Forum menu
Well it should be about how a public figure has been accused of sexual misconduct and attacks the confidential process that is meant to allow these complaints to be brought in private.
Actually thats not what has happened. What Salmond has done is attacked the making of the complaints public without him even being able to say a word in his defence
I still think Salmond is very wrong tho to be making legal threats.
I reiterate that I think all the money raised should be going to good causes. People need to be honest with themselves. They are not true believers in fairness. Until a little over a week ago the cause of challenging the complaints procedure in relation to sexual misconduct allegations in Holyrood could not be further from people's minds. People now crowd fund it because Salmond is a good patriot and the right sort of person. It no real roots in justice.
I have no issue one way or the other with how this case goes or any subsequent investigation into the allegations. The crowd funding is typical of the man and it's success, outlines the sycophantic fawning over him.
I think that the independence debate and considerations are in a better place without him to be honest, and I don't feel that Nicola Sturgeon has put a foot wrong since this broke. I just hope there are not a majority of fools about prepared to have shitty breath and brown tongues just to keep his arse clean!
What Salmond has done is attacked the making of the complaints public without him even being able to say a word in his defence
No, he is attacking the confidential investigation that had reached the point of deciding whether there was a public interest in making the complaints public as they were passed to police. As we've heard numerous times, there is often a public interest to encourage others to come forward. Alex feels that he should have been able to get the complainants in a room and "sort things out". What he wants is exactly the sort of process that Westminster has rightly been pilloried for. Scotland could have led the way in showing how these matters should be handled and set an example for our other institutions to follow, but because it is King Alex then that's all wrong.
If it is true that a paper was about to go public with a leaked copy of one complaint then that's pretty pish and the civil service plus their responsible ministers should be brought to account. But that absolutely isn't what he is attacking.
I don’t feel that Nicola Sturgeon has put a foot wrong since this broke
Agreed. I won't often praise her, but she has handled herself impeccably in this matter. She is in a difficult position, and is managing it well.
Interesting seeing the financial support for the narrcissist alpha male fighting accusations of sexual miconduct and legally challenging complaints procedures.
Look out for the faction on Indy rallies who have lapels decked out in 'Still Yes', CND and 'Justice for Harvey' pin badges.
Epicyclo will be as angered by the sight of a 'Me Too placard as a Union Jack.
On the flipside, if your former employers investigated complaints made against you on the same basis would you just sit back and roll with it?
Knowing that you don't have a chance to see any evidence against you, are positive you have never done anything that could be taken as sexual misconduct, and that your former employers were going to release the result of their investigation to the media, destroying you new career in the process. What would you do?
rene59
On the flipside, if your former employers investigated complaints made against you on the same basis would you just sit back and roll with it?...
You're wasting your time, they're blinded by the mote in their eyes. Perhaps a bit of that sort of justice visited upon themselves is needed for them to get clarity on the problem here. They are just one incautious remark away from it...
Meanwhile where is the public outrage at the recent list of sexual assaults in Westminster, or the paedophile election agent of the Scottish Labour leader? In comparison to Salmond very few column inches for far more serious allegation or proven crimes.
athgray
I don’t feel that Nicola Sturgeon has put a foot wrong since this broke.
I think we can all agree on this.
Epicyclo will be as angered by the sight of a ‘Me Too placard as a Union Jack.
Actually I have no problem with the Union flag when used appropriately. The trouble is in Scotland it is the flag of choice of some rather unpleasant sectarian hate groups.
I have no problem with the England flag either, for that matter, and it puzzles me why so few English people seem to take pride in it.
Here's a wee article for the Salmond haters.
‘Still Yes’,
Well clearly no doesn't actually mean no.
I’m not clued up on how the process works and whether he is guilty or not. The process may well need to change.
Putting that to one side, I am totally amazed at the crowdfunding thing. From a quick online search he seems a very wealthy person. And if he wins I would assume he would get his costs and compensation back.
There are much better use of funding/donations than to fund Alex Salmond whether he is innocent or guilty. Unbelievable.
destroying you new career in the process.
I don't think there was much further he could sink than an RT stooge TBH.
You’re wasting your time, they’re blinded by the mote in their eyes. Perhaps a bit of that sort of justice visited upon themselves is needed for them to get clarity on the problem here. They are just one incautious remark away from it…
Yes, we're the ones blinded by it. Of course.
So it's "not as bad" as the other stuff you mention. So what? Does that mean he should get away Scot free? Have you noticed that YOU are the one making political capital of this here? Nobody else here could give a toss WHO it was, I thought that was the whole point? But no, it's about MI5 and Indy and MSM and Deep State and Lizards and probably the ****ing freemasons if we're going all west coast where one lodge is as good as the other.
