Joanna Cherry (SNP) sacked

Seems inevitable that this type of thing will eventually lead to schisms amongst those who campaign on behalf of disability, if it hasn't already.

Joan McAlpine looks as if she will lose her top slot on the list to someone with diabetes. I don't think any of the people I know with diabetes think of it as anything other than a managed condition, even if it apparently technically qualifies as a disability. I suppose my own managed condition would count as well although I wouldn't dream of claiming a reserved disability slot on the back of it.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lack-of-equalities-policy-shocks-snps-new-convener-lynne-anderson-d5jf2wbvq

I'm intrigued by the hints of snippiness between Cherry and Anderson , but the more infighting the better.

Amazing clip of Joanna and Twitter executive. Highlights massive issues with their safeguarding, monitoring and training.

You are accusing me of hypocrisy? For what exactly, please be specific if you're going to be so rude.

[the allegations are that] they conspired to deprive an innocent man of his freedom in order to get rid of a potential political rival

I think Joanna Cherry is right that these investigations have to carried out thoroughly and properly, to get to the truth.

Such hypocrisy.

Joanna Cherry has been appointed at deputy chair to the Human Rights Committee possibly looking at the Freedom of Speech consultation- yayy

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-was-a-bully-and-a-sex-pest-his-own-qc-says-on-train-jfgbkr857

And as for being cleared in court, my goodness I don't know how you can write that with a straight face- as if being found not guilty has ever prevented reprehensible conduct being called out on here.

Just watched that video thanks for posting

Joanna cherry tryin* to pin down that Twitter executive was something to see

She is a great supporter of women

The National Sex Crimes unit achieved significant changes in how women and girls making complaints of sexual assault were treated.its aim was to treat women with dignity and improve the conviction rates for rapists and predators.

www.womensgrid.org.uk/archive/2009/07/01/scotlands-national-sex-crimes-unit-is-the-first-of-its-kind-in-europe/

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/new-sex-crime-chiefs-warning-1028804

I’d say being part of that effort that was quite a big contribution to helping women.

What has Joanna Cherry ever done for women?

Well, apart from standing up for our right to single-sex provision (and losing her front bench position for it), she also forced Twitter and Facebook executives to admit they were failing to protect women on their platforms from misogyny.

She was also one of the first specialist sex crimes prosecutors in Scotland.

*Charlie, sorry.

Thanks, Charley, for that. Clear and more extensive than I could muster!

As soon as Salmond was found not guilty, despite his reprehensible conduct leading his own QC to label him a sex pest, Cherry was leading the charge to have him re-instated as a party member.

His lawyer was not expressing his own opinion of Salmond but how he is being portrayed. That recording was edited to make it appear that he did.

And this isn't merely a case of he said/she said. He was found not guilty because the charges had no merit. (The police went on a fishing expedition and interviewed over 400 people to find something to pin on him. This included talking to all of his protection officers who ensured his safety day and night. Isolated incidents they might not have known about. A pattern of behaviour that amounted to "sex pest" they would.)

Not one of the alleged incidents involved an independent or outside complainer, which is highly unusual where the alleged behaviour is supposed to represent a pattern. The majority of the 14 offences were only brought up because of the Moorov Doctrine (a mechanism in Scottish law whereby corroboration to a similar but unrelated charge can come from an independent additional complainer - this means that if you can prove a systematic pattern of the same behaviour this weighs heavily against the defendant.)

The defence demonstrated in court that none of the charges had merit. For some of the offences that was because Salmond and the complainants in question were not even in the same place at the time the incidents were alleged to have happened.

There is a reason why the very detailed, day-by-day BBC documentary about the case against Alex Salmond skips the defence days completely. Because once you hear the case for the defence, you know he's not guilty.

The issues are connected to current ongoing case of accusations made against Alex Salmond.

I'd like to clarify this, if I may ArabellaScott lest others get the wrong impression:

There is no "ongoing case of accusations made against Alex Salmond". There are however two ongoing parliamentary inquiries into how Salmond came to be charged. One is looking specifically into the role the Scottish Government had in unlawfully changing the rules in order to pursue Salmond for misconduct, the other is looking specifically into the conduct of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister in relation to the whole affair.

Salmond won not only his criminal case in court, he also won his case against the Scottish Government having created new rules just so they could pursue misconduct charges against him. After contesting the case for the state, the Scottish Government lawyers threatened to walk away if the Scottish Government did not concede the case (that it had acted unlawfully against Salmond). Which is what the Scottish Government finally did in January 2019. In March 2020 he was then found not guilty in the criminal case.

So, Salmond has been cleared of all charges. The Scottish Government and the FM however are currently under investigation by two parliamentary inquiries. What the allegation amounts to, according to Alex Salmond and a number of others, is essentially that they conspired to deprive an innocent man of his freedom in order to get rid of a potential political rival.

I'm suggesting that even if not criminal Salmond's conduct was objectionable and unacceptable. Cherry was calling for his reinstatement as soon as the verdict was out

Do you think that might due a combination of respecting the verdict ( She's a QC); and also an understanding of what may have been ruthless, partisan and expedient political shenanigans behind the scenes?

Yes Libby Brooks usually writes for the Observer which is usually better than the Guardian re GC feminism, though often adds a sort of sorry to mention this trans people!

Severin Carrell is apparently the Guardian's Scottish editor so I suppose they were paired up to get both the Scottish angle and the GC trans angle.

And in fact also good that they acknowledge that when dealing with politcal parties journalists are subject to factional briefings (ie when its about the Labour party they just pick the faction they want to report as though it were fact).

Still sad to actually have to recommend an article for following basic reporting principles.

MissBarbary you keep saying Salmond is a 'sex pest' but he was cleared in court.

@teezletangler

That article from the Guardian is actually... balanced and it ended on a pro-debate note. Does anyone know either of the names from the byline and what they've written before?

I thought it was pretty factual too. But hardly any sauces named (which shows how toxic the area is) and I somehow didn't like the the way they handled the quote from an anon. basically accusing her of playing the victim. But if that's what was said it needs reporting. Not sure how better to do so in a non partisan way tbh.

I'm not suggesting I don't believe in the court system - so please don't invent things (although many posters on here are very ready to question acquittals)

I'm suggesting that even if not criminal Salmond's conduct was objectionable and unacceptable. Cherry was calling for his reinstatement as soon as the verdict was out.

I thought the Guardian article an improvement on their usual offerings.

I suspect its attempt at balance may be to do with the fact that its subject is a QC?

That article from the Guardian is actually... balanced and it ended on a pro-debate note. Does anyone know either of the names from the byline and what they've written before?

I have no idea to what extent she has supported salmond

I guess if someone is found not guilty then you should treat them as such

Even if you don't like him and suspect he is a horrible person , you should not say you can't play because we don't like you and we don't believe the court system

I was also going to say that the Guardian has done a report that is very nearly factual, rather than a one sided report about trans being disrespected.

That the Guardian even admitted there is another point of view, ie that of women's rights is quite something.

Sad to have to be pleases that a newspaper has been factual.

As soon as Salmond was found not guilty, despite his reprehensible conduct leading his own QC to label him a sex pest, Cherry was leading the charge to have him re-instated as a party member.

I'm puzzled, given the misogynistic nature of the SNP, that none of Cherry's fans think it's even worth questioning why she is happy to lend support to a sex pest to be re- admitted to the party to add to the misogyny.