and lied. Fishing texts, around 400 were sent out fishing for allegations. Alleged victims were shown not to be even present when supposed to be and incidents were deliberately misconstrued. The tactic is to have so many similar accusations and innuendo that the hard of thinking assume they must all be true. You fell for it and now discuss it as if you are informed. Scratch below the surface, show some curiosity and you would be surprised.
    Read the full accounts of the proceedings, including the defence. The verdict was totally expected by those following the trial, it wasn't expected by those who only read MSM. the accusations should never have made it to court.
    This is just the beginning of the story, all will be revealed in time.
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 24, 2020, 01:22:PM
    It wasn't a case of he said, she said. It was they plotted, conspired and lied. Fishing texts, around 400 were sent out fishing for allegations. Alleged victims were shown not to be even present when supposed to be and incidents were deliberately misconstrued. The tactic is to have so many similar accusations and innuendo that the hard of thinking assume they must all be true. You fell for it and now discuss it as if you are informed. Scratch below the surface, show some curiosity and you would be surprised.
    Read the full accounts of the proceedings, including the defence. The verdict was totally expected by those following the trial, it wasn't expected by those who only read MSM. the accusations should never have made it to court.
    This is just the beginning of the story, all will be revealed in time.
   

Do you think the same applies to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 24, 2020, 02:44:PM
Do you think the same applies to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien?

theres a slight diffrence they were convicted.

and cosby more or less admited guilt.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: David1819 on March 24, 2020, 03:02:PM
theres a slight diffrence they were convicted.

and cosby more or less admited guilt.

Last I heard about Cosby, he was appealing.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 03:38:PM
Do you think the same applies to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstien?
    There is no comparison to be made between the cases.
    Salmond has been the victim of political dirty tricks which failed. There are going to be huge repercussions and people involved will be exposed. This is not a speculative opinion. Salmond himself told us this on the court steps yesterday.
    It is noticeable that the believe women brigade don't believe the numerous women who testified that the allegations were untrue and that the supposed victim of an attempted rape was not even present when the alleged offence took place.
    None of these women were even cross examined by the prosecution despite the fact that their evidence was, by definition, untrue if the allegations were true. Not challenged. The evidence given left to stand without challenge.
    Some people lied in the trial. This is certainly true because all accounts cannot simultaneously be true. The jury of 15 reduced to 13 and made up of 8 women and 5 men in Edinburgh which is a unionist stronghold and not Salmond friendly territory found on the evidence presented that the accusers were lying. This was without being able to see the plotting texts and messages that were not to be discussed or seen, but will be in good time.
     Salmond was rightfully cleared. Those who conspired in this failed conspiracy have yet to face their reckoning. 
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 04:35:PM
The bottom line is that many of these alleged assaults of a sexual nature must have occurred, the Prosecution relying on their sheer number: thirteen charges against nine women.

You have to put yourself in the position of these women at the time, who were hired to further the highly controversial policy of Scottish independence, and its greatest asset and advocate, namely Alex Salmond. Should a woman sacrifice herself on the altar of sexual impropriety for the sake of the common good, not to mention a highly-paid, relatively secure job in a society where these are becoming few and far between.
   I suggest that first of all you acquaint yourself with the Moorov Doctrine. In a nutshell, it is a rule in Scottish Law that witnesses corroborate each other if a course of conduct is established.
     A political rival makes an allegation of attempted rape. Evidence presented and unchallenged in court proves that she wasn't there.
     Texts and messages are sent out to hundreds of women who had worked with Salmond asking about their contacts with him. What you call the multiple assaults of a sexual nature, after this epic fishing expedition, were in fact a small handful of exaggerated and invented claims designed to convince the easily convinced that there is no smoke without fire. The sheer number of them makes them true and the easily led have no need to know the details of the individual charges or the Moorov Doctrine.
     
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 05:04:PM
   I suggest that first of all you acquaint yourself with the Moorov Doctrine. In a nutshell, it is a rule in Scottish Law that witnesses corroborate each other if a course of conduct is established.
     A political rival makes an allegation of attempted rape. Evidence presented and unchallenged in court proves that she wasn't there.
     Texts and messages are sent out to hundreds of women who had worked with Salmond asking about their contacts with him. What you call the multiple assaults of a sexual nature, after this epic fishing expedition, were in fact a small handful of exaggerated and invented claims designed to convince the easily convinced that there is no smoke without fire. The sheer number of them makes them true and the easily led have no need to know the details of the individual charges or the Moorov Doctrine.
   
In what sense was she a political rival? Do you really think he could make a comeback at 65-years-old? I have read what is available online about the case and it wasn't proven that Witness H wasn't present at the dinner at Bute House-in fact the unnamed celebrity stated that she was there, in contradiction to the Defence witness who didn't see her that evening and who also claimed she had told her she wouldn't be there in a telephone conversation.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I wonder why so many witnesses would lie on oath? Of course this "horseplay" or invading other women' space could be interpreted differently if you're a bloke, but the attempted rape allegation stands alone in its seriousness.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 05:27:PM
In what sense was she a political rival? Do you really think he could make a comeback at 65-years-old? I have read what is available online about the case and it wasn't proven that Witness H wasn't present at the dinner at Bute House-in fact the unnamed celebrity stated that she was there, in contradiction to the Defence witness who didn't see her that evening and who also claimed she had told her she wouldn't be there in a telephone conversation.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I wonder why so many witnesses would lie on oath? Of course this "horseplay" or invading other women' space could be interpreted differently if you're a bloke, but the attempted rape allegation stands alone in its seriousness.
   There are plenty of political rivalries within parties, Steve. One of the allegations came only after Alex Salmond recommended another candidate to stand as SNP prospective MP. Years after the alleged event and after saying that it would be great to work with Alex again. After being overlooked she remembered a years old never previously mentioned allegation. Gordon Jackson, Salmonds QC, was correct when he said, "It stinks". Political direction and strategies are constantly disagreed on. The number was pathetic given the number of fishing messages. The unnamed actor was not allowed to be cross examined. Their concoction was a pack of lies and proven to be so.
    Salmond still has a weekly show on RT and is a constant thorn in the side of the UK establishment. I would not write a comeback. Whatever your opinion of Alex Salmond, he is a very effective and persuasive politician. A bit too effective for the liking of some.
    Your continued insinuations of his guilt are inappropriate.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 05:39:PM
   There are plenty of political rivalries within parties, Steve. One of the allegations came only after Alex Salmond recommended another candidate to stand as SNP prospective MP. Years after the alleged event and after saying that it would be great to work with Alex again. After being overlooked she remembered a years old never previously mentioned allegation. Gordon Jackson, Salmonds QC, was correct when he said, "It stinks". Political direction and strategies are constantly disagreed on. The number was pathetic given the number of fishing messages. The unnamed actor was not allowed to be cross examined. Their concoction was a pack of lies and proven to be so.
    Salmond still has a weekly show on RT and is a constant thorn in the side of the UK establishment. I would not write a comeback. Whatever your opinion of Alex Salmond, he is a very effective and persuasive politician. A bit too effective for the liking of some.
    Your continued insinuations of his guilt are inappropriate.
Didn't he say he should have been more careful about their space? Why did he tell Ms F a story about a penis? He is a sex pest if nothing else.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 05:55:PM
Didn't he say he should have been more careful about their space? Why did he tell Ms F a story about a penis? He is a sex pest if nothing else.
   Why did Ms. F retell the tale later with much joviality, if it constituted some nefarious intent when AS told it? Why do you ignore the context that he related the same tale to all visitors to Bute House when showing them around, male and female? What is this story, Steve, that constitutes the label of sex pest so we can all judge? Do you know, or is the fact that it had a penis in it the extent of your knowledge?
    Saying that you should be more careful of people's space means what, exactly, in your imagination?
    It's just innuendo.
    Calling him a sex pest is probably libellous.
     
 
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2020, 06:03:PM
   Why did Ms. F retell the tale later with much joviality, if it constituted some nefarious intent when AS told it? Why do you ignore the context that he related the same tale to all visitors to Bute House when showing them around, male and female? What is this story, Steve, that constitutes the label of sex pest so we can all judge? Do you know, or is the fact that it had a penis in it the extent of your knowledge?
    Saying that you should be more careful of people's space means what, exactly, in your imagination?
    It's just innuendo.
    Calling him a sex pest is probably libellous.
   
As I say you have to put yourself in the position of these women, probably overawed by Mr. Salmond's status and not wishing to rock the boat. It's quite common for allegations of abuse not to be reported at the time. If a victim after a passage of time feels that there's a chance of being believed then that's the time they are more likely to come forward.

As for the Alex Salmond innuendo, I'll leave that to your imagination as to what he would have liked to have happened with these women.
Title: Re: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 06:13:PM
As I say you have to put yourself in the position of these women, probably overawed by Mr. Salmond's status and not wishing to rock the boat. It's quite common for allegations of abuse not to be reported at the time. If a victim after a passage of time feels that there's a chance of being believed then that's the time they are more likely to come forward.

As for the Alex Salmond innuendo, I'll leave that to your imagination as to what he would have liked to have happened with these women.
  I think Craig has answered this (to some extent). The allegations were never intended to fall into the hands of Polis Scotland.
The allegations were to be held in a file in SNP headquarters, to be used only if Salmond attempted a comeback. This aspect is clear from the testimony in Court. If Salmond submitted himself as a candidate, headquarters would contact the branch and warn of “worrisome allegations in secret files”.
The stories were shoddily flung together with repeated use of curious wording among the conspirators (shots of wine) because they weren’t supposed to be forensically dissected in a Court of Law.
The existence of the conspiracy in the form of the Whatsapp group was only uncovered by the Polis when the conspirators phones were examined (I don’t know how Craig is sure of this aspect). When the Polis uncovered the internal SNP allegations, the conspirators were compelled to stand by them or face possible repercussions.
In short, the conspirators were too clever by half.
Genius has its limitations, stupidity is not thus encumbered.

     The above is a comment from Craig Murray blog today by a commenter calling him/herself Vivion O'Blivion and should offer some clues as to what you are missing.
     A jury with a majority of women in a city against independence found AS not guilty.
     
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 06:36:PM
     The messages which couldn't be discussed in court because they weren't from a complainer. Who do you think sent them? What is their content?
     Who is Nicola Sturgeon married to? What is his position in the SNP?
     Not saying that they are connected, just some questions that spring to mind.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 24, 2020, 09:34:PM
     The messages which couldn't be discussed in court because they weren't from a complainer. Who do you think sent them? What is their content?
     Who is Nicola Sturgeon married to? What is his position in the SNP?
     Not saying that they are connected, just some questions that spring to mind.

You make very powerful points gringo.  This will not go away and the repercussions of this within the SNP are going to be huge.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 24, 2020, 11:06:PM
You make very powerful points gringo.  This will not go away and the repercussions of this within the SNP are going to be huge.
    Thanks, NGB. I have followed with more than a passing interest since the accusations were made. The ultimate aim of this conspiracy was to have AS jailed for a long time. He will respond forcefully and effectively in my view.
    Personally, I have some time for AS but regardless of ones view of him, as I said earlier, he is a very able and effective political operator who scares the shit out of the UK establishment.
    The end of this trial marks the beginning of the real story.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: maggie on March 25, 2020, 09:23:AM
    Thanks, NGB. I have followed with more than a passing interest since the accusations were made. The ultimate aim of this conspiracy was to have AS jailed for a long time. He will respond forcefully and effectively in my view.
    Personally, I have some time for AS but regardless of ones view of him, as I said earlier, he is a very able and effective political operator who scares the shit out of the UK establishment.
    The end of this trial marks the beginning of the real story.
Thanks gringo, very interesting.  Must admit have not followed the case closely for various reasons but am quite open to your thinking, you obviously have followed the case closely.  Many questions to be asked and answered but sure there will be a huge effort to bury the truth with corona virus.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 25, 2020, 03:40:PM
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/03/25/the-trial-of-alex-salmond-what-only-the-jury-knows/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 01:35:AM
    There is absolutely nothing of substance in any of your posts on this thread, Steve, just innuendo and articles which are shallow. You are aware of one side of the story, as usual, and only half of that.
   Your innuendo regarding what you refer to as, "a story about a penis" made in an earlier post shows that you care little for facts. I gave you the opportunity to clarify what this tale was but you have declined to do so. The relating of this tale by AS was an example used by you to show the reasoning behind  your un/balanced views that he is,according to you, a sex pest.
   The story is in fact about a drunk (unnamed to us) journalist who was passed out and exposed beneath the picture where the tale was related. Other witnesses made clear that this tale was told to all visitors who AS invariably showed around Bute House whilst relating it's history.
   To reduce the story and context so much that you end up with the sleazy innuendo that you, and others, draw from this says more about you than AS, if you think about it.
   I would say it was a story about a drunk journalist exposing himself unwittingly.
   To you it's a story about a penis.
   Revealing isn't it.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 01:50:AM
http://archive.is/aDdVn 

    Very enlightening for those interested.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 26, 2020, 08:01:AM
    There is absolutely nothing of substance in any of your posts on this thread, Steve, just innuendo and articles which are shallow. You are aware of one side of the story, as usual, and only half of that.
   Your innuendo regarding what you refer to as, "a story about a penis" made in an earlier post shows that you care little for facts. I gave you the opportunity to clarify what this tale was but you have declined to do so. The relating of this tale by AS was an example used by you to show the reasoning behind  your un/balanced views that he is,according to you, a sex pest.
   The story is in fact about a drunk (unnamed to us) journalist who was passed out and exposed beneath the picture where the tale was related. Other witnesses made clear that this tale was told to all visitors who AS invariably showed around Bute House whilst relating it's history.
   To reduce the story and context so much that you end up with the sleazy innuendo that you, and others, draw from this says more about you than AS, if you think about it.
   I would say it was a story about a drunk journalist exposing himself unwittingly.
   To you it's a story about a penis.
   Revealing isn't it.
You see I don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument that these allegations have been made to prevent Alex Salmond from returning to some kind of prominent position in Scottish politics. His career in that domain was effectively over after the No vote in the referendum of 2014. Leaving aside why someone would lie after swearing on the Holy Bible it's the sheer number of allegations by nine separate women which is perturbing. To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day-to-day working environment such as a school or factory and I don't see why it's brushed off just because of the position he held.

