Ding Ding Ding! Round 5 Salmond and Sturgeon

[Blurberoo]

New thread...

Yes that's the problem article (the tortoise one)

Just reading the LRB just now.

I notice she immediately condemns the unionist side of the committee but fails to acknowledge the weaknesses of the SNP members. Both sides had failings; she describes "opposition members less interested in the HR error which led the investigation to be ruled unlawful (after a judicial review brought by Salmond) than in trying to find the killer question that would somehow lead to Sturgeon’s resignation" which seems on the harsh side of accurate, yet fails to mention the SNP members who made it fairly obvious which side they were on and that no matter what they would not have found against Sturgeon.

I'm not sure her argument about who the women are makes much sense either; the argument seems to be that knowing their identity wouldn't raise eyebrows as they're unknowns. That may be true in terms of name recognition - how many can name civil servants after all - but would it be true if their roles were disclosed? I don't know (I don't know who everyone is) but I suspect this may be twisting the argument somewhat.

Her view on the overall loss of energy and direction is interesting. I also felt that she perhaps wasn't quite so confident about the truth re Salmond as she seemed in the first article - this was more about tone and what wasn't said than anything she did say so may just be my reading.

Just read the LRB one - she's done the same thing I've seen her do often in the past; excuse sturgeon her failings & brushed over the key elements of what went wrong. Describing what took place as 'an error' by Scotgov really is an epic understatement!

I hadn't realised how openly partisan she was, but that certainly makes it clear she's having trouble letting go of the idea that Sturgeon is infallible & has flaws like most of us. Hers are amplified because she's FM and she has to account for failings, especially how politicised complaints became & the incompetence that ran through the whole process from start to end of the JR.

I don't think Dani is capable of objective reflection over what has gone on. But at least I can see why she's struggling with it.

One thing I wonder about is the comment about the height of female representation when 3 parties were led by women etc. They all did their bit in tearing strips off each other, no doubt contributing to 2 of them no longer wanting to do the job!

I suspect Dani is a much better journalist when she's not writing about SNP/Sturgeon/Scotgov.

Yes there was both clear bias in it, and an acknowledgment that for all Sturgeon's purported regrets and apologies, it isn't acceptable situation.

The piece has no truck with the view that going after Sturgeon is about misogyny or scuppering Indy either.

The job roles of the women seemed to be to illustrate the point they weren't all in the same sphere and wouldn't have known each other well enough to collude.

On the whole, Dani does seem to understand that the SNP have let women down.

Thanks everyone. Will read carefully.

I have a few friends who seem to be struggling in a similar way to Dani regarding sturgeon's actions. One also a journalist.

Guess that's the problem with putting people on a pedestal.

It must be hard, I can't recall a politician I've admired that much but at least they are asking questions of themselves at last.

The LRB article is so bland and understated, when it comes to the real story we've been following and discussing on MN. Garavaldi is clearly a sturgeon fan and apologist. And she hates anyone, including journalists, who've been tough on her hero (ie. doing their job!). Then there's the sadness and tiredness, as she feels it all unravelling anyway. It's not far off a spoof teenage diary.

*Garavelli

A friend of a friend is Lesley Riddoch who is a vocal nationalist (and a shite journalist IMO)

It does surprise me that said friend is friends with this journalist as they are a smart person who calls out anyone talking utter pish. They never talk about politics to anyone cause of their job although did once disclose they weren't an SNP member and that the whole women/trans issue makes them uncomfortable.

Really surprises me therefore that they are such good friends with someone like Lesley Riddoch.

I am being deliberately careful with the gender of my friend btw.

I think the claim is that 5 of the women knew each other well enough to be in the “Vietnam” WhatsApp group together.

twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1355053375805652994?lang=en

Just wanted to flag up that Woman A and Woman B in the LRB article have different letters in the criminal trial.

Just wanted to flag up that Woman A and Woman B in the LRB article have different letters in the criminal trial.

