It’s almost as if there was a general election about to be called and they do not want him standing as a candidate…

Quick – fetch the tin foil!

Mmm, tricky moral dilemma. On one hand the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a vital cornerstone of our judicial and moral codes. On the other hand Salmond is an arrogant bore, an obnoxious bully and a proven liar.

So hey, swings and roundabouts etc.

It’s certainly good that it’s Alex Salmond that is the first to come up against this recently introduced “process”. Most lesser mortals would have buckled immediately rather than face the tortuous process of taking it to court.

Meanwhile, what process is in place for identifying and disciplining the person/persons responsible for leaking the details to the press?

Alex Salmond should be investigated just like anyone else in the same circumstances. If the procurator thinks there is a case then he should be prosecuted.Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t seem to apply to the media though.

Meanwhile, what process is in place for identifying and disciplining the person/persons responsible for leaking the details to the press?

Think of Alistair Carmichael, they’ll probably get a knighthood or a KBE if they haven’t already got one.

<p>

It’s almost as if there was a general election about to be called and they do not want him standing as a candidate…

</p><p>Yeah, I can see why the SNP would be keen to support that.</p>

Is there a suggestion that salmond boobed again here?

the SNP don’t want Salmond back and don’t be surprised if Sturgen is gone soon either.  The issue here is the leak to the press which can only have come from the party.  The only purpose of this is to shame Alex.  Nothing will happen with the police or the internal investigation by the party unless there is corroboration which I believe there isn’t.

 The issue here is the leak to the press which can only have come from the party.

Or the civil service.

Or the civil service.

Civil service has nothing to do with the SNP.

The leak – it could have come from the Civil Service.

The leak – it could have come from the Civil Service.

no it couldn’t.  The civil service has nothing to do with the SNP.

Why couldn’t it have come from the Civil Service?

(Hint :”they have nothing to do with the SNP.” is not an answer)

It could have come from St Andrew’s house – I suspect the assumption is that the civil service has little to gain, expect perhaps personal vendetta, by doing so.

“The party” knows nothing about these allegations more than we do. That’s why he isn’t suspended. If their rules are that the party has to suspend someone, then they can’t be suspended if the party can’t reasonably be briefed on the complaint. Sturgeon knows as FM, but the details are still confidential.

The complaint was made to the civil service (as the authorities that run Holyrood) and they were dealing with it confidentially. There are probably quite a few people that know about it, including the complainants.

The civil service have decided, under their process which Sturgeon approved, that there is enough of a case to answer so the matter is now referred to the police. Salmond thinks he should have had a chance to get involved and stop it going to the police, so he’s taking the Scottish Govt to court over it separately to any police investigation.

don’t be surprised if Sturgen is gone soon either.

Why’s that then?.

“Nothing will happen with the police or the internal investigation by the party unless there is corroboration which I believe there isn’t.”

I thought there was two separate complaints. In which case if they are similar in nature they may be able to corroborate each other – the Moorov Doctrine.

poah wrote

don’t be surprised if Sturgen is gone soon either.

who’s that then?

Salmond has resigned from the SNP and is looking for a few quid for his legal fund…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45350523

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/AlexSalmond

It seems obvious that Nicola feels under pressure from other political parties to suspend me from SNP membership, given recent party precedents. For my part I have always thought it a very poor idea to suspend any party member on the basis of complaints and allegations. Innocent until proven guilty is central to our concept of justice.

However, I did not come into politics to facilitate opposition attacks on the SNP and , with Parliament returning next week, I have tendered my resignation to remove this line of opposition attack. Most of all I am conscious that if the Party felt forced into suspending me it would cause substantial internal division.

Seems like a well thought through decision.

Yip, best all round for the parliament, our elected representatives can get back to business.

That’s him hors de combat for any forthcoming elections.

Wow, nearly £11k donated already on crowdfunding. Lots of donors suggesting this is all part of an elaborate Westminster attempt to undermine the Indy movement. If Westminster really wanted to undermine the Indy movement there are much easier and more credible ways of doing that such as basic economic analysis.

  If Westminster really wanted to undermine the Indy movement there are much easier and more credible ways of doing that such as basic economic analysis.

Aye, they could wheel out the big £350M bus again!…

Good point well put Nobeer.  All the same, it is a bit of a stretch to think this would be orchestrated by Westminster.

I agree, not a chance it’s orchestrated IMO.

It might well have been orchestrated but I can’t see how it could have possibly been so by Westminster.

Correct response from Salmond.  Whatever he has done or not done resigning the whip limits damage to the party and to him personally.  Mind you threatening to sue is stupid IMO

I have heard Salmond called many things over the years but never a groper.

I have no doubt at all this has been used for political capital.  How much influence the various players had over the timing and publicity of events I don’t know but sure as hell its being used for political advantage.

threatening to sue is stupid IMO

Yes. It would be.

I have heard Salmond called many things over the years but never a groper.

I think if #MeToo has taught us anything it’s that we just don’t know.

Well, that’s the crowdfunder over-subscribed already, £53,000 at  this point.

Must be nice to be able to get other people to pick up your legal bills whenever you are accused of something inappropriate!

Fair enough if he’s done nothing wrong. If it at some point it comes out that we can list ‘groping pervert’ to his list of failings however, I’m hope that those who contributed feel a bit daft.