It's interesting to note that the allegation of rape was the one charge where the "not proven" verdict was returned.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: susan on March 26, 2020, 02:03:PM
Hi Gringo thanks for posting this article I found it very interesting and I cannot wait for his book.  I must add I was delighted he was found "not guilty" some of the evidence I heard was ridiculous. Stay safe my friend.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 03:39:PM
Hi Gringo thanks for posting this article I found it very interesting and I cannot wait for his book.  I must add I was delighted he was found "not guilty" some of the evidence I heard was ridiculous. Stay safe my friend.
   The book is hotly anticipated, Susan. The evidence was ridiculous because it was never meant to be exposed to the rigorous questioning a trial would bring.
    Questions that remain are why were the SNP leadership sitting on information that was supposedly criminal, but was only to be used if necessary? When would it be necessary? Why, if the allegations were criminal, were they not reported to the police? The case was a shambles and the not guilty verdicts were not unexpected to those following the trial.
    The media, as usual, had their own narrative ready and the reporting was so one sided and biased that it is no surprise that many expected guilty verdicts.
    The jury heard all the evidence. They saw the allegations fall apart, they saw that the prosecution basically conceded the case by having no questions for the defence witnesses, whose accounts could not be true if the accusers were to be believed. All of the defence evidence destroying the credibility and truthfulness of the prosecution allegations. Left to stand, unchallenged. That is conceding defeat but I don't remember the media mentioning any of this.
    The prosecution was in tatters by the end of the trial but none of this was reported impartially by any mainstream media outlet.
    Anyone left clinging to the media narrative still, do so only because they want it to be true.
    Keeping safe, hope you are too.
     
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 03:40:PM
Thanks gringo, very interesting.  Must admit have not followed the case closely for various reasons but am quite open to your thinking, you obviously have followed the case closely.  Many questions to be asked and answered but sure there will be a huge effort to bury the truth with corona virus.
    Truth is patient, Maggie.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 26, 2020, 07:42:PM
You see I don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument that these allegations have been made to prevent Alex Salmond from returning to some kind of prominent position in Scottish politics. His career in that domain was effectively over after the No vote in the referendum of 2014. Leaving aside why someone would lie after swearing on the Holy Bible it's the sheer number of allegations by nine separate women which is perturbing. To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day-to-day working environment such as a school or factory and I don't see why it's brushed off just because of the position he held.

It's interesting to note that the allegation of rape was the one charge where the "not proven" verdict was returned.
   You don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument because you don't want to. Instead of ignoring the new facts, you would alter your opinion to include the new information if you were being honest.
   1) Your evidence free opinion that Salmond has no chance/intention of a political comeback is contradicted by reports even in mainstream media and statements by some leading SNP politicians.
   2) It is not debatable that some witnesses lied after swearing on oath. What kind of weak argument is this? It's just that you prefer to believe that defence witnesses rather than prosecution witnesses lied. It is also clear that many incidents were given a more sinister framing than the reality.
   3) You state, "To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips, may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day to day working environment..."
   The hair touching incident was known as some kind of running joke in the office. Others testified that all in the office tugged her tight curly hair which sprung back. It was a joke that all including the complainant were comfortable with. You may ask yourself why none of these other incidents involving others doing the same thing became sexual assault allegations some years after the event.
   The other incidents are similar or denied. Specifically the touching the buttocks allegation is absurd and again made years after the event.These are all allegations that some in the SNP had spent much time and resources acquiring by way of a huge fishing trip only to sit on them to deploy when required.
   The standard of proof required to smear someone in a political selection battle is decidedly lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial. Sexual allegations obtained by fishing, not reported despite being criminal, sat on to be used as required, case falls apart as prosecution tacitly accepts the defence evidence. Are you there yet, Steve? It was a political smear job to be deployed when Salmond makes his return to frontline politics.
    4) Your final point displays nothing but your unwillingness to accept the truth. What do you think the not proven verdict means? There were 13 jurors with 8 required for a majority verdict. So 8 or more of the 13 decided not guilty or not proven. At the most, 5 jurors thought him guilty. At least 8 didn't.

    Finally, I must admit given the definitions accepted by you, that I have probably been both the perpetrator and victim of a number of sexual assaults over the years. I have also witnessed other people committing sexual assaults by touching others noses and hair and even kissing on the lips unsolicited. Context is everything though, Steve, something the jury and others see but which passes you by, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out the alternative.

     

   
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 26, 2020, 08:21:PM
   You don't accept the thrust of the conspiracy argument because you don't want to. Instead of ignoring the new facts, you would alter your opinion to include the new information if you were being honest.
   1) Your evidence free opinion that Salmond has no chance/intention of a political comeback is contradicted by reports even in mainstream media and statements by some leading SNP politicians.
   2) It is not debatable that some witnesses lied after swearing on oath. What kind of weak argument is this? It's just that you prefer to believe that defence witnesses rather than prosecution witnesses lied. It is also clear that many incidents were given a more sinister framing than the reality.
   3) You state, "To invade someone's space in the workplace by touching their hair, nose, buttocks, kissing on the lips, may seem trivial, but it would not be acceptable in any other day to day working environment..."
   The hair touching incident was known as some kind of running joke in the office. Others testified that all in the office tugged her tight curly hair which sprung back. It was a joke that all including the complainant were comfortable with. You may ask yourself why none of these other incidents involving others doing the same thing became sexual assault allegations some years after the event.
   The other incidents are similar or denied. Specifically the touching the buttocks allegation is absurd and again made years after the event.These are all allegations that some in the SNP had spent much time and resources acquiring by way of a huge fishing trip only to sit on them to deploy when required.
   The standard of proof required to smear someone in a political selection battle is decidedly lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial. Sexual allegations obtained by fishing, not reported despite being criminal, sat on to be used as required, case falls apart as prosecution tacitly accepts the defence evidence. Are you there yet, Steve? It was a political smear job to be deployed when Salmond makes his return to frontline politics.
    4) Your final point displays nothing but your unwillingness to accept the truth. What do you think the not proven verdict means? There were 13 jurors with 8 required for a majority verdict. So 8 or more of the 13 decided not guilty or not proven. At the most, 5 jurors thought him guilty. At least 8 didn't.

    Finally, I must admit given the definitions accepted by you, that I have probably been both the perpetrator and victim of a number of sexual assaults over the years. I have also witnessed other people committing sexual assaults by touching others noses and hair and even kissing on the lips unsolicited. Context is everything though, Steve, something the jury and others see but which passes you by, deliberately I suspect, although I don't entirely rule out the alternative.

     

   
 
I've no axe to grind at all. I've never even been to Scotland. The fact that witnesses give affidavits, wait months at home with the trial looming and then proceed to swear an oath on the Holy Bible means that I take all evidence seriously. It's true that second hand you can't look into witnesses' eyes, hear their tone of voice or hear the totality of the evidence.

Alex Salmond is finished in Scottish politics in a leading role. He had had enough of the job of SNP leader twenty years ago and only returned because John Swinney didn't connect with the electorate. Nicola Sturgeon has made astonishing progress as leader, she is popular and any idea that she has resorted to dirty tricks due to insecurity is in my view improbable.

As I have said several times now, when one becomes the victim of a sexual assault the first response is often to conceal it, possibly due to wanting it to go away, a sense of shame or not feeling that you are going to be believed. Once you have support or are told that the same thing has happened to others is often the time when you may come forward, sometimes years after the event.

It's high time we had a zero tolerance of these kinds of incidents. You may wish to read the following article: https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,sexual-crimes-in-scotland-reach-highest-level-since-records-began_10853.htm

To end on a touch of humour within this legal imbroglio: not proven I have been told means "not guilty, but don't do it again.."
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 29, 2020, 03:00:PM
    NGB, a point on which I would appreciate your view.
    The non cross examination of any defence witnesses struck me as a tacit acceptance of their evidence by the prosecution. Evidence given directly contradicted prosecution evidence but it was not challenged. The members of the jury must also feel that there is a tacit acceptance by the prosecution that the evidence is accepted as true. This looks like the prosecution have conceded.
    As a barrister yourself, what is your view on this? Am I missing some wider legal tactic/manoeuvre?
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 29, 2020, 05:25:PM
    NGB, a point on which I would appreciate your view.
    The non cross examination of any defence witnesses struck me as a tacit acceptance of their evidence by the prosecution. Evidence given directly contradicted prosecution evidence but it was not challenged. The members of the jury must also feel that there is a tacit acceptance by the prosecution that the evidence is accepted as true. This looks like the prosecution have conceded.
    As a barrister yourself, what is your view on this? Am I missing some wider legal tactic/manoeuvre?
   

The situation in England and Wales is exactly as you suggest.  Prosecution counsel is obliged to challenge in cross examination any witness whose evidence is as odds with the prosecution case.  It is different if it is only a character witness, but where the evidence concerns any of the material facts the obligation is clear.  If there really was no challenge it is very strange, suggesting a tacit acceptance of the veracity of the witness evidence.  There may be different evidential rules in Scotland (Scottish criminal law does have some differences with the law of England and Wales) but I doubt if there is any difference in this instance.  The prosecution realised in my view that this was a very weak case from the outset and I suspect they became uneasy during the trial when the extent of collusion between prosecution witnesses became clear, as well as the political motivation behind the case being brought.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 29, 2020, 05:56:PM
the slegations sounded a bit bixare when i had a read of them.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 29, 2020, 06:03:PM
The situation in England and Wales is exactly as you suggest.  Prosecution counsel is obliged to challenge in cross examination any witness whose evidence is as odds with the prosecution case.  It is different if it is only a character witness, but where the evidence concerns any of the material facts the obligation is clear.  If there really was no challenge it is very strange, suggesting a tacit acceptance of the veracity of the witness evidence.  There may be different evidential rules in Scotland (Scottish criminal law does have some differences with the law of England and Wales) but I doubt if there is any difference in this instance.  The prosecution realised in my view that this was a very weak case from the outset and I suspect they became uneasy during the trial when the extent of collusion between prosecution witnesses became clear, as well as the political motivation behind the case being brought.
   Thanks for that, NGB. I suspected that the prosecution had a creeping realisation of the weakness of the case which explained the non cross examination of material facts. I recognise your point about character witness evidence and obviously some of the defence case falls into this.
    However Ms. Ahmed Sheikh and Samantha Barber both gave evidence that Ms. H was not even in attendance when the alleged attempted rape happened. Neither was challenged.
   Karen Watt testified that Ms. B had not reported an incident to her that was claimed by Ms. B. She faced no cross examination.
   These are just a couple of examples of material facts crucial to the prosecution being contradicted but left to stand. The prosecution appeared to just roll over as soon as their narrative was challenged by the defence case with little to no resistance.
   I half expected the case to be withdrawn/thrown out without troubling the jury.
   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 30, 2020, 02:11:PM
    Some very illuminating details in Craig Murray's piece today. Well worth reading  https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/jaccuse-2/



Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 30, 2020, 06:45:PM
i cant say i feel that much sympathy for him he helped create and vigrously defended the scottish injustice system so he can hardly complian when its used agianst him.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: gringo on March 31, 2020, 12:25:AM
i cant say i feel that much sympathy for him he helped create and vigrously defended the scottish injustice system so he can hardly complian when its used agianst him.
   He still does have faith in the justice system. The jury cleared him after hearing the evidence. His complaints are about the conspirators who were found out by the justice system.
    What point are you trying to make?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: maggie on March 31, 2020, 12:33:PM
   He still does have faith in the justice system. The jury cleared him after hearing the evidence. His complaints are about the conspirators who were found out by the justice system.
    What point are you trying to make?
From what I’ve seen of the Scottish justice System, it does seem effective and fair and willing to go against the establishment when necessary.  Finding this case really interesting.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 31, 2020, 08:12:PM
From what I’ve seen of the Scottish justice System, it does seem effective and fair and willing to go against the establishment when necessary.  Finding this case really interesting.

