The Fall Out Continues - thread 6

[TheShadowyFeminist]

New 🧵

I found the reporting on the NS thing confusing too - it seems to almost say both in places. Without seeing the report it's hard to judge what went on

@StatisticallyChallenged

Re Prof Tomkins - I don't see a situation where he'd be called in to advise an SNP government personally but the fact he's on the opposition benches doesn't make his presence pointless. We need strong opposition with suitable expertise to hold whichever party is in government to account. We need experts to be involved in the parliamentary committees.

At the moment we seem to have a situation where that expertise is ignored (along with paid for legal advise where they don't like it, see the SNP list topping for an example.) There's an attitude of "I dont care what X thinks because they aren't on our side" which is incredibly unproductive.

Our politics are far too tribal and lacking in the cooperation seen in many countries and that means that many people who could make a valuable contribution are ignored.

I'd say that some legal advice given to givernment ministers seems to be based, wrongly, on how human and fundamental rights can be got out of, rather than applied.

There also a question of why the Scottish taxpayer is having to fund legal costs in defending ultimately ununsuccessful attempts to legislate incorrectly (named persons, scotch whisky, surely the hate crime legislation will be challenged at some point or other).

It was so patently obvious that named person's and minimum alcohol pricing weren't legal under EU law to anyone who has even a smidgeon of knowledge. If it hadn't been for brexit, the EU commission would have fined the UK several million euros of minimum alcohol pricing legislation had been kept in place, as the scotch whisky association would have made a complaint.

For me, if the woman was issued with any kind of apology, and the waiving of fees for me would count as that, having no further action taken doesn't really override the complaint. But as you say, we haven't seen the report. For me it smacks of not really bothering anymore as the person is no longer practicing and therefore no risk and the issue itself is now resolved.

I wonder if it was cleared in the same way that recent events "cleared" NS?

Well with all due respect @WaxOnFeckOff it's not for you to decide.

There is clearly a body in place who deals with that and they did. 🤷🏻‍♀️ They cleared her.

@GreenlandTheMovie Minimum pricing has been around for years and the EU were obviously aware of it so surely if they would have fined us if what you're saying is true?

Being cleared of professional misconduct doesn't negate the incompetence, nor the impact on the woman involved, who had her legal fees waived. I'm sure I've heard similar sentiments mentioned recently, by sturgeon herself, in respect of another person she's happy she doesn't wish to think about or discuss.

@StarryEyeSurprise that’s not how it works. If we’d remained then cases could have been brought against it.

I suppose it depends on individual views on the EU whether it matters or not. The only reason I’d ever vote for independence is if we’d get back in the EU and I can’t see that happening

@TheShadowyFeminist

Being cleared of professional misconduct doesn't negate the incompetence, nor the impact on the woman involved, who had her legal fees waived. I'm sure I've heard similar sentiments mentioned recently, by sturgeon herself, in respect of another person she's happy she doesn't wish to think about or discuss.

So what's the point of the process then? What's the point of the bodies that exist to investigate?

I don't doubt that NS has made mistakes in her professional career. I'm sure we all have.

We don't know the ins and outs of this apart from what she was accused of and what the outcome was so I don't see much point in speculating on what may or may not have happened.

Oh yes, another "nothing to see here" example.

NS has a history of poor decision making, broken promises and failure to support women, just the type of person we need to run the country.

@WaxOnFeckOff

Oh yes, another "nothing to see here" example.

NS has a history of poor decision making, broken promises and failure to support women, just the type of person we need to run the country.

I keep finding memes that resonate...

@WaxOnFeckOff

Oh yes, another "nothing to see here" example.

NS has a history of poor decision making, broken promises and failure to support women, just the type of person we need to run the country.

I completely disagree but each to their own.

If a person has a complaint made against them at work and the regulatory body investigates and clears them then surely that's that.

It may well limit your view of them as a person and a professional which is, of course, your right. It doesn't, however, get to define them the way it would were they found guilty or whatever the correct term is.

Everyone makes mistakes at work. Sometimes it's just that and not anything deeper or more sinister.

@forfucksakenett How does that not cut both ways though? NS "made a mistake" but Salmond must be publicly apologetic in spite of innocence.

BTW I hate Salmond with a passion and think he probably was sleazy. I just don't see how she can stand up and criticise one person for getting away with it and her supporters not expect the same scrutiny of her.

Minimum pricing was introduced in 2018.

Were there any cases brought against it prior to us leaving Europe? I can't see anything but I'm not great at googling.

I'm looking at the overall picture. The person who conducted the investigation said that the behaviour was "unbecoming that of a solicitor" (may not be exactly that but I think I have that pretty close. That person has risen in the legal ranks since. The law firm waived the fees which, regardless of any without prejudice statement they may have given, is a clear steer that there was wrong doing.

It's also not about a one off error, it was a catalogue of errors which could have been dealt with appropriately at any point over the time. I can see forgetting to lodge the application but when called out on it, then submitting it, or not initially getting an interdict (or whatever it's called) but then reappraising the situation or getting advice from someone more experienced etc.

