Kirsty Wark documentary about Alex Salmond sexual assault case

To answer your original point OP, it was on earlier in the week at 930 on BBC Scotland - we have our own channel and schedule.

I was disappointed by the programme. I feel there's a conversation to be had about sexual conduct and how the FM conducted himself in office, but this wasn't it. The Dani Garavalli article on Tortoise tried to take a wider view, Kirsty Wark didn't really bring any insight to the piece which felt like a bit of a hatchet job. And I am a red hot feminist who things Salmond is a pig.

I don't know enough about this for an informed opinion so place marking to see what others think.

We urgently need a programme of education about the way sexual assault trials work, and what the verdicts mean. A man who has been acquitted has not been found innocent, nor has he proved his innocence. Many many rapists are found not guilty. It is astonishingly difficult to secure a conviction in the current system.

Note: I’m not claiming Alex Salmond is guilty of the charges of which he was acquitted. However, I will protest in the strongest terms against any suggestion that the court found him innocent.

if we have any scottish law types on mumsnet please feel free to jump in ...

Not proven to me is the 'we hell know you did it but don't have enough evidence' its not saying he's innocent at all

*Salmond. So many fish, so few politicians in autocock.

Certainly in one incident the woman who accused him was proven not to have been in the building/at the event where she claimed the incident happened. I'd say that was proof of innocence.

There is a long and twisty history of SNP infighting and factions. You're right, Shedbuilder, it stinks. I'm no fan of Salmon, but this case seemed unbelievably flimsy, to put it mildly.

he proved in court the alleged incidents didn't happen

Nope.
That’s not how acquittal works.

That was a dreadful hit piece. Salmond was found not guilty on 13 charges because he proved in court the alleged incidents didn't happen. Note how Wark's supposed day-by-day account of the trial skips over the two days when the defence witnesses testified.

This included the friend of the alleged victim of the worst charge telling the court that the incident could not have happened because the victim had asked her friend to attend the meal in her stead. (The victim had injured her arm on the day and stayed home).

On one charge it was a not proven verdict. Salmond agreed the incident happened. The question was whether it was a miscommunication between them that amounted to harassment. At the time the victim accepted his apology for him giving her a (fully clothed) cuddle when they were both drunk and she stated nothing untoward ever happened again afterwards.

(Not proven simply means that there was not enough evidence either way - neither the prosecution nor the defence could prove their case.)

Wark has a bit of a thing for Salmond. No idea if it's personal, but there have been a few other pieces she did about him that were less than balanced or impartial.

If you know anything about the case that becomes very obvious. Like the fact that Salmond presented a different defence case than the one he said he would is used to cast doubt on his character. The fact that he had to present a different defence case because the judge didn't allow him to present the evidence he had on his original defence case is not mentioned by Wark at all.

And so on.