i am afriad that is simply in the majority of cases.

and the fact it even got to court shows coruption in certen qauters.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 31, 2020, 11:09:PM
what do you sturgeon now wants to abolish trail be juey is this just a cioncedence.

http://www.advocates.org.uk/news-and-responses/news/2020/mar/criminal-bar-strongly-against-draconian-proposed-measures
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on April 01, 2020, 10:40:AM
the scum we call journilists.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/03/sunday-herald-investigates-my-home-and-finances/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on April 25, 2020, 01:35:PM
there picking on poor old criag now.

https://t.co/24teJpQmkD?amp=1
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on May 31, 2020, 06:11:PM
roger waters comes out for criag.


https://t.co/YEIKYdJwCm?amp=1

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on June 23, 2020, 04:37:AM
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nicola-sturgeon-to-testify-in-alex-salmond-investigation/ar-BB15QtvP?ocid=msedgntp
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 18, 2020, 08:08:AM
Some notes on the Salmond inquiry, which opens today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53090858
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on August 18, 2020, 10:03:PM
Were female civil servants told as a matter of policy not to be alone with Mr. Salmond..https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nicola-sturgeon-knew-about-alex-salmond-concerns-almost-three-years-ago-her-top-mandarin-discloses/ar-BB1878mc?ocid=msedgntp
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on February 14, 2021, 03:32:PM
"This should be about ensuring that the workplace can be safe for women in Scotland.." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56028750
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on February 14, 2021, 04:21:PM
"This should be about ensuring that the workplace can be safe for women in Scotland.." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56028750

Surely criminal cases should be about ensuring justice?  The courts and public inquiries should not serve political ends.  It is a measure of the depth of unconscious corruption in society that neutral and impartial processes can be politicised in this way and few seem aware of it.  If the allegations against Mr Salmond are shown to have been ill-founded, then those involved must be held to account and lessons should be learned by the police to ensure it does not happen again.  If it is found that people were motivated by self-gain or other interests to malign Mr Salmond, again those individuals must be held to account.

Making workplaces 'safe for women' sounds like an ideological goal to me.  The clue is in the way language is being twisted.  To the extent that it can be reasonably achieved, surely the goal should be that workplaces are to be safe for all, both men and women?  Unwanted touching of colleagues, if done with sexual intent, is not a 'safety' issue, rather it is a criminal offence that can be prosecuted and it is also a matter of employment law.  If a woman is being treated unfairly in the workplace in this way or any other way, then she has recourse in law.  Men may avail themselves of the same.  This has been the case for a very long time.  If the courts, having considered all the facts, decide against the complainant, then this will be because the evidence is insufficient to prove the allegation to whatever burden of proof must be met, or the case otherwise cannot be tried fairly.  This is all normal. What is the issue?

As an aside, I have never been a fan of devolution in the way it was carried out after 1997.  I mention this because I think parochial Scottish governmental competence has been an undertone throughout this whole unfortunate saga.  The Scottish Parliament is an ugly place, both architecturally and culturally.  The politics that goes on there is quite low brow and petty.  I believe this is partly down to a political culture that has always existed in Scotland, but it is mostly down to the post-1997 method of devolution, which was a mistake because it re-created the Westminster system in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively.  A low key approach involving local government would have been preferable, with the opportunity to evolve the arrangements into something more concrete later; and perhaps a measure of autonomy could have been achieved over a lengthy period of time as competence was demonstrated. 

I would suggest that the Edinburgh elite are every bit as out-of-touch from ordinary Scots as Westminster ever was - especially for Scots in the north and the island communities.  We must remember that while Scotland is a great, noble and ancient nation worthy of deep respect, the Scots are not, and never have been, one single ethnic group.  Like most nations, the Scots are a hybrid of inter-related groups and interests - including lowland Scots in the south, east and north-east of the country, Anglo-Scots in the Borders and around Edinburgh, Irish-Scots in the western Central Belt, Highlanders in the north and west, and then among the Highlanders you have various island peoples who are almost like ethnic groups unto themselves - and so on and so forth.  I do wonder if a more informal, complex and organic approach that built on existing arrangements and took account of the social and ethnical nuances of Scotland would have been much better.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on February 25, 2021, 06:10:PM
Curiouser and curiouser..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56181114

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56170459
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on February 25, 2021, 09:17:PM
sturgeon has got to go.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on February 25, 2021, 09:57:PM
sturgeon has got to go.
She's a tough cookie..https://youtu.be/hI6gbtMuXYQ
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on February 27, 2021, 10:52:AM
Is the Salmond Inquiry a whitewash..https://youtu.be/iG2A-x8EeAE
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 02, 2021, 06:44:PM
Is the Salmond Inquiry a whitewash..https://youtu.be/iG2A-x8EeAE
It seems it might get interesting tomorrow Steve 👍
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 03, 2021, 05:10:PM
It seems it might get interesting tomorrow Steve 👍
I'm not sure I believe in this mass conspiracy within a faction of the SNP. So Nicola Sturgeon forgot about a meeting she attended, or someone came to her house before Alex Salmond came to ask her to hush up the allegations made against him. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-56251990
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 17, 2021, 05:34:PM
david davis https://youtu.be/uwxh7u6eedk
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 17, 2021, 06:11:PM
and thats not all https://youtu.be/RefK3X5cCfg
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 17, 2021, 07:47:PM
So in one case Nicola Sturgeon is censured because she didn't act quickly enough and in the other because she was too gung-ho in seeking a prosecution.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 17, 2021, 09:34:PM
So in one case Nicola Sturgeon is censured because she didn't act quickly enough and in the other because she was too gung-ho in seeking a prosecution.

She is guilty of a variety of things in connection with this fiasco.  As a minimum there should be resignations, starting with Sturgeon and her husband Murrell, and there should also be prosecutions for perjury, perverting the course of justice and contempt of court.  Sturgeon and her cabal are an utter disgrace and her MPs and MSPs should be ashamed of themselves for condoning it.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: nugnug on March 19, 2021, 06:16:PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXpY-pj7l8g
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 19, 2021, 06:27:PM
I'll wait until Tuesday for the report of James Hamilton QC.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 20, 2021, 05:25:AM
I'll wait until Tuesday for the report of James Hamilton QC.

I believe it is all just a disguised power struggle.  As odd as this sounds, a lot of people in the SNP view Nicola Sturgeon as too soft on independence, and even a sort of crypto-unionist.  Many of these are the ones who still keep a light on for Alex Salmond, others are the radical/militant types who want a Scottish Republic yesterday.

I shouldn't be surprised if the British Establishment is behind the whole thing.  The SNP has always been more fissiparous than appearances allow.  I think, in reality, Sturgeon and Salmond are both in the moderate camp and hold a similar idea of independence, which would be something along the lines of a continuing constitutional monarchy and close ties with, even a confederative relationship with, the rump UK.  The issue between them is personal more than substantial.  Making them go to war with each other creates two internecine camps who argue over nothing, which destabilises the devolved system and undermines the SNP.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 20, 2021, 09:02:PM
She is guilty of a variety of things in connection with this fiasco.  As a minimum there should be resignations, starting with Sturgeon and her husband Murrell, and there should also be prosecutions for perjury, perverting the course of justice and contempt of court.  Sturgeon and her cabal are an utter disgrace and her MPs and MSPs should be ashamed of themselves for condoning it.
100% agree with you NGB.  How can a first minister be trusted again if she either lied or misled Parliament, if there’s been a breach of code then she should resign, the integrity of the Scottish Parliament is at stake.  I see Derek Mackay has finally had the decency to quit the party at last, the whole party is a disgrace.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 12:43:AM
Did she knowingly mislead or mislead without knowledge..https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeon-was-saved-by-one-missing-word-in-the-alex-salmond-report-but-this-saga-isnt-over-12250059
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 08:00:AM
Did she knowingly mislead or mislead without knowledge..https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeon-was-saved-by-one-missing-word-in-the-alex-salmond-report-but-this-saga-isnt-over-12250059
I think and hope she’s damaged goods Steve, the Hamilton probe might offer a similar finding to the Committee where he doesn’t state the obvious, she will cling on to this in the hope of surviving, but once a leader has lied to Parliament either knowingly or not should go.  At the end of the day Steve A breach is a breach and a misleading of the parliament is a misleading of the parliament, you’ve got three individuals all testifying the something happened.  I don’t think Salmond is finished with her or the situation yet!
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 08:12:AM
I think and hope she’s damaged goods Steve, the Hamilton probe might offer a similar finding to the Committee where he doesn’t state the obvious, she will cling on to this in the hope of surviving, but once a leader has lied to Parliament either knowingly or not should go.  At the end of the day Steve A breach is a breach and a misleading of the parliament is a misleading of the parliament, you’ve got three individuals all testifying the something happened.  I don’t think Salmond is finished with her or the situation yet!

What specifically is it that she is supposed to have lied to the Scottish Tin Pot Parliament about?  To be honest, the whole thing bores me. 
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 08:16:AM
I think and hope she’s damaged goods Steve, the Hamilton probe might offer a similar finding to the Committee where he doesn’t state the obvious, she will cling on to this in the hope of surviving, but once a leader has lied to Parliament either knowingly or not should go.  At the end of the day Steve A breach is a breach and a misleading of the parliament is a misleading of the parliament, you’ve got three individuals all testifying the something happened.  I don’t think Salmond is finished with her or the situation yet!
I think anyone who has followed the Salmond case and understands the underhand dealings of the SNP, you only have to look back when they rewrote the Sexual Harassment code, it had one target in mind, it was written to target past Ministers.  When Salmond challenged and won his case it’s been cover up after cover up even withholding evidence by the Crown Office, thus preventing Journalists and the Committee Holding Parliament to account. They won’t be long trying to hold David Davis to account though.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 08:28:AM
What specifically is it that she is supposed to have lied to the Scottish Tin Pot Parliament about?  To be honest, the whole thing bores me.
I think to put it in easy terms QC, she lied about her meetings and what she knew over the Salmond sexual harassment case. Her Husband who is the Chief execute officer of the SNP even contradicted her evidence.  At the end of the day they were behind it and even feeding it, even after being warned it had little chance of success.  Scottish Tin Pot Parliament we’ve got Tony Blair to thank for that, first they wanted Devolution, now they’re not satisfied, even after losing a vote for independence they drum it again.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 08:37:AM
I think to put it in easy terms QC, she lied about her meetings and what she knew over the Salmond sexual harassment case. Her Husband who is the Chief execute officer of the SNP even contradicted her evidence.  At the end of the day they were behind it and even feeding it, even after being warned it had little chance of success.  Scottish Tin Pot Parliament we’ve got Tony Blair to thank for that, first they wanted Devolution, now they’re not satisfied, even after losing a vote for independence they drum it again.

But why does it matter that she lied about this?  What specifically is it she lied about?

I could lie to you and say you're as handsome as Tom Cruise, but does it matter that I've lied?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 08:37:AM
What specifically is it that she is supposed to have lied to the Scottish Tin Pot Parliament about?  To be honest, the whole thing bores me.
I couldn’t give a toss if Scotland won independence, I get sick to the back teeth of hearing the SNP on about it, the SNP and its members hate the English yet are happy to take money from us and use us to suit.  what I do care about is the UK as a whole and the ordinary Scottish people who care about the Uk and are being blindsided by nothing but thugs.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 08:41:AM
But why does it matter that she lied about this?  What specifically is it she lied about?

I could lie to you and say you're as handsome as Tom Cruise, but does it matter that I've lied?
Your not lying QC, how can a leader be trusted if they lie to the Country?

The Scottish Ministerial Code defines the standards that Scottish Government ministers are meant to adhere to when in office.

It outlines a code of conduct for the First Minister, Cabinet Secretaries, Law Officers and junior Scottish Ministers, in line with seven “principles of public life” – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 09:06:AM
Your not lying QC, how can a leader be trusted if they lie to the Country?

The Scottish Ministerial Code defines the standards that Scottish Government ministers are meant to adhere to when in office.

It outlines a code of conduct for the First Minister, Cabinet Secretaries, Law Officers and junior Scottish Ministers, in line with seven “principles of public life” – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

Yes, but what lies has she specifically supposed to have told?  What is it she said that wasn't true?  And who did she say it to?  And what is the significance of these lies?  There are lies and then there are lies. 

If Nicola Sturgeon declared to the Scottish Parliament: "Mike Teskowitz is the most handsome man in Yorkshire.  I know.  I've met him.  Scottish women will swoon as soon as they clap eyes on him."

This would be, most probably, a blatant lie as Mike has probably never met Scotland's First Minister.  But is the lie of any significance?  Of course, if Nicola Sturgeon made a habit of such statements, then questions would arise about her suitability.  We'd question her sanity, apart from anything else.

