Salmond v Sturgeon Round 2.

[Cismyfatarse]

As the conversation is interesting and the thread is nearly full. Does it matter if Sturgeon is guilty - do you know or care? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/4153007-Does-it-matter-if-Sturgeon-is-guilty-do-you-know-or-care

I know that QC of old. He's been indiscreet in a number of ways for many years now.

is this Salmond's QC Gordon Jackson? yes, that was bizarre - filmed on a train after the trial loudly naming the complainants.

and saying of Alex Salmond. “He was quite an objectionable bully to work with in a way I don’t think Nicola [Sturgeon] is. I think he was a nasty person to work for … a nightmare to work for.”

And referring to one complainer, saying how he wanted to make the jury think she was 'a flake and not like her,” then goes on to discusses his defence tactics with another woman, saying: “All I need to do is put a smell on her.”

The words 'sex pest' were also caught on film but he apologised later insisting he did not think Alex Salmond was a 'sex pest'.

it does all seem very bizarre for someone of his experience

I assume Wightman felt bullied because he was being hounded and bullied
sadly, i think you're right. it's pretty horrible.

Why has the committee suddenly moved online?

I have been listening to the Lord Advocate though I must stop now.

Look, I don’t know how these things work, but the story about how they decided to involve the police and at what point I found quite murky. He seemed to be saying, look I know it doesn’t sound good but honestly, this is all above board! But the collaboration of the crown office and the SG sounded strange to a lay person and I really couldn’t follow the rationale. What other organisation but the SG would have the benefit of this approach? Surely everyone else would just be handing it over to the police.

does what the LA just said mean that someone lied to get evidence from the complainers??!!

This is confusing stuff. I don’t understand what the relationship between these people and institutions is and what it is meant to be.

@happygolurkey

Is that GJ?
I'd not like to put MN in a potentially tricky position so I couldn't say.

What I would say it that most people (inc me!) are flawed & a person's private & professional life are separate. But the person I knew (quite well) was someone with no personal integrity at all. Of course a good QC will use many tactics on behalf of their client, including taking apart the character of a woman complaining (ironically!) of sexually inappropriate behavior. But some will do so clinically, & some really enjoy it. I thought this person was, potentially, on 'the wrong side of t' box' in the court given their own behavior in Edinburgh at that time.

So, it's possible that Mr GJ QC was, say, a little worse for wear & being a bit indiscreet on the train. It's also possible that he was deliberately leaking critical info in this way - he certainly said rather a lot!

@ATieLikeRichardGere

This is confusing stuff. I don’t understand what the relationship between these people and institutions is and what it is meant to be.

I think that’s exactly the problem. There should be a clear separation of powers between the Government and the prosecution service to ensure justice appears transparent and without bias.

The DPP in England is in charge of prosecutions as the Lord Advocate is here. But the DPP is not part of government as the LA is here.

This whole debacle has now led to questions over the independence of the Scottish legal system from the state

Omg. The lord advocate

Going on and on and on but actually saying nothing

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Always experienced people but yet they lost the case

52andblue
thanks for answering. think i'm more confused than before! but, as you say, if there's a risk of getting mumsnet into tricky territory, best left there. it was the mention of the outburst on the train earlier that triggered the memory.
So, it's possible that Mr GJ QC was, say, a little worse for wear & being a bit indiscreet on the train. It's also possible that he was deliberately leaking critical info in this way - he certainly said rather a lot!
this is kind of what went through my mind at the time - as i say, totally bizarre - if it was on purpose it's strange to see his motivation - he lost his position as dean of faculties of advocates over it. anyway, by the bys now I guess

I'm just catching up on the LA over lunchtime. Already starting on an interesting point with the in private/not in private and what role is he appearing in.

The LA seemed to repeat that in his capacity as LA he is independent but obviously he would say that and I’m unclear from this evidence how I would know if that were true.

I’m very confused about what the relationship was between the SG, the CO and the police in the allegations against Salmond and who made the decisions about what to investigate and who should investigate it. I’m also not clear who made decisions about what could be released to the public and what those decisions were.

I’m unclear whether certain redactions etc were made on the basis of preventing the jigsaw identification of complainants or some other purpose, and who was responsible for deciding to make these redactions. Re Salmonds recent evidence the CO intervened, but the parliament made the decisions to redact?

