Salmond v Sturgeon Round 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Previous thread here.

@LexMitior

Retrospective policy making with criminal consequences is very authoritarian and offends the rule of law. That is very much favoured by repressive regimes.

What is to stop this applying to anyone else in Scotland, or to a poster in this thread- aren’t you worried that your government retrospectively changes things to suit? That is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Can't say I'll ever be worried about sexual offence policies being put in place. Complete hyperbole.

Well done 👏✔.

@daisyfraser

Thanks, kurt Can you imagine it, though? - Queen Street will be renamed Sturgeon Sràid. And we'll be provided with a list of acceptable jokes and vocabulary. Everything else will be outlawed.

Are you ok Daisy? I feel like you should maybe have a lie down.

That wasn’t my question. My question was, doesn’t the retroactivity bother people?

She looks hammered doesn’t she I bet she sleeps well tonight

I mean there’s quite a lot case law that says - a bit of an issue with that...

@LexMitior

That wasn’t my question. My question was, doesn’t the retroactivity bother people?

What, that they put in place a policy to cover ex and not just current FM's that commit sexual offences? No.

@LexMitior

That wasn’t my question. My question was, doesn’t the retroactivity bother people?

As a general rule, it bothers me.

No one bothered then? I mean down here, it would be a big deal to do that

It bothers me. We have a police force to deal with historical cases.

@LexMitior

No one bothered then? I mean down here, it would be a big deal to do that

Down where?

Thanks, Starry
But not clear what my condition has to do with the thread?
Are you just being generally unkind to me for some unclear reason ?

I see some are and some aren’t! Well an interesting choice for Scots!

Retrospective legislation is a bad thing as one should know what the law is. Not what it might be, later on

Even in terms of the time invested, I would say she gives an infinite amount of fucks more than, say, Boris Johnson, who could barely be arsed to show his face for weeks at a time
Quite. Even with all this going on, I'd prefer NS as UK prime minister over the complete shambles currently in place

@WouldBeGood

Retrospective legislation is a bad thing as one should know what the law is. Not what it might be, later on

I'm quite sure everyone knows that sexual harassment is not a good .😬

I think it's a risky road to go down, and it's problematic to start creating retrospectively applied policies and potentially laws. It's easy to think "well I don't care, X is a crappy thing to do and I wouldn't have done it so..." but times change and standards change and you could easily find yourself on the receiving end of something in future.

NB I'm not saying anything he was accused of was appropriate at the time before anyone tries to misconstrue what I mean. I mean once you start saying it's ok to make rules restrospectively it is a very slippery slope

What is to stop this applying to anyone else in Scotland, or to a poster in this thread- aren’t you worried that your government retrospectively changes things to suit? That is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Yes I’m very concerned. Some one put up a post regarding retrospective speeding fines, very good explanation of human rights manipulation.

@LexMitior

I see some are and some aren’t! Well an interesting choice for Scots!

I think this is a tricky situation because where talking about dealing with a position of power that's only existed for 21 years. There was no procedure in place to deal with complaints against former-FMs. You would think police would deal with historic cases, but in matters of harassment in the work place would they always be appropriate? But, yes, retrospect policy makes me uncomfortable.

@QuentinWinters

Even in terms of the time invested, I would say she gives an infinite amount of fucks more than, say, Boris Johnson, who could barely be arsed to show his face for weeks at a time Quite. Even with all this going on, I'd prefer NS as UK prime minister over the complete shambles currently in place

You're brave saying that on mumsnet!

@WouldBeGood

Retrospective legislation is a bad thing as one should know what the law is. Not what it might be, later on

Indeed! It is wild stuff and I am fascinated by the easy acceptance of the idea! It is strongly litigated against.

To support @daisyfraser I think the evidence fully supports her contention that NS is crooked and unaccountable. If you strip your emotion out and look at the facts it's not an unreasonable statement.

'Dictator' is possibly a stretch too far as we are still a democracy, but when you have a population determined not to look too closely - to support the obfuscation as they don't believe it matters as much as bigger goals ie. wheest for indy / hate the tories - then the rest of us are stuck with a de facto dictatorship.

Saying that, I'm still on the fence re indy - I just don't think a leading party with this level of corruption is a good foundation for a new country.

@Coquohvan

What is to stop this applying to anyone else in Scotland, or to a poster in this thread- aren’t you worried that your government retrospectively changes things to suit? That is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Yes I’m very concerned. Some one put up a post regarding retrospective speeding fines, very good explanation of human rights manipulation.

Again, are we not in agreement that sexual offences are wrong?

Not - oh last week, sexual offences were ok , now we're making them wrong. That's what you're saying from your comparison with speed limits. 🙈

Is it making retrospective rules to put in place a policy for dealing with historic accusations of harassment? I don't think it is, the alternative is men get away with harassment because victims don't come forward.
Its a shame we have moved on from #metoo so quickly back to "innocent until proven, mens lives ruined, yadda yadda"

I don't know if I'm missing something, but isn't it more that the law is being adjusted as there was a gaping flaw in it, that someone who had left public office couldn't be investigated?

I'm not being goady or anything, that's how I understood it, is that incorrect?

@sessell

To support *@daisyfraser* I think the evidence fully supports her contention that NS is crooked and unaccountable. If you strip your emotion out and look at the facts it's not an unreasonable statement.

'Dictator' is possibly a stretch too far as we are still a democracy, but when you have a population determined not to look too closely - to support the obfuscation as they don't believe it matters as much as bigger goals ie. wheest for indy / hate the tories - then the rest of us are stuck with a de facto dictatorship.

Saying that, I'm still on the fence re indy - I just don't think a leading party with this level of corruption is a good foundation for a new country.

The corruption? She's been interrogated since 9 am, essentially on the fact that she forgot a meeting that took place two days earlier than a different meeting.

Please explain what she's done which is corruot and how she gained from it? That is corruption, yes?