What I'm getting at is that, even after reading several articles in the mainstream media about it, I'm still not clear what this is all about.  It just comes across to me as a load of exaggerated rubbish.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2021, 11:59:AM
I think to put it in easy terms QC, she lied about her meetings and what she knew over the Salmond sexual harassment case. Her Husband who is the Chief execute officer of the SNP even contradicted her evidence.  At the end of the day they were behind it and even feeding it, even after being warned it had little chance of success.  Scottish Tin Pot Parliament we’ve got Tony Blair to thank for that, first they wanted Devolution, now they’re not satisfied, even after losing a vote for independence they drum it again.

I agree with your assessment RJ

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2021, 12:00:PM
I couldn’t give a toss if Scotland won independence, I get sick to the back teeth of hearing the SNP on about it, the SNP and its members hate the English yet are happy to take money from us and use us to suit.  what I do care about is the UK as a whole and the ordinary Scottish people who care about the Uk and are being blindsided by nothing but thugs.

Again I agree with you entirely.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 03:10:PM
What specifically is it that she is supposed to have lied to the Scottish Tin Pot Parliament about?  To be honest, the whole thing bores me.
She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 03:27:PM
But why does it matter that she lied about this?  What specifically is it she lied about?

I could lie to you and say you're as handsome as Tom Cruise, but does it matter that I've lied?
The two instances could be argued as truth, it’s your assessment of me and Mike Tesko, even  having said you’ve met him, who’s to argue that you never spoke to him just by saying morning?  The Salmond case is totally different, we’re talking about an ex first Minister who probably still posed as a threat to Sturgeon and it involved Salmond being accused and found not guilty of all 12 of the sexual assault charges facing him, while another was found not proven.  The women who made the allegations against Mr Salmond included an SNP politician, a party worker and several current and former Scottish government civil servants and officials.  After the trial Salmond said  As many of you will know, there is certain evidence I would have liked to have seen led in this trial but for a variety of reasons we were not able to do so.
 It’s this evidence that is being questioned, how much the SNP party knew beforehand and how much Sturgeon and her husband and other cronies knew and fuelled, especially having being told it wouldn’t stand up.  What it all equates to, they leaned on the Crown Office to still go ahead even though there was grave concern of a breach and it resulted in a witch hunt and backstabbing effort to ruin him and even have him jailed. 

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2021, 03:31:PM
She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.

You obviously have not looked into the details of this case.  You are very wide of the mark.  In due course I believe you may come to realise that.  I suspect Sturgeon and her horrible gang will not be able to keep the lid on this indefinitely.  There is a lot which is known about this which cannot legally be published but it is possible to piece it together from various reliable sources.  I think the dam will burst before too long and as a minimum a number of high profile people will lose their jobs and some, I think and hope, will be prosecuted. The rot goes right to the top, including the Lord Advocate.  I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this was certainly a wicked conspiracy.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 03:40:PM
She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.
I agree he hasn’t been an Angel and I personally don’t like him, but it doesn’t alter the fact the Government put pressure and leaned on authorities to go ahead with the case.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 03:46:PM
You obviously have not looked into the details of this case.  You are very wide of the mark.  In due course I believe you may come to realise that.  I suspect Sturgeon and her horrible gang will not be able to keep the lid on this indefinitely.  There is a lot which is known about this which cannot legally be published but it is possible to piece it together from various reliable sources.  I think the dam will burst before too long and as a minimum a number of high profile people will lose their jobs and some, I think and hope, will be prosecuted. The rot goes right to the top, including the Lord Advocate.  I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this was certainly a wicked conspiracy.
I agree NGB, I think there is more to come, they have covered up as much as was allowed and hoped it would go away, it goes a lot deeper into how the the workings of the SNP operate.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 03:50:PM
You obviously have not looked into the details of this case.  You are very wide of the mark.  In due course I believe you may come to realise that.  I suspect Sturgeon and her horrible gang will not be able to keep the lid on this indefinitely.  There is a lot which is known about this which cannot legally be published but it is possible to piece it together from various reliable sources.  I think the dam will burst before too long and as a minimum a number of high profile people will lose their jobs and some, I think and hope, will be prosecuted. The rot goes right to the top, including the Lord Advocate.  I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this was certainly a wicked conspiracy.
I have but unlike yourself I'm not willing to cast aspersions on all and sundry until I read the report of the independent and impartial Irishman, James Hamilton QC.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 03:56:PM
She had "forgotten" about a meeting she had had with one of Alex Salmond's advisors four days before the meeting with Salmond himself, which she did recall. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758

Thanks Steve.  You've answered my question.  However, from what RJ is saying here, it sounds like this isn't really about her lying, it's actually about her and others leaning on the criminal justice system in Scotland.  The lying is taking centre stage but it's a collateral issue.  The real issue is interference in a criminal prosecution.  If she did interfere, then of course she must resign, not because she lied, but because she meddled without proper reason in a legal case in which somebody's liberty was threatened. 

To be specific, if she interfered without having a proper reason to do so, then she compromised the integrity of her ministerial office and the Scottish government.  This is the case even if, as David Davis suggested in his parliamentary speech, there is no meaningful separation of the political and judicial branches of the devolved system.  Nobody can have confidence in a criminal justice system where a minister can be involved in pressuring the authorities to pursue, or not pursue, a criminal suspect for reasons outside the ambit of the minister's role.

Of course had Alex Salmond kept his hands to himself and respected women's space he wouldn't have needed to go crawling to Nicola in the first place in an attempt to get the incidents hushed up.

I don't agree with you here.  There is little doubt that Alex Salmond was inappropriate in his behaviour, as his own defence advocate was overheard saying as much.  And I agree that this may not show respect for women's space and I agree that's wrong.  But based on what I have read of the allegations, I am not convinced his behaviour was deserving of criminal charges.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 04:01:PM
The two instances could be argued as truth, 

Yes, it is true that both you and Mike are handsome men, and Mike may have had a chat with Nicola at Scotch Corner.

Nevertheless, I think you've explained and I do agree that if the First Minister, whether personally or by proxy, leaned on the Crown Office, then her position is untenable and she must resign.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 04:02:PM
I have but unlike yourself I'm not willing to cast aspersions on all and sundry until I read the report of the independent and impartial Irishman, James Hamilton QC.
How can you call him independent Steve when he was  appointed an independent advisor by SNP in 2013 and reappointed by Nicola Sturgeon in 2015.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 04:03:PM
Thanks Steve.  You've answered my question.  However, from what RJ is saying here, it sounds like this isn't really about her lying, it's actually about her and others leaning on the criminal justice system in Scotland.  The lying is taking centre stage but it's a collateral issue.  The real issue is interference in a criminal prosecution.  If she did interfere, then of course she must resign, not because she lied, but because she meddled without proper reason in a legal case in which somebody's liberty was threatened. 

To be specific, if she interfered without having a proper reason to do so, then she compromised the integrity of her ministerial office and the Scottish government.  This is the case even if, as David Davis suggested in his parliamentary speech, there is no meaningful separation of the political and judicial branches of the devolved system.  Nobody can have confidence in a criminal justice system where a minister can be involved in pressuring the authorities to pursue, or not pursue, a criminal suspect for reasons outside the ambit of the minister's role.

I don't agree with you here.  There is little doubt that Alex Salmond was inappropriate in his behaviour, as his own defence advocate was overheard saying as much.  And I agree that this may not show respect for women's space and I agree that's wrong.  But based on what I have read of the allegations, I am not convinced his behaviour was deserving of criminal charges.
You have put it so much better than I could QC, your right it goes much deeper than just forgetting a meeting.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 04:13:PM
Thanks Steve.  You've answered my question.  However, from what RJ is saying here, it sounds like this isn't really about her lying, it's actually about her and others leaning on the criminal justice system in Scotland.  The lying is taking centre stage but it's a collateral issue.  The real issue is interference in a criminal prosecution.  If she did interfere, then of course she must resign, not because she lied, but because she meddled without proper reason in a legal case in which somebody's liberty was threatened. 

To be specific, if she interfered without having a proper reason to do so, then she compromised the integrity of her ministerial office and the Scottish government.  This is the case even if, as David Davis suggested in his parliamentary speech, there is no meaningful separation of the political and judicial branches of the devolved system.  Nobody can have confidence in a criminal justice system where a minister can be involved in pressuring the authorities to pursue, or not pursue, a criminal suspect for reasons outside the ambit of the minister's role.

I don't agree with you here.  There is little doubt that Alex Salmond was inappropriate in his behaviour, as his own defence advocate was overheard saying as much.  And I agree that this may not show respect for women's space and I agree that's wrong.  But based on what I have read of the allegations, I am not convinced his behaviour was deserving of criminal charges.
Well the point was that Alex Salmond sought a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon before these allegations broke, and one has to ask oneself why.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 04:16:PM
How can you call him independent Steve when he was  appointed an independent advisor by SNP in 2013 and reappointed by Nicola Sturgeon in 2015.
Well everyone comes with baggage of some kind. You might as well say the leaked Holyrood report of a 5/4 split is useless because it divided on party lines.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 04:24:PM
Well everyone comes with baggage of some kind. You might as well say the leaked Holyrood report of a 5/4 split is useless because it divided on party lines.
And this happened even without all the evidence.
There were messages, too, between Scottish government and SNP officials, shared on a WhatsApp group called ‘Vietnam’. A few of these messages became public. One from Evans, sent after the government lost the judicial review and found on the phone of Barbara Allison, then Scottish Government director of communications, read: ‘We have lost the battle but we will win the war.’ Two messages from the SNP chief executive, Peter Murrell (who is married to Sturgeon), sent the day after Salmond was first charged, were leaked to the Westminster MP and former Holyrood justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, one of Salmond’s allies. In the first, Murrell appeared to call for pressure to be put on the police to speed up their investigations. In the second, he added: ‘The more fronts he [Salmond] is having to firefight on the better for all the complainers.’ Most of the WhatsApp messages were ruled inadmissible as evidence in the trial, but Salmond could not hand them over to the parliamentary inquiry because a law that his own government introduced forbids the sharing of material disclosed by the Crown to a defendant in a case.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 04:35:PM
Well the point was that Alex Salmond sought a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon before these allegations broke, and one has to ask oneself why?

At one point (and maybe this is still the case), Salmond was complaining about Sturgeon avoiding him and lying about where she was, as he was trying to secure a meeting with her.  It's all very dreary.  There are texts between the two of them with Salmond saying, 'Will you meet me at such-and-such a place?' or 'Will you be at your office in Edinburgh later?', and blah and blah.  She gives it blah and blah and it becomes obvious after a couple of texts that she's avoiding him and saying she'll be there and then she isn't.  This would normally be because her ministerial office put her in an embarrassing position given that Salmond was a criminal suspect, but Salmond seemed to be implying (and is now alleging) that Sturgeon was avoiding him because she was somehow behind the pressure to prosecute him. 

This in turn implies that Salmond was approaching Sturgeon not because he wanted her to influence the criminal justice system in his favour, but because he wanted her to stop influencing the criminal justice system at all.  If he was simply approaching her in an effort to stop the prosecution, I doubt he would be making anything of this as he would then be admitting to the same mischief that he accuses Sturgeon of, but in any event, he was contacting her to influence her.

Conversely, if Sturgeon was acting innocently in avoiding Salmond on account of ministerial ethics, then surely she would have precluded anything other than the most perfunctory meeting or encounter with him by explaining this or having this communicated to Salmond by Scottish government lawyers.  Yet she did not do so.

I'm afraid on that logical basis it does look very much like both Salmond and the First Minister were up to no good. 

In Salmond's case, he should have pursued the matter through the official channels (and ironically, had he done so, it may have had the effect of stopping the case in its tracks at that early stage due to abuse of process, and could have also brought down Sturgeon).  I assume he didn't follow the proper avenues because he is a Scottish politician who is used to working behind closed doors in a devolved system that has lacked the necessary checks and balances, and as a former First Minister himself, he has just got used to operating like this.

In Sturgeon's case, she should not have been interfering in the criminal justice system except within the ambit of her role as a minister in the Scottish government.  This was clearly not within her ministerial role.  If she did interfere, she must resign - immediately.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 06:55:PM
I'll wait for James Hamilton QC's report and not be influenced by gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 21, 2021, 06:59:PM
I'll wait for James Hamilton QC's report and not be influenced by gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo.

Certainly no-one could accuse you of being influenced by such things.

But I was careful to use the word 'if'.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2021, 07:11:PM
I'll wait for James Hamilton QC's report and not be influenced by gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo.

James Hamilton's report is only dealing with narrow issues and not the entire sorry episode.  The claims are based upon hard facts, not "gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo".   At some stage I hope and believe the full horror of this will be revealed.  The swamp needs to be drained.



