Forum menu
epicyclo
Seems like there has been a surge in SNP membership…
It now has more members than the Tory party has.
Wonder why?
Is this the new "look how much money he's raised"?
Anyway, I'll bite.
Is it because many people in Scotland think that a sexual harassment process developed within the Scottish Government (with union involvement) under an SNP administration might be an MI5 plot?
Is it because there are many people in Scotland who will believe anything that the party tells them despite the evidence of their own eyes?
Is it because they've all read the policy in detail and have righteous concerns based on their wide experience of sexual harassment cases?
Who knows?
Turnerguy, I assume you're joking and not casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case. Otherwise you'd be an irretrievable 24 carat bellend.
epicyclo,
I know anything about scottish politics has the potential to be divisive and make people quite irate. But is there any chance at all that you might look at your comments on this thread (with the subject matter at the front of your mind) and maybe consider if you are on the side of the angels here?
There's a pretty even chance that the women bringing the complaints are supporters of the SNP and independence themselves. Would that colour your view of the allegations differently, and if so, why?
All the noise about how the press is covering these allegations, and how its all blown out of proportion, but no reflection on the reality of how this would be covered if it was David Cameron or Obama or even Nicola Sturgeon who were accused?
Earlier in the thread you even brought up "50 parliamentary pedos" as something that the press failed to highlight, despite the fact that a police investigation into those allegations was carried out (with maximum press coverage) into many people. Including an ex prime minister, and others who couldn't defend themselves due to being senile or dead (also no evidence was found, which received correspondingly less coverage).
Maybe you should
a) be secretly proud that Salmond can still generate so many headlines, and
b) reflect that justice in sexual harassment cases shouldn't be a popularity contest?
eat_the-pudding
...Is it because many people in Scotland think that a sexual harassment process developed within the Scottish Government (with union involvement) under an SNP administration might be an MI5 plot?...
1. sometimes you are right to be paranoid because they really are out to get you. British intelligence has actively interfered against the SNP throughout its history. Cameron made it clear that all the apparatus of the British state was to be brought to bear to oppose independence, so many of us think it's highly likely that they are still involved.
2. My understanding is that the complainants are not part of the Scottish government but part of the UK administration that oversees Holyrood, ie the UK Civil Service, and thus were not part of the Scottish Govt. Several months ago the head of that presented the First Minister with a protocol for dealing with complaints with MSPs, and it was approved by the FM and immediately applied to Salmond.
3. We have already established that the crowd funding is for a Judicial Review of that process, not the defence of Alex Salmond. If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
4. There has not been anything like comparable publicity about the Scottish Labour Leader's election agent who has just been found guilty of paedophilia (actual guilt versus allegation). And Is there not currently a list of sexual predators in the UK parliament that is being ignored in the press?
Our protest is against what looks like a stitch-up with a carefully crafted process designed to create bad publicity for Salmond and not to get justice for the 2 complainants. It has worked because he is now out of contention for any election in the near future. His immediate future is ruined.
Anyhow, the Judicial Review will now take place, so we can wait and see if that process was fair, and if it was, if there is actually a case to answer.
Epicyclo
Turnerguy, I assume you’re joking and not casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case. Otherwise you’d be an irretrievable 24 carat bellend.
Later on
Epicyclo
If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
Quality. Loving This!!
Still time to edit that athgray
I'd like to make it clear that the first quote attributed to me in athgray's post above is not something I said.
My understanding is that the complainants are not part of the Scottish government but part of the UK administration that oversees Holyrood, ie the UK Civil Service, and thus were not part of the Scottish Govt.
Although there is only one civil service in the UK (it is Her Majesty's Civil Service, not the UK Civil Service), the Scottish part of that works at the direction of the Scottish Government. <span style="font-size: 12.8px;">In both Scotland and Wales, the civil service serves and is directed by the devolved administration. </span><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">You think St Andrew's House sit there working for the UK Toaries and wonder why nobody in Holyrood has ever bothered to complain about that?</span>
The Scottish Goverment certainly seems to think that the civil service is part of government, but what would they know? https://beta.gov.scot/about/how-government-is-run/civil-service/ Sturgeon has defended the work of the civil service, yet Salmond supporters still try to pretend it was something foisted upon the SNP and nothing to do with any SNP politician.