My brain can’t cope.

I’m unclear whether certain redactions etc were made on the basis of preventing the jigsaw identification of complainants or some other purpose, and who was responsible for deciding to make these redactions

I believe it was jigsaw

Bit of a coincidence that GC just happened to be overheard by a journalist in the train as well! Wonder who was potentially in the pub with him!

Jackie Baillie infers that the complainers of assault by AS were told they were being asked for their evidence BY the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate clearly stated that he did no such thing. That it is not within his power to do so

This is the same as Martin Bashir faking bank accounts to get Diana to talk.

I'm appreciating Murdo Fraser using the Rangers case as the example of section 162 being set aside.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

I have been listening to the Lord Advocate though I must stop now.

Look, I don’t know how these things work, but the story about how they decided to involve the police and at what point I found quite murky. He seemed to be saying, look I know it doesn’t sound good but honestly, this is all above board! But the collaboration of the crown office and the SG sounded strange to a lay person and I really couldn’t follow the rationale. What other organisation but the SG would have the benefit of this approach? Surely everyone else would just be handing it over to the police.

In matters of politics, it is always key to ask "cui bono"? Who does well out of an action or an omission? There are not many coincidences in politics that don't happen with the will to do it.

Startling clarity can be obtained instead of asking why did it happen, more, who wanted it to happen? Then you get to your how and maybe the why if it matters.

@Dinnafashyersel

I was critical of your comments earlier LexMitior. However I am in complete agreement with your clarification. Also agree with comments re Joanna Cherry which seem pretty much unanimous.

Commented on sessell's article link on the other thread. Definitely worth reading.

All the astroturfing chat has fair lightened the mood. Wish I didn't have to get up and get on cos it will take me ages to catch up.

@Dinnafashyersel - its a debate and I don't take offence. To my mind, criticism of ideas is essential, it is not offence and it moves people along. Otherwise you have a society that thinks opinions akin to some sort of religious belief and can't be questioned. I have real contempt for nationalist magical thinking on that basis.

That is based on a rather excellent Scottish idea called the Enlightenment. That is the Scotland I consider could make a go of independence, not these ideological people who prey on emotions and bitterness.

I don't necessarily disagree but it's a slightly risky question in this case as its often used as a way to stop discussion - if you can't explain Sturgeon/whoever else's motive then it can't be true.

In terms of cui bono I can imagine that I would want to retain some control over an investigation for as long as I could for few possible reasons. In the most likely scenario to me, I’m actually not seeing this as a grand conspiracy to bring down Alex Salmond, but I am seeing problems. I think if I were someone in control within the SNP/SG presented with this, with these potentially explosive sort of allegations and little sense of who might be implicated and what collateral damage there might be, I might just want to keep it all in my control for as long as possible, make sure everyone is on the same page, make sure we know what there is to know in its entirety, before passing it along to someone independent. I would just want to make sure I was prepared to control the narrative. Which in itself is problematic.

hmmm, I wonder what incentivised Nicola sturgeon to mention lockdown may be lifted sooner. Why today? How very strange...

@jabbathebutt

hmmm, I wonder what incentivised Nicola sturgeon to mention lockdown may be lifted sooner. Why today? How very strange...

Yep, we've just been wondering the same.

Bouncing back a bit, the tories have published a wee report . I haven't read it all but p17/18 has their summary of when Sturgeon mislead parliament and what she said. Dates are there, fmqs seem to be on youtube so you might be able to use their dates to verify

www.thesalmondinquiry.com/clkn/https/uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/603e0facebc03b44a0349392_Sturgeon_Salmond.pdf

These issues of lack of separation and "independence" within these organisations has been pointed out and detailed in the press for many years. There has been a long time to sort this out before now. It must have been evident to some of these highly intelligent people before now that there is a conflict of interest?

I mean, even in my lowly position I have to pass a module in conflict of interest every year and it's one of the checks I would make on other areas within my business (who also have to complete the module). Did no-one ever put their hand up and say "oh hang on a minute...." are they not subject to monitoring and internal audit with regards their systems and controls and the way they operate?