 
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 07:23:PM
Well the point was that Alex Salmond sought a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon before these allegations broke, and one has to ask oneself why.
One could ask why the meeting was never officially recorded, especially meeting in the capacity of first Minister, under the ministerial code this meeting should have been recorded so who had something to hide?  Her own husband Murrell gives this away by saying it was a Government matter and she met him as first Minister.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 08:14:PM
James Hamilton's report is only dealing with narrow issues and not the entire sorry episode.  The claims are based upon hard facts, not "gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo".   At some stage I hope and believe the full horror of this will be revealed.  The swamp needs to be drained.
Why did the Holyrood Inquiry break 5/4 on party lines?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2021, 08:16:PM
Why did the Holyrood Inquiry break 5/4 on party lines?

The SNP members of the committee maintain blind loyalty to their leader. 

 
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 08:23:PM
One could ask why the meeting was never officially recorded, especially meeting in the capacity of first Minister, under the ministerial code this meeting should have been recorded so who had something to hide?  Her own husband Murrell gives this away by saying it was a Government matter and she met him as first Minister.
I can only surmise that Alex Salmond sent Geoff Aberdein to sound out Nicola Sturgeon on March 29, 2018 and this paved the way for a meeting at her home address on April 2. The questions in my mind are: was this preferential treatment requsted by Aberdein and afforded to Salmond because of his position and did they expect Sturgeon to pull strings, and when she refused they determined to exact their revenge?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 08:27:PM
The SNP members of the committee maintain blind loyalty to their leader.
So are you now saying that Alex Salmond has no residual loyalty amongst SNP members? I thought this affair was an internecene conflict within the SNP.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 21, 2021, 08:40:PM
So are you now saying that Alex Salmond has no residual loyalty amongst SNP members? I thought this affair was an internecine conflict within the SNP.

He does have some residual loyalty within the SNP (although he is no longer a member) but current MPs and MSPs together with the very tightly controlled party machine remain blindly loyal to Sturgeon.  That may change.  Once the cracks appear I think we may see a rapidly changing picture.

   
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 21, 2021, 09:09:PM
I can only surmise that Alex Salmond sent Geoff Aberdein to sound out Nicola Sturgeon on March 29, 2018 and this paved the way for a meeting at her home address on April 2. The questions in my mind are: was this preferential treatment requsted by Aberdein and afforded to Salmond because of his position and did they expect Sturgeon to pull strings, and when she refused they determined to exact their revenge?
She offered to intervene and pull strings, Duncan Hamilton, an advocate and former SNP MSP, said that the first minister uttered the words during a meeting in her home on April 2, 2018. Statements by Hamilton and Kevin Pringle, a former SNP director of communications say this was on the April 2nd meeting.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 21, 2021, 09:46:PM
She offered to intervene and pull strings, Duncan Hamilton, an advocate and former SNP MSP, said that the first minister uttered the words during a meeting in her home on April 2, 2018. Statements by Hamilton and Kevin Pringle, a former SNP director of communications say this was on the April 2nd meeting.
Do you mean by arranging arbitration instead of the plaintiffs having recourse to law? It's still unclear in my mind and I'd rather wait for James Hamilton QC to report. https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/national/19130635.witnesses-back-salmonds-claims-sturgeon-misled-parliament/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 22, 2021, 07:34:AM
James Hamilton's report is only dealing with narrow issues and not the entire sorry episode.  The claims are based upon hard facts, not "gossip, tittle-tattle, leaks and innuendo".   At some stage I hope and believe the full horror of this will be revealed.  The swamp needs to be drained.
Like Dorethy-Grace Elder said,
'What is mistaken for discipline is really fear. The party is riddled with dirty tricks. The Salmond saga is only part of it all.'  She wrote in the Sunday Mail that despite sharing an office with Miss Sturgeon for years, the future leader never spoke to her as she 'ignored those who weren't cronies.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: lookout on March 22, 2021, 01:14:PM
There'll never be transparency where there are politics/ politicians,no matter what the subject is about.
Most of them run with the hare and hunt with the hound----hail fellow well met until something goes awry.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 22, 2021, 01:56:PM
There'll never be transparency where there are politics/ politicians,no matter what the subject is about.
Most of them run with the hare and hunt with the hound----hail fellow well met until something goes awry.

This is true, I believe, of the majority of them.  I have in the past known some politicians quite well, and some of them are not like this, but your assessment is accurate of most, in my experience.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 22, 2021, 05:16:PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9389851/Nicola-Sturgeon-CLEARED-QC-breaching-ministerial-code.html

As predicted, Hamilton has cleared her, wouldn’t expect anything else when a former Employee is employed to look into any wrongdoing’s, it’s like employing a Mafia member to look into a Cartel.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Roch on March 22, 2021, 07:06:PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9389851/Nicola-Sturgeon-CLEARED-QC-breaching-ministerial-code.html

As predicted, Hamilton has cleared her, wouldn’t expect anything else when a former Employee is employed to look into any wrongdoing’s, it’s like employing a Mafia member to look into a Cartel.

Or the police to investigate the police? Dickinson, COLP, Stokenchurch. Sorry, couldn't help it RJ  ;)
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 22, 2021, 07:09:PM
Or the police to investigate the police? Dickinson, COLP, Stokenchurch. Sorry, couldn't help it RJ  ;)
😂😂😂. I knew I’d set myself up Roch 🙈
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 22, 2021, 07:09:PM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9389851/Nicola-Sturgeon-CLEARED-QC-breaching-ministerial-code.html

As predicted, Hamilton has cleared her, wouldn’t expect anything else when a former Employee is employed to look into any wrongdoing’s, it’s like employing a Mafia member to look into a Cartel.

Are you saying Hamilton has been an employee of Sturgeon?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 22, 2021, 07:17:PM
Are you saying Hamilton has been an employee of Sturgeon?
Yes QC, it was a forgone conclusion what the outcome would be.

He was an independent advisor to the Scottish Government, first appointed by Salmond and then re appointed in 2015 by Sturgeon.

Ministerial code

The scope of his investigation into Ms Sturgeon was much narrower than the parliamentary one and was conducted in private.

This probe is looking specifically at whether Ms Sturgeon lied to parliament, and if she broke the ministerial code by not reporting meetings she had with Mr Salmond when allegations were first emerging.

James Hamilton’s report is the first in a series of developments this week, which could decide the first minister’s future.

A separate Holyrood inquiry report is due to be published on Tuesday, which looks specifically at the mishandled complaints process, after a judicial review found it had been unlawful and tainted by apparent bias.

Finally, Ms Sturgeon will face a no-confidence vote being brought by the Conservatives against her on Wednesday in what looks to be a decisive week for the SNP leader ahead of May’s Holyrood election.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 23, 2021, 11:28:AM
Yes QC, it was a forgone conclusion what the outcome would be.

He was an independent advisor to the Scottish Government, first appointed by Salmond and then re appointed in 2015 by Sturgeon.

But he wasn't strictly an employee of Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP, rather it appears he was working for the Scottish Government, which is bureaucratically a branch of the UK civil service.

While I am certainly not a fan of Nicola Sturgeon, I am still not clear what this is all about.  Initially I thought that the implication was that she had leaned on the criminal justice system, but there was actually an inquiry by the Scottish government itself.

Could you spell out for me in plain terms what it is you are saying she is supposed to have done?  Forgetting about a meeting is not a breach of the ministerial code, and even if James Hamilton is wrong and she deliberately misled some people, that doesn't tell me what this is about at its core, which I'm not clear on. 

I am also surprised that Alex Salmond is saying that he was given assurances by Nicola Sturgeon that she would intervene.  That is a startling admission of wrong-doing by Alex Salmond, never mind Nicola Sturgeon.  I assume he means intervene in the internal investigation by the Scottish Government.  How can it be proper for Alex Salmond to make such demands?  Even in a private employer-employee situation, an employee accused of sexual harassment would not help his position should he approach the employer on that basis.  Unless it is a very small business or organisation, that sort of behaviour looks to me like an attempt to exert improper influence.  Even if Alex Salmond did not demand anything, as such, and it was Nicola Sturgeon who made the promise, it still wasn't right for Alex Salmond to do that.

On the other hand, why would Alex Salmond lie about this?  I'm just thoroughly confused by the whole thing.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 23, 2021, 01:28:PM
But he wasn't strictly an employee of Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP, rather it appears he was working for the Scottish Government, which is bureaucratically a branch of the UK civil service.

While I am certainly not a fan of Nicola Sturgeon, I am still not clear what this is all about.  Initially I thought that the implication was that she had leaned on the criminal justice system, but there was actually an inquiry by the Scottish government itself.

Could you spell out for me in plain terms what it is you are saying she is supposed to have done?  Forgetting about a meeting is not a breach of the ministerial code, and even if James Hamilton is wrong and she deliberately misled some people, that doesn't tell me what this is about at its core, which I'm not clear on. 

I am also surprised that Alex Salmond is saying that he was given assurances by Nicola Sturgeon that she would intervene.  That is a startling admission of wrong-doing by Alex Salmond, never mind Nicola Sturgeon.  I assume he means intervene in the internal investigation by the Scottish Government.  How can it be proper for Alex Salmond to make such demands?  Even in a private employer-employee situation, an employee accused of sexual harassment would not help his position should he approach the employer on that basis.  Unless it is a very small business or organisation, that sort of behaviour looks to me like an attempt to exert improper influence.  Even if Alex Salmond did not demand anything, as such, and it was Nicola Sturgeon who made the promise, it still wasn't right for Alex Salmond to do that.

On the other hand, why would Alex Salmond lie about this?  I'm just thoroughly confused by the whole thing.
Ok, the first part I will rephrase he was Appointed by Sturgeon?  How much influence she had in this appointment is anyone’s guess, but I would think she had a big say.

So, the difference between the Hamilton enquiry and the Committee one, the Committee have actually called and listened to witnesses over the affair where as Hamilton has just looked into it, Sturgeon referred herself to Hamilton for investigation, why she chose him is anyone’s guess when he was a Scottish Government advisor?

The Committee after  listening to evidence say this.
there was clear evidence she breached the ministerial code by offering to intervene in a Scottish government harassment inquiry on Salmond’s behalf.

A majority of MSPs on the committee were dubious about Sturgeon’s testimony that she did not know of any prior concerns about Salmond’s behaviour, and said there was clear evidence she did breach the ministerial code.

So, she offered to lean on, or intervene to help Salmond and obviously abusing her powers this to me justify’s why she should go, not because she didn’t, it’s what she thought she could and if you follow the trail, once she distanced herself from this she did the opposite, she was told there wasn’t a case yet she still went ahead.  Others including her husband ( who was accused by the Committee of giving false statements)  they then set out  to destroy Salmond and cover up for Sturgeon. There are messages to the Police ect, Murrell was also asked about texts he sent which showed him urging the police to be pressurised in the Salmond case. Salmond was acquitted of criminal charges after a trial last year.

You also have to ask yourself, Sturgeon who was Salmon's Deputy and claims that Salmond’s was her mentor, how much did she know about Salmond’s behaviour beforehand and kept quite?  Some of these charges date back to 2011.  A majority of MSPs on the committee were dubious about Sturgeon’s testimony that she did not know of any prior concerns about Salmond’s behaviour, and said there was clear evidence she did breach the ministerial code.

“The committee finds it hard to believe that the first minister had no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017, If she did have such knowledge then she has mislead the Committee.  I’m sure more will come out on Wednesday when Salmond will speak?

I agree both Salmond and Sturgeon are probably as bad as each other, but at the end of the day Salmond has been found not guilty of anything regarding sex offences and he probably feels or know’s that people who he thought of as friends, have stabbed him in the back and it could have led to a long imprisonment for him.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 23, 2021, 04:55:PM
...

So, she offered to lean on, or intervene to help Salmond and obviously abusing her powers this to me justify’s why she should go, not because she didn’t, it’s what she thought she could and if you follow the trail, once she distanced herself from this she did the opposite, she was told there wasn’t a case yet she still went ahead. 

...


Went ahead with what?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 23, 2021, 06:09:PM
Went ahead with what?
Sorry QC

Nicola Sturgen received legal advice that her Government would lose in court to Alex Salmond months before blowing £692,000 fighting his judicial review.

Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC was asked for an opinion on the former first minister’s challenge to a sexual harassment probe in October 2018, the Sunday Mail understands.

Sources have confirmed his response was that the former SNP leader would be likely to win. But the Scottish Government rejected the advice on October 31 and forged ahead with the case – before conceding in January 2019 at a huge cost to taxpayers.

Labour has said Sturgeon’s decision not to end the legal fight after receiving the advice could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code, as she has a duty to uphold the administration of justice and comply with the law.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 23, 2021, 06:36:PM
Sorry QC

Nicola Sturgen received legal advice that her Government would lose in court to Alex Salmond months before blowing £692,000 fighting his judicial review.

Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC was asked for an opinion on the former first minister’s challenge to a sexual harassment probe in October 2018, the Sunday Mail understands.

Sources have confirmed his response was that the former SNP leader would be likely to win. But the Scottish Government rejected the advice on October 31 and forged ahead with the case – before conceding in January 2019 at a huge cost to taxpayers.