I realise that there may be some people in the civil service that didn't vote SNP, but this argument is a pretty poor one (because it is bollocks).
There has not been anything like comparable publicity about the Scottish Labour Leader’s election agent who has just been found guilty of paedophilia
Of course there hasn't been. He isn't a household name. He was not an elected official, he is not an outspoken political leader and he is not that newsworthy. Does this really need explaining?
epicyclo,
Even with a generous reading, you really do seem to have a complete lack of sympathy for the complainants in this case.
This quote;
If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
Says a lot about you.
You don't say "if he did it he deserves everything he gets". But "if he did it to untrustworthy people he deserves everything he gets"!?
The pretty clear implication is that it would be OK if he "touched up or put the hard word" (wtf!?) on "more trustworthy" people? Or that their "trustworthiness" is relevant to the facts.
You are fractally wrong here. Factually wrong (as explained by grumpysculler) and morally repugnant (as shown by your words above).
I said earlier;
There’s a pretty even chance that the women bringing the complaints are supporters of the SNP and independence themselves. Would that colour your view of the allegations differently, and if so, why?
I hoped that would make you realise that you are bringing politics into a part of this discussion where it does not belong.
But you dove straight in, no hesitation.
These women can't be victims complaining about harassment.
Their motives have to be suspect.
Their politics has to be the wrong kind.
Their commitment (or lack of commitment) to your nationalism is the overriding deciding factor.
Wow. Must be rough living inside your head.
Is it a bit like the cartoon below? from here
I know you won't like the comparison, but I assure you that is completely deliberate on my part.
and if the shoe fits...... 🙂
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women ?
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women
D'oh! It's because a secret society of deep sate operatives under the direction of Davos globalists are using the liberal media to fuel a UK government witch hunt to impose female dominance and rule to undermine the strong male YES contingent and prevent Scottish Independence.
Obvious conspiracy is obvious.
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women ?
According to the Daily Ranger, at least one of the complainants had breasts. Now, I know that in todays cross-gender society that's not as clear as it once was but it maybe gives us a clue.
Why is everybody assuming the complainants are women ?
What difference does it make? If someone feels they have been harrassed, their gender is pretty much irrelevant.
What difference does it make? That is why I am asking - why do people assume in these cases? Everybody is entitled to a safe workplace, and it is interesting that everybody leaps straight to pre-conceived gender roles. The Daily Rangers wouldn't know a fact if it punched them in the face.
What difference does it make? If someone feels they have been harrassed, their gender is pretty much irrelevant.
I don't think Hels is suggesting that the sex of the victims matters at all, rather it is intresting that we all assume they are women.
Well. As far as we know Salmond is heterosexual. If he is sexually harassing people it isn’t a great leap to assume the people he is doing it to are the opposite sex. I haven’t heard a definite confirmation that they are human either but I am going to take a wild guess that they are.
Well it's been over a week now and no word from the police?
"as far as we know" yep thats some outstanding fact mongering.
rene59
Well it’s been over a week now and no word from the police?
Which is relevant because?
Although, if we're making lists:
Thing which didn't happen this week.
Salmond has failed to comment on the latest allegations about the nerve agent poisonings in the UK and his position working for Putin on Russia Today.
Things which did happen this week.
Tommy Sheridan has joined Salmond on the rouble-go-round with a chat show on the Kremlin mouthpiece Sputnik UK.
Even SNP Westminster leader, (blowhard ex-banker and man who tormented Charles Kennedy in the last months of his life) Ian Blackford has labelled Russia Today (where Salmond works) a “vehicle of the Russian state” and said he didn’t believe anyone should broadcast on it.
Its all conspiracies, all the way down I tells ye! 🙂
Which is relevant because?
You don't think it is? Weird.
Well it’s been over a week now and no word from the police?
I'd expect formal police enquiries to take longer.
It's been almost a year since Monica Lennon alleged she was groped by a senior member of the Labour Party and that's not resulted in any prosecution either.
eat_the_pudding
Even with a generous reading, you really do seem to have a complete lack of sympathy for the complainants in this case....
