Joanna Cherry (SNP) sacked

What I should add here is that the Rape Crisis Scotland complaint amounts to "How dare you ask for private messages exchanged by victims!"

And

"How dare you make disparaging remarks about messages exchanged by victims/about victims!"

However, that is not what happened. Committee requested messages exchanged between people holding a particular position in Scotland. They made remarks about them in that function.

They did not know (because the identity of the complainers is protected) that this included all of the complainers.

But thanks to Rape Crisis Scotland we all know that now.

I’ll post it again here for anyone who may have missed it -

“After the video footage was released, Mr Jackson said: "To be clear...I do not regard Alex Salmond as a 'sex pest', and any contrary impression is wrong."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790

I'm not a hypocrite though.

You (general you) can't defend this extraordinary departure from the usual stance on here, even to point of trashing the statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland, so you resort to insults.

I'll leave you to your echo chamber of applauding Cherry, who of course now finds the "irrelevant Westminster" is oddly now relevant when she's appointed to an important committee.

Rape Crisis Scotland is neither a benign nor neutral player in this affair.

Gist of the National column:

'We are closer to independence than we have ever been. The only thing that can stop us from achieving independence, and making that progressive Scotland a reality, is ourselves. Given the trend in worldwide politics, particularly America, it is dangerously stupid to think Scotland is exempt from bad actors and disinformation, particularly online. '

'...The formula is usually along the lines of finding an obscure or nuanced issue, and then using that issue to stoke division. To prey on the legitimate worries or genuine grievances that people may feel, and then manipulate that into their own egotistical conspiracy theory'

A vague suggestion that any criticism of Sturgeon and/or the party is conspiracy theory, no mention at all of current turmoil or dissent. And a 'rousing' call to keep the eye on the prize.

tl/dr: 'Nothing to see here, everything's fine, just close your eyes and think of Scotland'.

Any comments on this?

To extend the analogy further - this is like responding to the Keira Bell document with a link to a Stonewall press release.

The court examined the testimonies and evidence. There not only was a lack of evidence for the accusations, there was evidence directly contradicting them.

What, specifically, do you think the court got wrong? What evidence was missed? What contradictory evidence was false?

Also, @MissBarbary needs to stop repeating that Alex Salmond’s “own lawyer” thinks he is a sex pest. Here is Gordon Jackson QC’s comment on that story:

“After the video footage was released, Mr Jackson said: "To be clear...I do not regard Alex Salmond as a 'sex pest', and any contrary impression is wrong."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790

Nice dismissal there NecessaryScene1

As I said I've never seen FWR posters so vehemently dismissing female victims.

Wings also points out another problem in this post.

wingsoverscotland.com/some-misunderstanding/

“But wait a minute. The Clerk hadn’t asked for messages from “people identified by the police and the Crown as victims of sexual harassment” at all.

The Clerk had in fact asked for messages from “Members of the Scottish Government, Scottish Government civil servants and Scottish Government Special Advisers”.

So why had COPFS apparently sent the Clerk a bundle of “private and personal” messages between the alleged victims instead of what it had been asked for?”

That Rape Crisis statement actually adds weight to those making the case that Salmond was fitted up.

The very essence of the Moorov doctrine, under which the case was built, is a pattern of behaviour among otherwise unconnected accusers, such that their testimonies add up to a pattern of behaviour.

That the women knew each other, and set up a support group prior to the trial, means that the Moorov doctrine should not have been used - they could have co-ordinated their testimonies.

Also given the massive concerns about jigsaw identification, the sentence in the statement that all of the women work in politics is rather startling.

NecessaryScene1

Any comments on this?

www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/blogs/news/1004/redir/

FWR posters aren't usually so keen on dismissing the views of alleged victims whose alleged accounts of assault have failed to meet the criminal standard.

Nonny, I've pm'd you.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55957405

'SNP chief executive Peter Murrell will return to give more evidence to the inquiry into the government's handling of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond on Monday.'

mobile.twitter.com/bbckirstenc/status/1356638320281980929

Working link.

Some one asked for a link to Mhairi article in The National. I don't , but Black's twitter feed links through to this.

www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/blogs/news/1004/redir/

mobile.twitter.com/bbckirstenc/status/1356638320281980929

The QC who has nothing to say about this is Cherry.

MissBarbary - you sound exactly like someone obsessed with JK Rowling being a "transphobe". Is there anything that could dissuade you from your belief that Alex Salmond is a "sex pest"?

Are you willingly avoiding reading court proceedings that could challenge the belief, as others avoid reading what JK Rowling wrote?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but given the forces brought to bear to find anything to hang Salmond by, and the paucity of the results, is it not conceivable that there's nothing there?

Or are you just convinced that if someone says someone's a "transphobe"/"sex pest" that must be so, or they wouldn't have had the accusation made towards them?

Given the amount of investigation, at this point Salmond must surely be one of the best-documented non-sex pests in Scottish politics. How many other men have had decades of behaviour gone over with a fine-tooth comb?