The crowd funding isn’t for a case to determine his innocence or guilt it is to obtain an independent judicial review of the process that has recently been put in place by the Civil Service in Scotland. As I already posted above, it’s good that Alex Salmond is the first (that we know of) to be affected by this process. A less well known person would likely have found it more difficult to fight.

As yet, we have no idea if the charges will ever make it to court.

The attitude that led him to crowdfund this is the reason hes a nobber regardless of the truth of the allegations.

For those who have doubts about how this has come about. What if this is just how the process works?

Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable.

For those who say this was “timed”, ask yourself honestly. What time/date would have satisfied you that this was not a conspiracy of some kind?

By all accounts the process stayed quiet from January to August. Does that sound like a leaky civil service to you?

The rest of the fluff is just an attempt to distract from whats actually alleged.

Salmond is clutching at the “process” because if this flies hes finished and he knows it, he just needs to try to cast enough doubt in the minds of his supporters (the people who thought it was OK, or even good, that he got a job with RT, who deny GERS, think theres oil under the Clyde and claim exported whisky is taxed on the way out of the U.K. :O) so that he can keep milking them for the forseeable (crowdfunder).

Hence the twitter (and crowdfunder) comments about conspiracy and the the “deep state” (who for some reason despite their infinite knowledge failed to bring all this up in the run up to the indyref? Really?)

Weirdly, the timing is one of the things that rings truest for me.

Look at how people are reacting to these accusations now. Then imagine what would have happened during the independence campaign?

The women involved would have faced very significant consequences, accused of being liars, political tools, agents, traitors. It would have been the everyday treatment that women get when they accuse powerful men squared (this was before #metoo).

Salmond won’t go away as long as there are people to listen and roubles on the table. As reality squeezes he’ll squeak louder until he becomes the Scottish Alex Jones, without the vitamin sales.

The crowd funding isn’t for a case to determine his innocence or guilt it is to obtain an independent judicial review of the process that has recently been put in place by the Civil Service in Scotland. As I already posted above, it’s good that Alex Salmond is the first (that we know of) to be affected by this process. A less well known person would likely have found it more difficult to fight.

As yet, we have no idea if the charges will ever make it to court

I realise its not to establish his guilt. But it’s clearly aimed at casting doubt over the entire process that has led to this, with him the sole beneficiary. Do you honestly believe he would have set up to crowd fund this if it had been any other member of the Parliament that had been the subject to it, as it’s so unfair?

As I say, fair enough if he’s innocent of charges. But if it turns out that he’s guilty of anything, and the process is upheld ….then do you agree he has a moral obligation to pay the money back?

tpbiker

…But it’s clearly aimed at casting doubt over the entire process that has led to this, with him the sole beneficiary.

…Do you honestly believe he would have set up to crowd fund this if it had been any other member of the Parliament that had been the subject to it, as it’s so unfair?

…But if it turns out that he’s guilty of anything, and the process is upheld ….then do you agree he has a moral obligation to pay the money back?

Yes, there should be doubt cast over the entire process. It was done in secret and then leaked. He was not given details of the charges against him. That’s why the crowdfunding is in place – it is not a fair and open process.

I don’t understand why you think it’s up to Salmond to set up a crowdfund for someone else. Surely that should be up to that person. However I can’t think of any parliamentarian who would attract so much support, except maybe Dennis Skinner.

He has already said that any surplus will be given to charity. That’s believable because he has a record of massive contributions to charity, more so than any other politician I can think off.

The fight is for a Judicial Review of a manifestly unfair secret process, not the charges. We will all benefit from that.

Any charges subsequently laid by the police will be another fight altogether.

BTW the fund now exceeds £70,000

“Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable.”

ETP there was nothing officially released to the press till Friday.

According to their article the record were tipped off in October before the complaints process was in place and having uncovered further information were able to go ahead and publish as reporter’s “sources” verified that info on Thursday night. This is all available on their editor’s Twitter account.

I believe the first statement from the Scottish government came on Friday morning after the information was made public.

70k!! – pounds or rubles?

It’s those worthless pounds.

And it’s almost £75,000 now.

The fight is for a Judicial Review of a manifestly unfair secret process, not the charges. We will all benefit from that.

IYO it’s unfair – what if the process is found to be perfectly fair? Just that wee eck didn’t like it as it has been detrimental to him. Which I suspect is more likely the reason for his challenge. How is that beneficial to us?

As I say, if the process is found to be fair, and he is subsequently found to be ‘guilty’ as charged (and FYI I personally don’t think that this should be a criminal matter).. Does he have the moral obligation to pay the money back?

Lets be honest here, there are plenty of unfair policies and processes in the workplace, and I’m sure plenty of unfair dismissals. Salmond is taking advantage of his popularity with his gullible supporters, as he has done for years, to benefit himself. Noone else..

Dealing with these complaints in confidence (aka secret) is the way it should be done. Basic due diligence to investigate whether there is a basis to the complaint doesn’t require the accused to have a chance to answer them. With that due diligence done, it appears the complaint has some merit and so now it moves to a phase where Salmond will get his say. That’s pretty much how these things are meant to work.

Allegations were made and investigated and remained secret until there was a decision to release it to the press when not doing that became untenable.

There was no decision to release it. The government were considering whether there was public interest in releasing the details, at which point Salmond jumped the gun and went public himself. The leak to the Record happened after that. If Salmond had kept his big gob shut, we may have never found out.