You are talking about the actual case, I am talking about the process of the internal investigation, and I am voicing the misgivings of many people in the independence movement about that.
I know you are frothing to see Salmond tarred and feathered, and hell mend fairness, but as I said
Anyhow, the Judicial Review will now take place, so we can wait and see if that process was fair, and if it was, if there is actually a case to answer.
So instead of putting words in my mouth, let's wait and see.
BTW if you are so concerned about Charles Kennedy then you should be taking a close look at the actions of his own party and the way they treated him. They were supposedly his friends.
epicyclo,
You genuinely seem to be having an issue with the complainants.
For the avoidance of doubt, do you agree with what I said earlier.
That casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case makes you an irretrievable 24 carat bellend?
Yes or No? (you should be familiar with at least one of those words)
Please note that I'm answering "YOU" not "many people in the independence movement". Please stop trying to separate yourself from your own comments.
Your comment was;
If he was daft enough to touch up or put the hard word on staff members of the Westminster Civil Service, people who he would know to distrust, he deserves everything that will come his way.
And it still sounds dodgy as **** to me, because theres no way that that can be read in English that does not imply that the complainants are untrustworthy in some way because of their assumed (by you) political allegiance.
Also please stop putting words in my mouth. I dislike Salmond intensely, and on many levels, but I'd like to see justice in this case, not a show trial.
Can you really say the same when you are assuming such bad faith on the part of the complainants from the start?
If nothing else, its becoming more obvious by the second why the complainants waited until Salmond was less powerful to bring forward their complaints.
Just catching up now. Not often I will say this, but in not paying due care ant attention when scanning posts I attributed a quote to epicyclo that was not his. I apologise for this epicyclo.
eat_the-pudding
...And it still sounds dodgy as **** to me, because theres no way that that can be read in English that does not imply that the complainants are untrustworthy in some way because of their assumed (by you) political allegiance...
Or perhaps instead of trying to put the most negative connotation on my words, you could pause and think about what I was saying.
So, I'll try in plain English.
A process of private trial where you do not have the right of defence is dodgy. And that is what the crowdfunding is about.
If its conclusions are supported, then, and only then will the complaint be tried in a proper court. That's when guilt or otherwise will be decided.
Right from the start I have said that if he has done this, then he deserves what he gets.
athgray
...I apologise for this epicyclo.
That's ok, I realised you wouldn't do that deliberately, but some folk don't read the whole thread, so I just wanted to clarify it.
"Even SNP Westminster leader, (blowhard ex-banker and man who tormented Charles Kennedy in the last months of his life) Ian Blackford"
Well come on Eat the pudding, back that statement up with facts.
I do not know all that went on during that campaign but I was involved on a daily basis leafletting and knocking on doors for Ian Blackford and I saw nothing that matches your description.
We ordinary activists were subjected to a systematic campaign of slurs and innuendos from the British press though.
Dragging this up from the depths, but in answer to epicyclo.
Even with a positive reading your quoted words are what they are. If you want to withdraw them thats fine. Do you?
BTW You still haven't agreed with my statement earlier:
For the avoidance of doubt, do you agree with what I said earlier.
That casting aspersions on the complainants in a sexual harassment case makes you an irretrievable 24 carat bellend?
Any comment? Yes or No will do. 🙂
gordimhor
He was an investment banker (see his wikipedia page), apparently thats snpbad when you're english, but snpgood if you're scottish?
As to the rest, everyone was letting it lie until he decided to rewrite history a few months ago which led to these articles:
Scotsman Times Sunday Post libdems etc. etc.
If it had all been a bit of banter during the campaign I doubt it would be resonating so much so many years later.
Blackford himself probably considers it something to be ashamed of. Otherwise why go on the record trying to rewrite it?
You might not accept my evidence, in the form of press reports, but they did seem to stop Blackfords rewrite in its tracks.
Which was nice.
ETP I do not expect that you will accept my account as evidence.
I have no problem with Ian Blackford being described as a banker . He was one.
The liberals also claimed that he was parachuted in to the constituency when in fact he had lived on Skye for some time.
However Ian should not have gone into their office on the occasion described. I wasn't there
I don't accept the newspaper articles as evidence, two of them are essentially the same article written by Brian Wilson.