Does anyone here subscribe to The National? If you do, could you please give us a jist of what seems like Mhairi Black's response to Joanna Cherry's piece earlier in the week?

www.thenational.scot/news/19070210.can-stop-us-leaving-british-union/

And our FM, a woman much admired across the world, as a progressive, feminist, upstanding politician, a woman I once admired, allegedly at the very top of those vile machinations

Your inability to spot the flaws in Sturgeon is your problem, not mine. Your defence of Salmond is questionable too.

I love your final "just think about it" . As if it had never occurred to me the SNP are corrupt, devious, untrustworthy and incompetent. The current events are no surprise at all.

I think I'll bookmark this thread for future reference when a man is found not guilty of an accusation of a sexual offence. I've never seen such overwhelming acceptance that "not guilty" wipes the slate clean. The usual mantra is "not guilty doesn’t mean not innocent"

Such hypocrisy.

I've already addressed the issue in my last comment, but I'll answer again:

This case does not compare to other sexual assault cases, because the charges in this case were made up. The slate isn't wiped clean because of the verdict. There was no slate.

The media have hated Salmond with unrelenting fervour since forever. If Salmond was a "sex pest" as you keep claiming, they would have published allegations at the height of the independence referendum campaign. That is, after all, the time period the allegations made against him relate to. They needed ammunition against him then and would have used this without hesitation.

Furthermore, if he was a "sex pest", there would have been a slew of further claims against him since the trial, at the very least in the papers who so enjoyed their 8-page spreads when the charges were leaked to the press. Because that is what normally happens in these cases - no shortage of victims, some of whom decide to come forward only after a trial.

That hasn't happened, because whatever his faults, he is not a sexual predator. Salmond was under extreme and constant scrutiny. There would have been heaps of evidence of misconduct if he was.

He might be a bully, I have no idea, but that wasn't the charge in criminal court. (I've never liked the man, but that is neither here nor there. I haven't met him, so my view of him has been shaped very much by the same media that despises him so much.)

I think it might be useful to take independence out of the equation for a moment and look at what is alleged to have happened: the highest levels of our government pressuring police to charge an innocent man. Demanding the police tell them what evidence they need to charge him so they can provide it. (This is now a matter of public record that this happened. Read the evidence supplied to the inquiries.)

And our FM, a woman much admired across the world, as a progressive, feminist, upstanding politician, a woman I once admired, allegedly at the very top of those vile machinations.

That's extremely concerning to me. I can't think of a political scandal in recent UK history that compares to this. And now it's being covered up, the inquiry hobbled, and stacked with members loyal to the FM. Witnesses threatened with prosecution if they give their full evidence to the inquiry. By the Crown Office, allegedly up to their necks in this, too.

Just think about this. Please.

MissBarbary: I think I'll bookmark this thread for future reference when a man is found not guilty of an accusation of a sexual offence. I've never seen such overwhelming acceptance that "not guilty" wipes the slate clean. The usual mantra is "not guilty doesn’t mean not innocent" Such hypocrisy.

Do you genuinely not think the debate is a little bit more nuanced than this?

I've spoken out in some rape/sexual assault cases where the evidence was in the public domain and I strongly felt the court ignored or disregarded it - the Belfast rugby rape case is a recent example. I've also spoken out in cases in which a guilty verdict was returned but the sentencing body basically gave the convicted rapist leeway far beyond relevant sentencing guidelines - the Brock Turner case in the USA is a recent example of this.

In the Alex Salmond case - the evidence that the public is able to see supports the court verdict of not guilty/not proven.

I never wanted to believe that a former Scottish First Minister is guilty of rape/sexual assault. And I don't want to believe that the First Minister of Scotland set someone up to be accused of rape/sexual assault. And I don't want to believe that a former UK Diplomat lied about what he knows about such a case, and that a former First Minister allowed that lie to be spread. I have no idea what is going on (and I think I'm safe in saying most mumsnetters including you are in a similar position). I absolutely HATE that we're in this situation, because who will suffer? Women, and rape victims (who are disproportionately women). But I don't know what to believe. If you do - with evidence - please enlighten us, because so far you have not.

As far as Cherry "leading" an effort to get Salmond's membership - who on earth who is not an SNP member cares? - Salmond resigned from the party to save them the trouble of suspending him while accusations were investigated. If he'd been suspended as he eventually would have been during the investigation, he would have been automatically reinstated when exonerated. People were simply saying that his resignation (which would normally carry an eighteen month prohibition on rejoining the party) should be treated as a suspension. I don't care either way, but it's a very strange thing for a non SNP member to be up in arms about.

Ova agree, my DH has asthma which is well controlled and little more than a bit of an annoyance on high pollen days.

Our son has severe brittle asthma - for years he was very unwell, attended school 50% of the time, life threatening episodes every 6 weeks for several years. We got DLA for him, I was his carer - he was definitely disabled by it.

He was part of a trial of new medication and 5 years on, he's no longer unwell with his asthma. Not at all.

To drag self ID into disability is going to be useful because it will make society examine how we treat people who do have lives impacted by conditions, and those who are disabled by lack of access and not by their condition.

I bet there will be articles about Munchausens within a week. It'll all bring more sunlight.

Joanna Cherry really skewers that Twitter person in the above video. I shouldn't like to be on the receiving end of her incredibly polite but razor-sharp questioning if I were in any way in the wrong!

I also love the way she says 'Twitterrr' 😄