Lest we forget
”real Scots are behind you Alex”
The thread may be about personal politics but the case is about two potential victims claiming that they were sexually abused and one man’s attempt to make himself the victim.
I am absolutely not a Salmond fan, however from what I’ve read, and if I’m wrong please correct me, the issue Salmond has is he’s been accused of these things, and he feels the process has not allowed him the correct opportunity to address those accusations as key pieces of information are not being shared with him. I believe, and again if I’m wrong point me in the right direction, that the identities of the accusers have not been revealed to him. That seems like a big point. If someone was to accuse me of a crime, I’d want to know who. I think that’s fair. I get protecting their identity from the wider public but not the person they’re accusing. I also believe that as part of the process so far, Salmond has not been allowed to argue his case or put his side forward fully? Again, if that’s wrong let me know.
in the current #metoo climate, there have been several accusations against celebrities that turned out to be false, so it’s not always a one way street.
there absolutely should be a robust process in place to allow victims to speak out, but we also need to afford the accused proper due process, and Salmond’s concern, apart from his position of no guilt, is that he’s not been allowed to participate in the process appropriately. I don’t think that’s an unfair viewpoint from his perspective
If someone was to accuse me of a crime
"The process" isn't to deal with crimes. It is more like a workplace complaints/whistleblower procedure. The two cases are quite different.
Salmond has not been found guilty of anything, nor has any sanction been applied to him. All that has happened is that a confidential investigation concluded that the complaints had merit and should be taken further. His opportunity to challenge them comes in the next phase.
What he wanted (and was rightly denied) was to get in a room with the complainants and face them down. Does anyone really think that is an appropriate way to manage complaints from the rank and file against our most senior elected officials?
What he wanted (and was rightly denied) was to get in a room with the complainants and face them down.
I don't think that's accurate. What he wanted was to see the case against him. He offered to resolve the complaints in a manner of different ways.
Again I'd ask, what would you do if you were in a similar position and a former employer was about to go public with a complaint you had offered to try and resolve but were denied?
grumpsculler
“The process” isn’t to deal with crimes. It is more like a workplace complaints/whistleblower procedure. The two cases are quite different...
That's the point, they should not be - at least in so far as you should know what you're accused off, and by whom, and have the opportunity to address it. If it cannot be resolved satisfactorily at that stage, that's when it should go further.
And certainly before it gets leaked to the press.
And that's why Salmond has attracted the support he has got - because this looks like it has been carefully choreographed to do the maximum damage to his reputation and take him out of circulation before a forthcoming election or referendum.
The allegations do not have to be true to succeed in doing this.
ok, fair point but it’s really semantics. To be fair, sexual assault/abuse is a crime, so while the police aren’t involved it’s still fair to say it’s. crime, however that’s not main issue. The issue is the lack of opportunity for the accused to participate in the internal investigation. A not unreasonable concern
the complaints had merit
Based almost exclusively on the details presented by the accusers?
because this looks like it has been carefully choreographed to do the maximum damage to his reputation and take him out of circulation
Id agree with that. I’ve often gone to the news sites to read up on their reporting to the latest Brexit developments and found them buried away from the main headlines, whereas salmonds case has had prominent and consistent front page exposure over several days. It does feel disproportionate and I’m not a tin foil hat conspiracy theory fiend
TBH I'm not convinced by any of the conspiracy theory stuff. Scottish politics has been in a state of turmoil for many years, with various elections, referendums and Brexit. Any time during that period could have been viewed as "suspicious". However, let's not pretend that the unionist press/broadcasters haven't kept on this due to its political ramifications. Allegations of various sorts against other politicians are consistently played down or ignored whilst those involving members of the SNP become headlines.
In addition, we seem to have created another category of crime whereby all standard processes of determining guilt are bypassed. Defenders of Alex Salmonds right to question this have come from across the political spectrum so tbis isn't just a Nationalist popularity contest.
In the meantime the press and broadcasters are trying to stir up the prospect of an internal fraud within the SNP based on nothing more than the ravings of some Tories. In a change of mood, reflecting the maturity of the Nationalist movement in Scotland this is being rather amusingly mocked whereas it would once have been taken a lot more seriously.
As a matter of principle, is it not normally the job of the Police to release details of such cases in order to help persuade other victims to come forward? Thinking of Hall, Saville etc. - how were these cases publicised during investigations and/or other potential victims persuaded to come forward?
Could the problem be that, as we saw four years ago, Salmond and his ilk just won’t accept that no really does mean no.
Apologies if someone’s already got in with that cheap joke.
kennyp
...Apologies if someone’s already got in with that cheap joke.