I think the fact that by the time the review was completed NS was no longer practicing is relevant to the result.

I do expect scrutiny of her. I expect scrutiny of everyone in power.

If she has asked AS to apologise then that's potentially problematic depending on what he's expected to apologise for. He may not have been found guilty but he did admit to poor behaviour. If she wants him to apologise for that then surely that's acceptable. We all should apologise for poor behaviour should we not? If she has asked him to apologise for crimes he was found innocent of then that's appalling.

If a person was cleared of professional misconduct over twenty years ago then I don't see why that means they are incompetent now.

BTW I hate Salmond with a passion and think he probably was sleazy. I just don't see how she can stand up and criticise one person for getting away with it and her supporters not expect the same scrutiny of her.

Sturgeon's hypocrisy has been an ongoing feature on these threads. I've never been a Salmond fan either - ironically when I've voted SNP in the past it's been more to do with the overall impression that Sturgeon was a very competent leader/politician etc. But she's been the 1st minister for 7 years? Her record is what's under more scrutiny now because of the whole Salmond investigation, and her flaws/failings exposed as a result. Her background in law is part of that but some feel particularly threatened by even discussing this.

Scotland's FM is up for judgement as she's seeking re-election. It's ironic (IMO) that none of what's discussed here will even touch the sides of Sturgeon's vote or support & yet there's a considerable effort to derail anything that's critical of sturgeon. 🤨

@WaxOnFeckOff

I'm looking at the overall picture. The person who conducted the investigation said that the behaviour was "unbecoming that of a solicitor" (may not be exactly that but I think I have that pretty close. That person has risen in the legal ranks since. The law firm waived the fees which, regardless of any without prejudice statement they may have given, is a clear steer that there was wrong doing.

It's also not about a one off error, it was a catalogue of errors which could have been dealt with appropriately at any point over the time. I can see forgetting to lodge the application but when called out on it, then submitting it, or not initially getting an interdict (or whatever it's called) but then reappraising the situation or getting advice from someone more experienced etc.

I think the fact that by the time the review was completed NS was no longer practicing is relevant to the result.

The only place I can see that quoted is that blog.

None of the actual media outlets that have reported it have said that so I'm going to take it with a pinch of salt until it's actually confirmed.

Potential misinformation, however much you want to believe it, isn't helpful and I'm really not sure of the quality of that source tbh.

@WaxOnFeckOff so no I don't think you're looking at the overall picture. Your parroting someone else's blog.

I wasn't following it much (I don't drink) but according to BBC the ECJ ruled in 2015 that it might breach if other options exist like taxation, but that it was ultimately for national court to decide.

Supreme court then said in 2017 that they could do it.

Whether it would have been open to more challenges without brexit, not sure

You're

@StatisticallyChallenged

I wasn't following it much (I don't drink) but according to BBC the ECJ ruled in 2015 that it might breach if other options exist like taxation, but that it was ultimately for national court to decide.

Supreme court then said in 2017 that they could do it.

Whether it would have been open to more challenges without brexit, not sure

Interesting. Thank you very much.

[quote forfucksakenett]@WaxOnFeckOff so no I don't think you're looking at the overall picture. Your parroting someone else's blog.

[/quote]
No, the only bit I've quoted (if that) is the pasted bit from the report. It's months since I even read the blog but I do have a mind of my own and can look at the evidence available. Writer of initial report promoted, compensation paid to complainant. That's damning enough.

Add that to the rest of the failures and poor judgement, lies, deflection, broken promises, bad management, failure to support etc etc it's a pretty poor picture.

I wasn't aware that I had demonised anyone and certainly not to the extent that it was 'chilling'
I didn't spot that either forfucksakenett.

The reason sturgeon's lawyer career, long since abandoned for politics, is featured in a media story now & not just a blog is because the women who was the recipient of Sturgeon's incompetence has spoken on record to the Daily Express.

She's highlighted Sturgeon's hypocrisy as the reason she's commenting 20 odd years later, long after her complaint was investigated.

This is what she says:

The way those women were let down was her responsibility and it was completely wrong.^ It goes back to my story; there was no responsibility taken. How can you sail through life like that and not admit any responsibility for when things go wrong?^ When she told me she was moving on to politics, an alarm bell rang and I immediately thought, ‘That’s why I’m getting nowhere'. She was focused on herself and her own career.^ To me, that’s what she is doing now as well. Where was her focus on the two women who complained about Alex Salmond?^"It is a case of history repeating itself.”

It's absolutely fair comment to discuss this, as relevant, given Sturgeon's impressive ability to be a massive hypocrite when it comes to her own political ambitions. Anyone is fair game when it comes to the bus she's happy to throw people under. And having demonstrated conduct 20 yrs ago which resonates with more recent conduct is absolutely something relevant to discuss here.

Total italic failure there 🤦🏻‍♀️