I personally witnessed appalling behaviour towards SNP supporters by libdem staff who would be well advised to look to their own behaviour before criticising others
Looks like he was right about the process:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
Statement from Leslie Evans
Unfortunately, the interactions with the complainants in advance of the complaints being made meant that the process was flawed, however impartially and fairly the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation.
My bold.
Bear in mind that SG have not accepted that the process is unfair, only that it was not followed correctly in this case.
Thats a long way from what Salmonds crowdfunded accusations of an unfair and unlawful process.
Anyway, now that his distraction tactics are spent maybe we can wait for the outcome of the actual investigation.
Mr Salmond's case focused entirely on the fairness of the government's procedures and will have no bearing on a separate police inquiry into the allegations, which is still ongoing.
Yep, the government screwed up and so the previous investigation is binned. I don't think the mistake really aligns with his previously reported arguments around involving him, mediation, etc. Embarassing and wasteful nonetheless and you would think special attention would be paid around this sort of investigation.
The government have said that they will consider re-opening it (and hopefully getting the process right), but can't do anything until the police investigation has finished.
Doesn't really seem like a lot has materially changed as a result of this verdict, although I'm sure some will try to present it otherwise. The actual process, which Salmond was trying to subject to a judicial review, still stands and hasn't been overturned. Same for the allegations and associated police investigation.
Arrested this morning, in court this afternoon.
I wonder (assuming his guilt is proven) how this will then effect little Jimmy Krankie?
First he was arrested this morning and due in court this afternoon, now it's he was arrested and charged last night and now unknown when he is due in court.
Quality journalism.
With the pressure for another referendum increasing, I was wondering when that was going to happen.
The SNP have reputedly been airbrushing him out of their history on their web pages which may have been a sign.
At least now we'll get the actual facts.
Even disliking her politics I'd like to think that shes wasn't stupid enough to get dragged into this (as a woman in politics who genuinely seems to give a damn about the complainants) but she has had a lot of un-minuted* meetings with him which are already making some waves.
*Not keeping notes to avoid FOI requests and public scrutiny is a long term SNP habit that was always going to bite back. I confess I'll be having schadenfreude to the max if this is the event that highlights it enough to attract the attention it deserves.
Not much else to be said now its all sub judice.
Scottish Twitter is lit tho' 🙂
Blimey, the interweb is glowing red-hot with the glee of the Unionists.
However:
as a woman in politics who genuinely seems to give a damn about the complainants
Really? Nicola "meMeMYlastinglegacy" Sturgeon?
rich_s
I don't like her politics (muh independence), her priorities (muh independence) and the way shes only ever obliquely straightforward about the nature of Scotlands finances (and avoids defending her own GERS figures from attacks by her own supporters) (see: muh independence).
But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to wanting sexual harassment dealt with properly. Shes certainly displayed a better attitude than scottish indy twitter where the "MI5 plot" mongers are out in force.
I don't think any of it is an MI5 plot, that's just silly.
However, the usual suspects will use this whole scenario for their own agenda, I mean, imagine there were paedos and perverts in Westminster eh? Now that would really get a proper investigation, wouldn't it?....
Twitter tends to attract the loons form both sides, so is best avoided.
nobeer,
The "paedos and perverts in westminster" DID get investigated at massive expense and with many lurid headlines. It cost a lot of money went on for a long time, tarnished the reputations and memories of a lot of innocent people and turned out to be based on the lies of one man. linky
The people bringing up both subjects (Alex and operation Midland) in the same sentence do tend to be loons though.
I wonder (assuming his guilt is proven) how this will then effect little Jimmy Krankie?
Jimmy Krankie is a fictional character created by entertainer Janette Tough, isn't he? What's he got to do with Salmond's arrest?
First he was arrested this morning and due in court this afternoon, now it’s he was arrested and charged last night and now unknown when he is due in court.
Quality journalism.
Seems it was quality as he is in court now.
Jimmy Krankie is a fictional character created by entertainer Janette Tough, isn’t he? What’s he got to do with Salmond’s arrest?
Possibly a jibe at Ms Sturgeon.