Labour has said Sturgeon’s decision not to end the legal fight after receiving the advice could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code, as she has a duty to uphold the administration of justice and comply with the law.
But my understanding is that it was Leslie Evans who got the ball rolling, not Nicola Sturgeon. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/01/12/permanent-secretary-defends-decision-to-pursue-criminal-investigation-of-salmond/
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 23, 2021, 06:47:PM
But my understanding is that it was Leslie Evans who got the ball rolling, not Nicola Sturgeon. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/01/12/permanent-secretary-defends-decision-to-pursue-criminal-investigation-of-salmond/
If you read it careful Steve, she says this, Ms Evans insisted that the decision to continue to defend the case despite evidence of prior contact was based on “composite advice” from inside and outwith the Scottish Government.  Asked three times by Scottish Labour’s Jackie Baillie when senior external counsel first advised that the government was unlikely to win the case, Ms Evans refused to say, citing legal privilege.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 23, 2021, 06:53:PM
If you read it careful Steve, she says this, Ms Evans insisted that the decision to continue to defend the case despite evidence of prior contact was based on “composite advice” from inside and outwith the Scottish Government.  Asked three times by Scottish Labour’s Jackie Baillie when senior external counsel first advised that the government was unlikely to win the case, Ms Evans refused to say, citing legal privilege.
Don't forget Ms Evans is talking about against the wishes of some women involved?  So some of the Women didn’t want to press charges, Scotland’s most senior civil servant has defended the decision to pass sexual harassment complaints about Alex Salmond to the Crown Office against the wishes of the women involved.  So it kinda backs up the case for Salmond don’t you think, that it was a witch-hunt orchestrated by the Scottish Government.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 23, 2021, 06:57:PM
Sorry QC

Nicola Sturgen received legal advice that her Government would lose in court to Alex Salmond months before blowing £692,000 fighting his judicial review.

Scotland’s most senior lawyer Roddy Dunlop QC was asked for an opinion on the former first minister’s challenge to a sexual harassment probe in October 2018, the Sunday Mail understands.

Sources have confirmed his response was that the former SNP leader would be likely to win. But the Scottish Government rejected the advice on October 31 and forged ahead with the case – before conceding in January 2019 at a huge cost to taxpayers.

Labour has said Sturgeon’s decision not to end the legal fight after receiving the advice could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code, as she has a duty to uphold the administration of justice and comply with the law.

But if the minister is the decision-maker, I don't see how it is a breach of the ministerial code.  Poor legal acumen is not an ethical infraction.  Even if she was guided more than anything else by a desire to get back at Alex Salmond, if she is the decision-maker then that is that.  It would only be an ethical infraction if either she interfered in a decision that was not hers to make, or it was her decision but she made it clear by her words or actions that it was purely a vendetta.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 23, 2021, 07:46:PM
But if the minister is the decision-maker, I don't see how it is a breach of the ministerial code.  Poor legal acumen is not an ethical infraction.  Even if she was guided more than anything else by a desire to get back at Alex Salmond, if she is the decision-maker then that is that.  It would only be an ethical infraction if either she interfered in a decision that was not hers to make, or it was her decision but she made it clear by her words or actions that it was purely a vendetta.
If your going against the legal advice you’ve been given you fall by your decision, don’t forget this information about the legal advice was drip fed after the FM gave her evidence to the Committee, Nicola Sturgen should have had these questions put to her, but it wasn’t possible because the papers were held back until she gave evidence. I still don’t think the truth and true picture is out.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 23, 2021, 08:40:PM
If your going against the legal advice you’ve been given you fall by your decision, don’t forget this information about the legal advice was drip fed after the FM gave her evidence to the Committee, Nicola Sturgen should have had these questions put to her, but it wasn’t possible because the papers were held back until she gave evidence. I still don’t think the truth and true picture is out.

Of course, this is true: if she went against expert advice, she is politically embarrassed; but it is not an ethical breach.  She is entitled to argue that it was her decision to make (assuming that is the case) and either:

(i) she doesn't regret it as the allegations were serious and the Scottish Government arguably had a statutory duty by default - in employment law, if nothing else - to pursue the investigation; or,

(ii). she does regret it and it happened because she felt strongly that such allegations against a senior politician, even if only having a thin basis, should be investigated thoroughly and exhaustively, and she now realises that she should have heeded the advice given, and she's very sorry.

Either way, what's the ethical breach?  As far as I can tell, there isn't one. 

Maybe Nicola Sturgeon misled people and engineered a slow drip of relevant disclosure, but there are four points that can be made in her defence:

1. It was an internal investigation by the Devolved Civil Service and/or the Scottish Government of essentially a personnel matter.  Why should there be public disclosure?

2. She was compromised because Alex Salmond, the accused party, was seeking her intervention in a complaint against him.  What was she supposed to say to him?  I am genuinely baffled by Alex Salmond's behaviour in this regard.  Did he really think that Nicola Sturgeon could be held to any promises in that situation?  And how does he think it helps his position if Nicola Sturgeon is lying about what she knew about his historic conduct?  Also, can we really blame Nicola Sturgeon for lying or misleading people in what at the time may have seemed a minor way?  It wasn't relevant to the criminal case and it seems to me to be a contradiction to accuse her of having it in for Alex Salmond while at the same time accusing her of denying all knowledge of his unseemly behaviour.  It's very confusing.  Why does it even matter?

3. She may have genuinely forgotten about meetings and/or had a habit of being lax about protocol in certain situations.  This is common at all levels of society.  I don't condone it, but these are hardly hanging offences.  It is human to cut corners and forget things.  We all do it, including busy and important people.

4. It is assumed that she must have been aware of Alex Salmond's pattern of behaviour prior to late 2017, but why?  Even if they were working in close proximity to each other (which isn't necessarily the case, even if she was officially his deputy), that doesn't mean she was cognisant of what was going on.  A lot of it is also about interpretation and personal bias.  For instance, she may have liked and got on well with Alex Salmond at this point and thus interpreted his actions in a more favourable way than was warranted.

I'm afraid this is one of those occasions when I find myself in the same camp as Steve, albeit it's a broad church as I don't agree with Steve about the viability of the criminal charges brought against Alex Salmond.

Of course, the essential rider is that if Nicola Sturgeon or anyone on her behalf actually leant on the criminal justice system to pursue a prosecution of Alex Salmond, despite the lacklustre outcome of the internal investigation, then we're in whole new territory and Nicola Sturgeon has some serious explaining to do.  But again, it appears there is no evidence for this.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 23, 2021, 08:48:PM
Of course, this is true: if she went against expert advice, she is politically embarrassed; but it is not an ethical breach.  She is entitled to argue that it was her decision to make (assuming that is the case) and either:

(i) she doesn't regret it as the allegations were serious and the Scottish Government arguably had a statutory duty by default - in employment law, if nothing else - to pursue the investigation; or,

(ii). she does regret it and it happened because she felt strongly that such allegations against a senior politician, even if only having a thin basis, should be investigated thoroughly and exhaustively, and she now realises that she should have heeded the advice given, and she's very sorry.

Either way, what's the ethical breach?  As far as I can tell, there isn't one.  I'm afraid this is one of those occasions when I find myself in the same camp as Steve, albeit it's a broad church as I don't agree with Steve about the viability of the criminal charges brought against Alex Salmond.

Maybe Nicola Sturgeon misled people and engineered a slow drip of relevant disclosure, but there are three points that can be made in her defence:

1. It was an internal investigation by the Devolved Civil Service and/or the Scottish Government of essentially a personnel matter.  Why should there be public disclosure?

2. She was compromised because Alex Salmond, the accused party, was seeking her intervention in a complaint against him.  What was she supposed to say to him?  I am genuinely baffled by Alex Salmond's behaviour in this regard.  Did he really think that Nicola Sturgeon could be held to any promises in that situation?  And how does he think it helps his position if Nicola Sturgeon is lying about what she knew about his historic conduct?  Also, can we really blame Nicola Sturgeon for lying or misleading people?  It wasn't relevant to the criminal case and it seems to me to be a contradiction to accuse her of having it in for Alex Salmond while at the same time accusing her of denying all knowledge of his unseemly behaviour.  It's very confusing.  Why does it even matter?

3. She may have genuinely forgotten about meetings and/or had a habit of being lax about protocol in certain situations.  This is common at all levels of society.  I don't condone it, but these are hardly hanging offences.  It is human to cut corners and forget things.  We all do it, including busy and important people.

4. It is assumed that she must have been aware of Alex Salmond's pattern of behaviour prior to late 2017, but why?  Even if they were working in close proximity to each other (which isn't necessarily the case, even if she was officially his deputy), that doesn't mean she was cognisant of what was going on.  A lot of it is also about interpretation and personal bias.  For instance, she may have liked and got on well with Alex Salmond at this point and thus interpreted his actions in a more favourable way than was warranted.

I'm afraid this is one of those occasions when I find myself in the same camp as Steve, albeit it's a broad church as I don't agree with Steve about the viability of the criminal charges brought against Alex Salmond.

Of course, the essential rider is that if Nicola Sturgeon or anyone on her behalf actually leant on the criminal justice system to pursue a prosecution of Alex Salmond, despite the lacklustre outcome of the internal investigation, then we're in whole new territory and Nicola Sturgeon has some serious explaining to do.  But again, it appears there is no evidence for this.
I think we’re missing one important thing though QC, the handling or mishandling of the case let down the woman who accused Salmon, it wouldn’t stand up because of what happened. There are Legal documents that have been held back, I don’t know what these are but Salmond might touch on these tomorrow?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 23, 2021, 11:51:PM
I think we’re missing one important thing though QC, the handling or mishandling of the case let down the woman who accused Salmon, it wouldn’t stand up because of what happened. There are Legal documents that have been held back, I don’t know what these are but Salmond might touch on these tomorrow?

Why would Alex Salmond seek to incriminate himself?  That doesn't make any sense.  None of this makes sense really.  Nobody seems to be clear what it is all about, and furthermore, what is actually being alleged in plain terms is not being spelled out.  It's all very odd.  On its face, both the criminal allegations against Salmond and now the allegations against Sturgeon just seem to be a huge fuss over trivialities.

I certainly have no time for Nicola Sturgeon.  Her politics are diametrically opposed to mine, I think she's quite barmy, and I would gladly see her gone.  If this brings her down, I won't shed a tear for her.  However, it seems to me that it's just a power struggle in the SNP and a self-destructive retaliative vendetta from Alex Salmond.  He secured his acquittal and would have been better-advised to stay quiet for a few years, I should think.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 24, 2021, 07:42:AM
Why would Alex Salmond seek to incriminate himself?  That doesn't make any sense.  None of this makes sense really.  Nobody seems to be clear what it is all about, and furthermore, what is actually being alleged in plain terms is not being spelled out.  It's all very odd.  On its face, both the criminal allegations against Salmond and now the allegations against Sturgeon just seem to be a huge fuss over trivialities.

I certainly have no time for Nicola Sturgeon.  Her politics are diametrically opposed to mine, I think she's quite barmy, and I would gladly see her gone.  If this brings her down, I won't shed a tear for her.  However, it seems to me that it's just a power struggle in the SNP and a self-destructive retaliative vendetta from Alex Salmond.  He secured his acquittal and would have been better-advised to stay quiet for a few years, I should think.
I don’t think Salmond is trying to incriminate himself QC, he has more evidence that he couldn’t produce because of legality, that probably shows there was a conspiracy against him?

On the one hand you’ve got the women accusers who were let down by the Government (Sturgeon and her cronies) by the way they sought to intervene for Salmond and then do a complete U turn when they realised this was their chance to put Salmond to bed, he was the one man who posed the biggest threat to Sturgeon and her leadership.  So the conspiracy was set up to add more fuel to the fire, irrespective of the women who had come forward it was get Salmond at all costs.  Now Salmond could have been guilty of some off these charges we will never know, but because Sturgeon and her cronies used the women accusers like human shields this then  ruined what could have been a fair trial by getting involved, Salmond won and he won against the Government as well.

He know has the upper ground and he wants to destroy what set out to to destroy him.  So he’s exposing the sleaze and inner corruption within the SNP leadership.  He’s exposing what the Leadership and Crown did to him and at the same time this shows that the women accusers were let down as well.  Salmond isn’t worried about that, because he’s been found not guilty in a court of Law, but in a subtle way he’s showing that the Scottish Government hadn’t the accusers best interest at heart, it’s showing the Scottish government lacks integrity and is unfit for purpose and all it was bothered about was to get Salmond at all costs for other reasons.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2021, 05:35:PM
I don’t think Salmond is trying to incriminate himself QC, he has more evidence that he couldn’t produce because of legality, that probably shows there was a conspiracy against him?

On the one hand you’ve got the women accusers who were let down by the Government (Sturgeon and her cronies) by the way they sought to intervene for Salmond and then do a complete U turn when they realised this was their chance to put Salmond to bed, he was the one man who posed the biggest threat to Sturgeon and her leadership.  So the conspiracy was set up to add more fuel to the fire, irrespective of the women who had come forward it was get Salmond at all costs.  Now Salmond could have been guilty of some off these charges we will never know, but because Sturgeon and her cronies used the women accusers like human shields this then  ruined what could have been a fair trial by getting involved, Salmond won and he won against the Government as well.

