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

Can someone explain how it was a political opportunity?, to have the women's complaints handled by the police. In my view, it was the opposite.

Yes I agree.

It all seems a bit "We have this new policy, and we want to show it's working. If somebody everybody has heard of is investigated in line with it, everybody will hear about our shiny new policy."

@kurtrussellsbeard she's intelligent enough to smell bullshit, from any political party or politician. It just so happens that bullshit comes most frequently from the SNP.

"If your civil service works correctly then this should not happen - and would anyone else like it, to have their Government make a policy that retroactively applied to them with criminal implications?"

This is a good point - the discussion with the police on 'hypotheticals' which even the police saw through, suggests people were likely to be getting carried away with the enormity of what they'd been made aware of & were looking for ways to try and 'nail' the allegations. There's the Q of political expediency too - very fortuitous for some certainly.

And I think this is the key - this process was developed alongside the knowledge of serious accusations & that in itself informed the path this followed for development.

However that came about, the inability of anyone senior who had responsibility on this to see their own failings is still seriously concerning.

and thank you @OldRailer

moving on now to the actual committee discussion

The reason they decided to make the policy and everything that flowed almost doesn't matter as much as the shambolic way it was executed - once they had decided they didn't listen properly to the police, their legal advice, the crown office or even implement their own policy correctly.

It's a comment that I picked on because it was a bit silly and also insulting. Both to me personally and to others who may vote for SNP.

I think I've said upthread that I think that was wrong lexmitior.

All I'm meaning is I don't know if I'm convinced that they started out with an objective to "take down" Alex Salmond. Maybe I'm being charitable but I could see it being somewhere in the middle - the sky news story crawled out, metoo is happening, these complaints about Salmond start being floated around and suddenly they are at risk of being on the wrong side of a massive movement. So they scramble a policy, knowing it'll be used against AS and with little regard for fairness or legality but with far too much haste.

She was told the case was unwinnable. By all accounts

Yes why did they not concede ?

[quote jabbathebutt]@kurtrussellsbeard she's intelligent enough to smell bullshit, from any political party or politician. It just so happens that bullshit comes most frequently from the SNP.[/quote]
But that's not what you said initially though was it @jabbathebutt

If you make silly sweeping statements like your initial comment then expect someone to pick up on it.

Yes! It is absolutely frightening to me as a lawyer who has worked in crime and public law.

Salmond is a powerful person. What about those of us less articulate?

Also, can someone explain how it came to be that (the police?) said they should not take forward the complaints ( and £500k was 'wasted') yet AS was charged by the police?

@LexMitior

Yes! It is absolutely frightening to me as a lawyer who has worked in crime and public law.

Salmond is a powerful person. What about those of us less articulate?

A powerful person with the money to fight. Anyone poorer would be buried

@daisyfraser

She was told the case was unwinnable. By all accounts

So why was he charged?

"Can someone explain how it was a political opportunity?, to have the women's complaints handled by the police. In my view, it was the opposite."

The complaints were not passed to the police at the stage they were 1st reported or investigated, nor when the investigation had been completed. One of the complainants reported a serious allegation to Ian McCann who said he'd 'sit on it' and would deploy it later if necessary. She herself said her intention for reporting was to prevent Salmond from seeking to be elected again, having it on SNP record for vetting purposes.

It might be unpalatable to some, but the disclosure of Miss H was 'sat on' which suggests not concern with any wider implications but to be 'deployed' later - that's purely political, and not a 'duty of care'.

@StarryEyeSurprise different case

Why was she comparing legal advice in respect to a legal action to that they might get on a policy?

Why are the questions so clear? And yet all her answers are shrouded in foggy verbosity?
She looks like she's unwilling or unable to answer in a clear and confident manner.

Well yes

She's using a lot of verbal fillers at the start of many of her answers

So the legal action was to test a policy ?

I'm going to be away from my computer for lunch, so here's a new thread to move across to when this one fills up.

I'm just hacked off that the person who is supposed to be neutral and run the session isn't controlling it properly at all.

🙏 polka ☺️