It's cheap alright, but it's funny. 🙂
TBH I’m not convinced by any of the conspiracy theory stuff
Sorry, I should clarify. I don’t thInk it’s been intentionally choreographed but I do think the media have maximised the opportunity to shit on him and his cause
I agree with you BoardinBob. I have had no complaints with regards to Salmond challenging the complaints procedure, however I do think crowd funding it is arrogant beyond belief. As Scots we are apparently under the cosh enough as it is. Spare pennnies should not be put aside to fund a legal challenge that if it was anyone else would not have achieved anything like this profile. The whole thing is two faced. People are not funding the principle, but rather the personality. At least don't pretend that it is anything but this.
I do think crowd funding it is arrogant
Agreed. Basically he’s playing the people’s champion card and he knows it. But the principle remains the same but how he’s fighting it is questionable
for example, if the same had happened to tommy Sheridan, would there be the same public outpouring of support and funding? Absolutely not.
I bet that many of the posters here, would have claimed to have stood shoulder to shoulder with Meryl Streep and the sisters of tinsel town. # Scotland for the Bonnie Lasses of Hollywood. Yes, we need to all we can to encourage potential victims to come forward!! Where did the concern for the men accused of sexual misconduct come from??
As an aside, what could all of Salmond's £100k fundraising have bought for struggling families.
Perhaps a campaign for an independent Scotland needs a new hash tag. #IndyScotAgainstHypocyticalWan***s
for example, if the same had happened to tommy Sheridan, would there be the same public outpouring of support and funding? Absolutely not.
You are right boardinbob. This however just proves that crowdfunders could not give a flying **** about the principle of fairness relating to sexual misconduct allegation investigations, and more about the era of personality.
While innocent until proven guilty, Salmond and Sheridan are examples of how power corrupts. The Tommy I knew was one of the finest men I have ever met and stopped numerous poor folk having the few valuables they had being taking during the post poll tax days when Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee councils tried to poind people’s possessions. His advocacy for the voiceless was a force of nature and his latter self-destruction was hard to witness.
Oh and Upper Loch Rannoch fire roads?
C’mon, that was just nuts...
What has been interesting in this process is the phenomenon of the simultaneity of the newspapers' and MSM headlines, almost as if they are speaking as one.
Basically 2 things, one Salmond's guilt, and two, the civil war this has caused in the ranks of independence supporters.
We have covered the first here, but meanwhile this terrible civil war rages.
We've all taken our sides and rushed out to find the field of conflict.
Alas we have been unable to find it so we are reduced to flinging crushed Tunnocks teacakes at each other, reserving the deepfried Mars bars for the serious stuff.
Meanwhile, the SNP, expecting serious casualties, is reported to have recruited many new members since the Salmond affair started.
EDIT: I have changed the number of recruits to many. The source for the actual number cannot be verified yet, but is believed to be a lot.
athgray
...This however just proves that crowdfunders could not give a flying **** about the principle of fairness relating to sexual misconduct allegation investigations...
Then let's hope you never get subjected to the same principle of "fairness" as Salmond...
Then let’s hope you never get subjected to the same principle of “fairness” as Salmond…
The complaints procedure he is battling has not yet been deemed to be unfair, hence his legal challenge. Remember we have not yet had a legal ruling on this. Innocent until proven guilty remember. Tut tut.
Also, he is taking the Scottish Government to court, and as I have no intention of become an MSP of minister at Holyrood then his fight does not directly affect me.
Your donations could have bought a Christmas hampers for a struggling Scottish family, so well done you!
On the SNP, it is possible that the party can come out of this with some credit. For that to happen in my eyes then members need to be listening to Sturgeon and not the Salmond fan mob. This is not an issue that should split the SNP, and I can separate the party from the self serving actions of a clown with a sycophantic fan base.
athgray
...Your donations could have bought a Christmas hampers for a struggling Scottish family, so well done you!...
Amazing bit of whataboutery. So could the money you spend on your bike.
However I make those sort of donations too...
No one willing to tell us what they would do in a similair situation? Fear of being outed as a hypocrite?
Rene
No one willing to tell us what they would do in a similair situation? Fear of being outed as a hypocrite?
In possibly the first or second lines of one of my posts earlier, I said I had no complaint with his legal challenge, but I will try to put myself in his shoes to answer you question again.
IF I was the long standing leader of one of the UK's biggest political parties, and I had also been the the First Minister of my county for 7 years, and was currently working as a high profile political TV personality I would have raised a legal challenge if I deemed the complaints procedure unfair. I would also have looked at the current global climate of encouraging potential victims of sexual abuse or misconduct to come forward, and also how the political party I know and love may be affected, and chosen not to draw even more publicity towards myself. I would have seen fit to fund the legal challenge myself rather than draw swathes of hard up individuals previously ignorant of such issues to put their hard earned pennies to fight my cause.