He know has the upper ground and he wants to destroy what set out to to destroy him.  So he’s exposing the sleaze and inner corruption within the SNP leadership.  He’s exposing what the Leadership and Crown did to him and at the same time this shows that the women accusers were let down as well.  Salmond isn’t worried about that, because he’s been found not guilty in a court of Law, but in a subtle way he’s showing that the Scottish Government hadn’t the accusers best interest at heart, it’s showing the Scottish government lacks integrity and is unfit for purpose and all it was bothered about was to get Salmond at all costs for other reasons.
No I don't accept any of this. It's true that razor-sharp SNP politicians are thin on the ground and Scottish independence lies to a great extent on Nicola Sturgeon's performance, but Alex Salmond was a busted flush after he lost the referendum in 2014. He wasn't too proud to take a seat in the British House of Commons, nor it seems does he have any shame after the revelations about his private life or what he has done to his accusers, guilty in a court of law or not. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/salmond-to-launch-legal-action-against-scotlands-top-civil-servant/ar-BB1eVdvK?ocid=msedgntp
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 24, 2021, 05:55:PM
No I don't accept any of this. It's true that razor-sharp SNP politicians are thin on the ground and Scottish independence lies to a great extent on Nicola Sturgeon's performance, but Alex Salmond was a busted flush after he lost the referendum in 2014. He wasn't too proud to take a seat in the British House of Commons, nor it seems does he have any shame after the revelations about his private life or what he has done to his accusers, guilty in a court of law or not. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/salmond-to-launch-legal-action-against-scotlands-top-civil-servant/ar-BB1eVdvK?ocid=msedgntp
Well it’s basically what the Committee have said?  I agree his accusers have suffered, but justice wasn’t served because the interference of Sturgeon and do you know what Steve, they knew about it years back and did absolutely nothing.

Alex Salmond slams the inquiries that cleared Nicola Sturgeon over 'conspiracy' against him and launches NEW legal action against the Scottish Government


He’s going after them again.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 24, 2021, 06:24:PM
Well it’s basically what the Committee have said?  I agree his accusers have suffered, but justice wasn’t served because the interference of Sturgeon and do you know what Steve, they knew about it years back and did absolutely nothing.

Alex Salmond slams the inquiries that cleared Nicola Sturgeon over 'conspiracy' against him and launches NEW legal action against the Scottish Government


He’s going after them again.
Where was the help for these women when they needed it?  Sturgeon was deputy to Salmond.

Both complainants told how a 'blind eye' was turned to inappropriate behaviour at the time of the alleged incidents.

And they dismissed the complaints process as 'laughable', saying: 'Making complaints was simply not the done thing.'

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 24, 2021, 10:05:PM
Where was the help for these women when they needed it?  Sturgeon was deputy to Salmond.

Both complainants told how a 'blind eye' was turned to inappropriate behaviour at the time of the alleged incidents.

And they dismissed the complaints process as 'laughable', saying: 'Making complaints was simply not the done thing.'
On the other hand: why should Nicola Sturgeon clean up Alex Salmond's mess when he wanted to get his leg over with nine women when he was alone with them at Holyrood.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 25, 2021, 08:59:AM
On the other hand: why should Nicola Sturgeon clean up Alex Salmond's mess when he wanted to get his leg over with nine women when he was alone with them at Holyrood.
Im sorry Steve, turning a blind eye to something as bad as that, makes you part of it, if not worse, we’re talking about not one but several women who wanted and needed help,  these women were disregarded and then used when the shit hit the fan and then disregarded again.   I’m no fan of Salmond and never have been, but this episode if anything else has, exposed the sleaze and corrupt side of the SNP and in particular Sturgeon and her husband and top civil Servant Leslie Evans.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 25, 2021, 09:34:AM
Im sorry Steve, turning a blind eye to something as bad as that, makes you part of it, if not worse, we’re talking about not one but several women who wanted and needed help,  these women were disregarded and then used when the shit hit the fan and then disregarded again.   I’m no fan of Salmond and never have been, but this episode if anything else has, exposed the sleaze and corrupt side of the SNP and in particular Sturgeon and her husband and top civil Servant Leslie Evans.

Sorry, I still don't get it.  Even if all this is true, why is Alex Salmond complaining about it?  You're going to have to explain it to me.  He is clearly incriminating himself by dragging the matter on.

Also, what evidence is there that Nicola Sturgeon knew of concerns about Alex Salmond's conduct?  Is it just being assumed that because they were both in the SNP and she was Salmond's deputy, she must have known?  If so, why shouldn't we also say that SNP, Labour and Tory MSPs, and civil servants, should have known?  What about Salmond's wife?  She's close to him and she must know at least some of the people who work with him.  Why shouldn't she know?

And even if Sturgeon did know, what was she supposed to do about it?  I don't like this woman, but I genuinely don't understand the logic of holding her to account for somebody else's alleged misdeeds where there is an identifiable victim.  Surely the responsibility is on the victim to make the complaint, and then the appropriate authority - whether the Scottish Government or Devolved Civil Service as employer, or the police, or both - proceeds with an investigation?  Why are other people dragged into it and blamed?  That seems unjust to me.  Of course, if it is clear somebody is being harmed, that is another matter, but the alleged conduct was relatively trivial.

Also, and related to that point, why would Alex Salmond want to take court action to stop an investigation, if the complaints were well-founded in the first place?  What have the victims lost?  Or if the allegations were well-founded and the investigation was stopped for due process reasons, how is Nicola Sturgeon responsible for this?  It's a contradiction.

I think it would help people like me understand all this if people put aside their biases and approached the matter a bit more objectively.  In plain language, what is this actually about?  What is being alleged and why?  What is the evidence?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 25, 2021, 10:32:AM
On the other hand: why should Nicola Sturgeon clean up Alex Salmond's mess when he wanted to get his leg over with nine women when he was alone with them at Holyrood.

That is utter rubbish.  You have obviously not even bothered to read the press reports about what the allegations in fact were.  There was no suggestion that he "wanted to get his leg over with nine women when he was alone with them at Holyrood".  That is wrong in several ways and therefore completely discredits your argument.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 25, 2021, 10:47:AM
That is utter rubbish.  You have obviously not even bothered to read the press reports about what the allegations in fact were.  There was no suggestion that he "wanted to get his leg over with nine women when he was alone with them at Holyrood".  That is wrong in several ways and therefore completely discredits your argument.
True, if Steve accepts this then it shows the utter disgrace of the party.  I’ve tried to explain my opinion in the best way I could, I don’t think I’m too far off the truth NGB and that’s not going into the subtle law change in 2017. 

NICOLA Sturgeon played a key role in framing the Scottish Government harassment policy that was used against Alex Salmond, official documents have revealed.

Material sent to the Holyrood inquiry into the Salmond affair shows the First Minister and her aides ensured the policy would apply to “former ministers” as well as serving ones.

Ms Sturgeon told her top official  she “wanted to make clear” the policy was not “constrained by the passage of time” and should include the “particular aspect” of former ministers.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 25, 2021, 01:41:PM
Sorry, I still don't get it.  Even if all this is true, why is Alex Salmond complaining about it?  You're going to have to explain it to me.  He is clearly incriminating himself by dragging the matter on.

Also, what evidence is there that Nicola Sturgeon knew of concerns about Alex Salmond's conduct?  Is it just being assumed that because they were both in the SNP and she was Salmond's deputy, she must have known?  If so, why shouldn't we also say that SNP, Labour and Tory MSPs, and civil servants, should have known?  What about Salmond's wife?  She's close to him and she must know at least some of the people who work with him.  Why shouldn't she know?

And even if Sturgeon did know, what was she supposed to do about it?  I don't like this woman, but I genuinely don't understand the logic of holding her to account for somebody else's alleged misdeeds where there is an identifiable victim.  Surely the responsibility is on the victim to make the complaint, and then the appropriate authority - whether the Scottish Government or Devolved Civil Service as employer, or the police, or both - proceeds with an investigation?  Why are other people dragged into it and blamed?  That seems unjust to me.  Of course, if it is clear somebody is being harmed, that is another matter, but the alleged conduct was relatively trivial.

Also, and related to that point, why would Alex Salmond want to take court action to stop an investigation, if the complaints were well-founded in the first place?  What have the victims lost?  Or if the allegations were well-founded and the investigation was stopped for due process reasons, how is Nicola Sturgeon responsible for this?  It's a contradiction.

I think it would help people like me understand all this if people put aside their biases and approached the matter a bit more objectively.  In plain language, what is this actually about?  What is being alleged and why?  What is the evidence?
Maybe Salmond wants to get his political career back on track and he wants to put the record straight, even if you’ve been found not guilty in a court of Law mud sticks, by taking on the Government and winning  shows there was a witch-hunt against him  and according to the findings of the Committee shows there clearly was in my opinion.

It’s not the rights or wrongs of taking someone to court, it’s the way it’s done or underhand way it’s done, whether we like it or not she’s been found guilty of misleading Parliament, A majority of MSPs on the committee said there was clear evidence she had misled the committee over whether she told Salmond she would intervene in a Scottish government harassment inquiry on his behalf, and that the “fundamental contradiction” in her evidence amounted to a potential breach of the ministerial code.


Like I said I’m know fan of his, he’s a good talker and probably has some good principles, but the breaking up of the UK is another thing and I don’t think the Scottish people are being told the truth, it’s my opinion that’s all.

Steve is totally wrong, because again the Committee after listening to evidence and witnesses put forward The committee finds it hard to believe that the first minister had no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017. If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, then she has misled the committee.

You have to acknowledge that this inquiry wasn’t set up by Salmond, it was set up by Parliament to investigate these claims, all Salmond is doing is answering questions, you say he’s incriminating himself, I don’t think he has,  he’s exposed how corrupt the leadership of the SNP in my eye.

At the end of the day QC, NICOLA Sturgeon misled parliament, a Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has concluded, while her Government's handling of harassment complaints was "seriously flawed".
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Roch on March 25, 2021, 03:12:PM
Sorry, couldn't help it..

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 25, 2021, 05:03:PM
Sorry, couldn't help it..

Thanks Roch, and a very good contribution.  I think Scots should be proud of having such a serious, credible figure as their First Minister.  It really raises Scotland in the eyes of world.

However, I have to say, I don't condone this sort of activity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWsJr7EdalM

I take the, perhaps, old-fashioned view that people should not be dodging fares, especially high-profile politicians.  I know that Scots are famed for their frugality, but it's a bit desperate for the First Minister to pretend to be 12. 
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 25, 2021, 05:07:PM
Steve is totally wrong, because again the Committee after listening to evidence and witnesses put forward The committee finds it hard to believe that the first minister had no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017. If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, then she has misled the committee.

Why?  And what should she have done?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 25, 2021, 05:31:PM
Why?  And what should she have done?
Well what would you expect her to have done and what would any Law abiding citizen expect a future leader to do, she was a past Solicitor who held a LLB (Hons) and Diploma in Legal Practice and she was deputy First Minister, I would have hoped she wouldn’t turn a blind eye like she probably did. I honestly don’t think I can explain it any better QC, one can read into it whatever they like but it’s as plain as day for me.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Roch on March 25, 2021, 05:31:PM
Thanks Roch, and a very good contribution.  I think Scots should be proud of having such a serious, credible figure as their First Minister.  It really raises Scotland in the eyes of world.

However, I have to say, I don't condone this sort of activity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWsJr7EdalM

I take the, perhaps, old-fashioned view that people should not be dodging fares, especially high-profile politicians.  I know that Scots are famed for their frugality, but it's a bit desperate for the First Minister to pretend to be 12.

Enjoyed that.  8)
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 25, 2021, 06:37:PM
Well what would you expect her to have done and what would any Law abiding citizen expect a future leader to do, she was a past Solicitor who held a LLB (Hons) and Diploma in Legal Practice and she was deputy First Minister, I would have hoped she wouldn’t turn a blind eye like she probably did. I honestly don’t think I can explain it any better QC, one can read into it whatever they like but it’s as plain as day for me.

Well it depends.  You may think you are being plain, but I don't think you are.  You aren't actually explaining to me what her duties are.  She could have been a Nobel Prize winner for all I care, it doesn't follow she's under a duty to report certain things.  She may be, though, and if she is, then what is the duty and how does it arise and in what circumstances?  Being a law-abiding citizen and holding a university degree doesn't quite cut it for me.  I assume her status as a solicitor is comparable to that of a solicitor in England & Wales, in that she is an officer of the court if still on the Roll, but that doesn't mean she has to report people under these circumstances.

There's also the prior question of what we're assuming Nicola Sturgeon should have known.  I raised this before and you didn't answer.  Is she supposed to have had concerns about his behaviour, or known of the concerns of others, or known of allegations, or what?