This will forever create confusion. Probably intented.

Just on this - “In service of this narrative, the law was misrepresented, and Salmond’s acquittal was said to show that the jury – the ‘MAJORITY-FEMALE jury’, as Twitter warriors liked to emphasise – hadn’t believed the women, rather than that they’d been unable to find the allegations proven beyond reasonable doubt.” - Murray always strongly disputes this point.

There were eyewitnesses to several of the incidents who said that they either didn’t happen (bum grab at photoshoot) or didn’t happen in the way being claimed (Vettriano re-enactment) and Woman H’s friend gave evidence she wasn’t at Bute House on the night of the alleged attack.

So Garavelli is being misleading here. It’s not the usual issue of consent being disputed.

So Garavelli is being misleading here. It’s not the usual issue of consent being disputed.

This is what I find most bizarre. Anyone with an interest in this whole saga would surely want to analyse what happened & why the jury came to the conclusion they did. And she heard all the evidence as well, she's got that edge on all most of us as she listened to what was said by everyone. So she's in the position of giving a fair reflection of what was said & should have been capable of reflecting that. But she still can't do it.

For me that’s such a failure of journalism. The only place I could read the defence was Craig Murray’s blog. I wanted to read it because I found it very hard to believe Alex Salmond was a sex pest. I know that people now claim there were all sorts of rumours but I was tangentially involved in politics for a long time and I’d heard none about him - well, plenty about him being an arrogant arse but nothing about him being a groper. I read all the lurid allegations and the prosecution case and then there was silence.

That’s the first thing that made me think there was something a bit dodgy going on.

I'm still scratching my head over woman h not even being at the dinner on the night of the alleged incident.

If I was planning to stitch someone up (I wouldn't obvs) on an attempted rape case, that I knew would end up in a court I would make damn sure I had every question that a lawyer could potentially ask answered and more.

I could understand maybe one individual to be stupid enough to not think it all through, but given she was supposed to have conspired with someone else it just all seems a bit far fetched.

I agree that’s a strange one. Did she look back in her calendar and forget she’d not actually been to that dinner as she had meant to? Originally I understood it was implied she was a willing participant in the alleged stitch up due to a particular personal motive but recent Twitter rumours suggest perhaps she was more of an unwilling participant due to a slightly different personal motive. As ever, no idea what I do or should think. Of course maybe the event really happened at a similar dinner and she mixed them up.

I think she did answer everything - but the defence was able to produce witnesses contradicting it.

I kind of see a few options

• it happened, but on a different date. Possible, but I think you'd remember the date and I think they showed no evidence of a visit to Bute around the date either
• didn't happen, went through old diaries, found an occasion which would have fitted and forgot (several years later) that she cancelled?
• the defence suggested his book had info which might have been used too
• it happened as she said and the witnesses were lying.

It's a very weird one. It was one of the most serious charges - how did it get that far if it fell apart so badly? Obviously we can't examine the testimony so can only go on reports of that.

The complainers have given evidence. Has anyone got a share token for the report in the Sunday Times?

Which one @Happinessisawarmcervix? There seems to be about 5 of them!

twitter.com/WalterWhite444/status/1373153116565168129/photo/1

this pretty much says it all.

Sorry I haven't mastered posting photo links.

great cartoon

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-cool-on-independence-after-sturgeon-salmond-slugging-match-2b0xbv72x?shareToken=a4feae615b17eb6e2a2e9c0d003b27d5

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-faces-pressure-over-toxic-culture-under-salmond-v2kcq2rvx?shareToken=9a7be7368760712382f6e3a2e75ab8cc

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nowhere-left-to-run-for-nicola-sturgeon-8fclnw9n6?shareToken=48d4663bb7d2dc359cedc8ecb5e884bc

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sturgeon-set-to-ride-out-storm-of-condemnation-9h9705hnp?shareToken=4159e5eb4d834a6836967b9bb0147209