And let's be clear on this. There will be many people flocking to this cause that are not funding the issue but rather the individual. Epicyclo even admitted as much.
I would have seen fit to fund the legal challenge myself rather than draw swathes of hard up individuals previously ignorant of such issues to put their hard earned pennies to fight my cause.
And let’s be clear on this. There will be many people flocking to this cause that are not funding the issue but rather the individual.
You are making assumptions that the people supporting him are all hard up. You are also not taking into account those who oppose him and his politics who donated as they agree with the unfairness claim. Lastly you are ignoring those who donated just to leave an abusive message about him on the crowdfunding webpage. You are using the whole incident to attack his supporters and drawing publicity to the very thing you think he himself shouldn't have drawn publicity to.
The donations are indicative of a high level of trust in the integrity of Alex Salmond.
He is a man who has been under intense scrutiny by the press for almost his entire political career. Although the universally hostile to independence media have spent small fortunes in trying to catch him out, yet nothing has come to light. There haven't even been rumours.
When the SNP returned 56 MPs to Westminster, it was him who laid out to all the newbies the dangers of all the honey traps, etc that would come their way and the dangers of social liaisons and inappropriate language.
In light of this it seems odd that he would transgress the behaviour rules.
So if he turns out to have done what he has been accused off, he has blown himself as a political leader in Scotland forever.
He may well be arrogant and cunning (as some here claim) but no one has accused him of being stupid.
If he had done it, I would have expected that he would have held his hand up, and issued an apology, grovelling if necessary, because he knows he would eventually have been forgiven, but if it turns out he has done it after going the crowdfunding route, then he will never be forgiven.
We can remember a grievance for centuries up here...
That was the basis on which I donated, and I'm pretty sure it was the process most followed.
You are making assumptions that the people supporting him are all hard up. You are also not taking into account those who oppose him and his politics who donated as they agree with the unfairness claim.
I never said ALL the funders were hard up, but I reckon many will be. £100k is a lot of money that could be put to good causes. I outlined why I felt he should not have crowd funded his challenge, which you clearly ignored or disagreed with. It leaves a sour taste I am afraid.
This issue should be disassociated from the wider debate around Indy.
athgray
...£100k is a lot of money that could be put to good causes...
I think the Scottish public is competent enough to decide what they think is a "good cause" and they have pitched into this one.
As they do for many "good causes", and I doubt anyone who has directed money to this crowdfunding is doing it at the expense of other donations.
According to various surveys "The Scots are the most generous nation in Britain - and even donate an average £100 per year more than wealthier Londoners." *
.
*(That was a DM headline a few years back, but there are plenty other instances you can check on).
Boardin Bob
the complaints had merit
Based almost exclusively on the details presented by the accusers?
Which "details" WOULD you expect to make up a large part of any accusation?
Would the process be improved if the entire process revolved around the accused saying "idid'ndoit"?
Having said that, if the process has _only_ taken the word of the accusers into account and ignored any other evidence then it may well be an injustice.
But I'm sure there's a lot of information that could make a complaint look plausible or implausible:
Were the complainants and the accused even in the same place at the time?
Can anyone else say that they were alone at the time?
Who was the last person to leave?
Was there relatively concurrent testimony to a third party about what happened?
If "the process" has taken these things into account, I don't have a problem with it.
As an aside, it's a little worrying that Alex's comments regarding "the process" seem to be taken as gospel here. Bear in mind that Leslie Evans comment on Alex's initial rant was that;
His statement contains significant inaccuracies which will be addressed in those court proceedings.
Its also worth considering that people seem to think that this process was specially set up for Alex.
I agree that that's a possibility, but I disagree that that necessarily makes it a bad thing.
Overall one of the best arguments in favour of this process being required is an old one recycled from the discussions we've had here about the GERS statistics.
If this is an MI5 plot, why is Nichola up to her oxters in it?
Rabbitholes everywhere, or reality everywhere. You decide.
epicyclo
I think the Scottish public is competent enough to decide what they think is a “good cause” and they have pitched into this one.
Do you mind if I keep this in my paste buffer so that I can bring it out next time you talk about the injustices of the indyref and how the "Scottish Public" were duped and taken in by obvious lies?
Who tf is "Nichola"
Nichola = Nicola
I seem to have misspelled her name and i agree that its _frighteningly_ unclear from the the context who I was referring to.
Thank you for your correction.
Seems like there has been a surge in SNP membership...
It now has more members than the Tory party has.
Wonder why?
Tories have never had many members, compared to other parties.
But members don't win elections. Seats do.
Anyone else heard the rumours that the 2 women involved are Roxanne Pallett and Coleen Nolan ?
grumpsculler
But members don’t win elections. Seats do.
Possibly, but the SNP don't contest English seats and they do ok in Scotland.