It's also in the nature of this sort of behaviour that it is open to interpretation.  First, it's not been established in any neutral forum that Alex Salmond actually behaved in a criminal way, or even in a discriminatory or harassing way.  He may have done certain unseemly and inappropriate things, like touching a woman's leg or making inappropriate remarks or whatever, but that's not necessarily in itself criminal or harassing, even when it is repeated with different people.  It may seem obvious that it is, but it isn't.

He may have touched a woman, for instance, because he liked her and wanted sex with her.  The state, even in Scotland, does not quite yet micro-regulate sexual relations, so he is free to do this.  She is equally free to refuse and/or slap his face and/or pour beer over him and/or if she likes, complain - normal things that have happened since pubs and offices were first invented.

Did any of these women complain promptly?  If someone did, then whether Nicola Sturgeon knows or not seems irrelevant.  Since there was a complaint, the question of Nicola Sturgeon's cognisance is a nugatory point.  If there was no complaint, how is that the responsibility of Nicola Sturgeon in particular to initiate one or remember incidents of behaviour that are open to interpretation?  Wouldn't she be lying?  And couldn't she then be accused of going after Alex Salmond? 

If there is a statutory duty on an employer in these circumstances, then I should think it rests with the Devolved Civil Service, assuming these women were civil servants; or if they were SNP officials, then the complaints should have gone through whatever are the personnel channels of the SNP - normally paid officials working for the party chairman, which is how most political parties work in the UK.  I doubt an elected SNP politician would deal with such matters, for a number of good reasons.  Their role is political, not administrative.  You're not seriously suggesting that complaints should have gone to one of Salmond's political colleagues?

I'm afraid I think both the allegations against Salmond and against Sturgeon appear to be exaggerated nonsense.  I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon had it in for Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond is duly obliging us by demonstrating that he has it in for Nicola Sturgeon, risking his own liberty and reputation in the process when he should be thanking his lucky stars and keeping his mouth shut.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 25, 2021, 06:53:PM
Well it depends.  You may think you are being plain, but I don't think you are.  You aren't actually explaining to me what her duties are.  She could have been a Nobel Prize winner for all I care, it doesn't follow she's under a duty to report certain things.  She may be, though, and if she is, then what is the duty and how does it arise and in what circumstances?  Being a law-abiding citizen and holding a university degree doesn't quite cut it for me.  I assume her status as a solicitor is comparable to that of a solicitor in England & Wales, in that she is an officer of the court if still on the Roll, but that doesn't mean she has to report people under these circumstances.

There's also the prior question of what we're assuming Nicola Sturgeon should have known.  I raised this before and you didn't answer.  Is she supposed to have had concerns about his behaviour, or known of the concerns of others, or known of allegations, or what?

It's also in the nature of this sort of behaviour that it is open to interpretation.  First, it's not been established in any neutral forum that Alex Salmond actually behaved in a criminal way, or even in a discriminatory or harassing way.  He may have done certain unseemly and inappropriate things, like touching a woman's leg or making inappropriate remarks or whatever, but that's not necessarily in itself criminal or harassing, even when it is repeated with different people.  It may seem obvious that it is, but it isn't.

He may have touched a woman, for instance, because he liked her and wanted sex with her.  The state, even in Scotland, does not quite yet micro-regulate sexual relations, so he is free to do this.  She is equally free to refuse and/or slap his face and/or pour beer over him and/or if she likes, complain - normal things that have happened since pubs and offices were first invented.

Did any of these women complain promptly?  If someone did, then whether Nicola Sturgeon knows or not seems irrelevant.  Since there was a complaint, the question of Nicola Sturgeon's cognisance is a nugatory point.  If there was no complaint, how is that the responsibility of Nicola Sturgeon in particular to initiate one or remember incidents of behaviour that are open to interpretation?  Wouldn't she be lying?  And couldn't she then be accused of going after Alex Salmond? 

If there is a statutory duty on an employer in these circumstances, then I should think it rests with the Devolved Civil Service, assuming these women were civil servants; or if they were SNP officials, then the complaints should have gone through whatever are the personnel channels of the SNP - normally paid officials working for the party chairman, which is how most political parties work in the UK.  I doubt an elected SNP politician would deal with such matters, for a number of good reasons.  Their role is political, not administrative.  You're not seriously suggesting that complaints should have gone to one of Salmond's political colleagues?

I'm afraid I think both the allegations against Salmond and against Sturgeon appear to be exaggerated nonsense.  I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon had it in for Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond is duly obliging us by demonstrating that he has it in for Nicola Sturgeon, risking his own liberty and reputation in the process when he should be thanking his lucky stars and keeping his mouth shut.
I said it was Plain to me not that I’ve made myself plain and I don’t want or expect everyone to agree with me,  I do respect your position and your logic, I can’t explain it any better than I have and I personally don’t think I’m too far off the truth, I might be way off the mark like you and Steve think, but I draw a similar conclusion to what the Commission have said!
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Steve_uk on March 25, 2021, 07:58:PM
That is utter rubbish.  You have obviously not even bothered to read the press reports about what the allegations in fact were.  There was no suggestion that he "wanted to get his leg over with nine women when he was alone with them at Holyrood".  That is wrong in several ways and therefore completely discredits your argument.
I haven't had time to read every word, but he said she said allegations are always difficult to prove, and the jury gave a man who has enormous stature in Scotland the benefit of the doubt. This is a personal issue to myself and I feel strongly that plaintiffs are to be believed, after experiencing so much anguish to get the matter to court, let alone the trauma of the abuse itself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/09/alex-salmond-believes-women-consented-to-sexual-contact-jury-hears
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 25, 2021, 08:44:PM
I haven't had time to read every word, but he said she said allegations are always difficult to prove, and the jury gave a man who has enormous stature in Scotland the benefit of the doubt. This is a personal issue to myself and I feel strongly that plaintiffs are to be believed, after experiencing so much anguish to get the matter to court, let alone the trauma of the abuse itself. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/09/alex-salmond-believes-women-consented-to-sexual-contact-jury-hears

But the complainants were disbelieved by a Scottish jury.  I appreciate that, in general, acquittal does not always mean innocence, and, again in general, we can't always conclude from an acquittal that the complainant was lying.  But in this case, acquittal has to be interpreted as rebuttal.  That's the flip side of the coin: if you can convict a man on the say-so of a complainant, then you can equally conclude, in those circumstances, that an acquittal implies that the allegation was not only flawed and untrue, but also false. 

At least two of the complainants had their stories ripped to shreds by the defence.  I do find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the more serious allegations were either exaggerations of real incidents or just outright lies.  One also has to wonder what these women were doing allowing themselves in close proximity to Alex Salmond in private and intimate situations, if he had such a reputation.

I'm afraid I also disagree with you about believing complainants.  I am of the view that complaints in sexual cases should always be met with scepticism.  It's a very serious allegation, and also very easy to make such an allegation on the flimsiest basis.  A lot of women sleep with men they are not attracted to and then regret it and worry about their reputation and what people will say.  They then sometimes make up or exaggerate what occurred in an effort to make it seem as if they were coerced into the situation.

I also oppose giving complainants anonymity, which I believe undermines a fair trial.

I wish to add that I consider rape to be a vile crime and I know that some complaints of rape and sexual assault are true.  I suspect the majority are not, but those that are true should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the perpetrators should be punished with severity.  Equally, I believe women who invent allegations against men should face justice and consequences as criminals.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 25, 2021, 08:46:PM
But the complainants were disbelieved by a Scottish jury.  I appreciate that, in general, acquittal does not always mean innocence, and, again in general, we can't always conclude from an acquittal that the complainant was lying.  But in this case, acquittal has to be interpreted as rebuttal.  That's the flip side of the coin: if you can convict a man on the say-so of a complainant, then you can equally conclude, in those circumstances, that an acquittal implies that the allegation was not only flawed and untrue, but also false. 

At least two of the complainants had their stories ripped to shreds by the defence.  I do find it difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the more serious allegations were either exaggerations of real incidents or just outright lies.  One also has to wonder what these women were doing allowing themselves in close proximity to Alex Salmond in private and intimate situations, if he had such a reputation.

I'm afraid I also disagree with you about believing complainants.  I am of the view that complaints in sexual cases should always be met with scepticism.  It's a very serious allegation, and also very easy to make such an allegation on the flimsiest basis.  A lot of women sleep with men they are not attracted to and then regret it and worry about their reputation and what people will say.  They then sometimes make up or exaggerate what occurred in an effort to make it seem as if they were coerced into the situation.

I also oppose giving complainants anonymity, which I believe undermines a fair trial.

I wish to add that I consider rape to be a vile crime and I know that some complaints of rape and sexual assault are true.  I suspect the majority are not, but those that are true should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and the perpetrators should be punished with severity.  Equally, I believe women who invent allegations against men should face justice and consequences as criminals.

That is a well argued and balanced post.  Overall I agree with almost all you say here.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 26, 2021, 02:55:PM
Looks like I was correct about Salmond’s resurrection as a political figure?

Alex Salmond launches Alba party to rival SNP after civil war with Nicola Sturgeon vowing to stand candidates in May elections
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: lookout on March 26, 2021, 03:29:PM
Well there you are ! If he'd fallen down the lavvy he'd have come up with a rope of pearls. What is it about these politicians ?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 26, 2021, 03:57:PM
Well there you are ! If he'd fallen down the lavvy he'd had come up with a rope of pearls. What is it about these politicians ?
Its a Nigel Farage trick and Brexit Lookout!
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: lookout on March 26, 2021, 04:45:PM
Its a Nigel Farage trick and Brexit Lookout!





No doubt laughing boy would have had a hand in it somewhere, along with Brexit.
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 27, 2021, 12:08:PM
Is the supermajority strategy of Alex Salmond's new Alba Party an attempt to circumvent the need for a plebiscite?

https://www.albaparty.org/supermajority
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: ngb1066 on March 27, 2021, 12:35:PM
Is the supermajority strategy of Alex Salmond's new Alba Party an attempt to circumvent the need for a plebiscite?

https://www.albaparty.org/supermajority

Yes it is.

Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: QCChevalier on March 27, 2021, 12:54:PM
Yes it is.

If so, I don't believe it will work.  Surely the UK government would simply argue that a large parliamentary majority for the SNP and Alba combined does not necessarily imply popular consent for independence, and in international law, there would be nothing to gainsay this. 

Perhaps the plan is to use a supermajority in the Scottish Parliament to organise an unofficial referendum, along the lines of what happened in Catalonia, but unless the referendum has official status, it's a dangerous route that can only encourage divisiveness and confrontation.   

Another concern I would have about a supermajority strategy, if I lived in Scotland, is that it smacks of parliamentary elitism of the kind that you see on the Continent under the proportional electoral systems that exist in most countries there, whereby two or three establishment parties - sometimes in direct ideological opposition to each other - conjoin to form governing coalitions that stifle proper adversarial politics.  It's one reason I oppose proportional representation.  An SNP-Alba sounds to me like a nightmare from The Twilight Zone.  Wouldn't they use that position to rig and gerrymander everything in Scotland to their advantage?  Isn't that why we have First Past The Post, in that while it gives one party supremacy for a while, it also provides the opportunity to upturn the system completely?
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 27, 2021, 03:07:PM
If so, I don't believe it will work.  Surely the UK government would simply argue that a large parliamentary majority for the SNP and Alba combined does not necessarily imply popular consent for independence, and in international law, there would be nothing to gainsay this. 

Perhaps the plan is to use a supermajority in the Scottish Parliament to organise an unofficial referendum, along the lines of what happened in Catalonia, but unless the referendum has official status, it's a dangerous route that can only encourage divisiveness and confrontation.   

Another concern I would have about a supermajority strategy, if I lived in Scotland, is that it smacks of parliamentary elitism of the kind that you see on the Continent under the proportional electoral systems that exist in most countries here, whereby two or three establishment parties - sometimes in direct ideological opposition to each other - conjoin to form governing coalitions that stifle proper adversarial politics.  It's one reason I oppose proportional representation.  An SNP-Alba sounds to me like a nightmare from The Twilight Zone.  Wouldn't they use that position to rig and gerrymander everything in Scotland to their advantage?  Isn't that why we have First Past The Post, in that while it gives one party supremacy for a while, it also provides the opportunity to upturn the system completely?
Totally agree, not only that, how do you you vote for someone with serious questions to answer about it’s leader's suitability for public office?  I mean both of them Sturgeon and Salmond.   I see Kenny MacAskill  Westminster MP from SNP has defected to join him. 
Title: Re: Alex Salmond Rape Charge.
Post by: Real Justice on March 28, 2021, 02:27:PM
Totally agree, not only that, how do you you vote for someone with serious questions to answer about it’s leader's suitability for public office?  I mean both of them Sturgeon and Salmond.   I see Kenny MacAskill  Westminster MP from SNP has defected to join him.
Neale Hanvey, who represents Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath at Westminster, declared that he is joining Alba and will be a candidate at Hoylrood elections in May.


Another one joins him, it’s popcorn time at the moment in Scotland Politics.