Alex Salmond - acquitted of all 14 charges

[rabbitsnose]

Just now

Just have to buy his book when it comes out (though perhaps best to avoid the pop-up version).

The women speak up

'"Today we want to send a strong and indisputable message that such behaviours should not be tolerated - by any person, in any position, under any circumstances."

"Many of us did speak up at the time of our incidents but were faced with procedures that could not deal with complaints against such a powerful figure. Others were silenced by fear of repercussions.

"It was our hope, as individuals, that through coming forward at this time we could achieve justice and enact change.

"We remain firm in our belief that coming forward to report our experiences and concerns was the right thing to do.

"But it is clear we alone cannot achieve the change we seek."

Brave women - odious man protected by the establishment and allowed to get away with what was, at best, creepy and sleazy beahviour to women.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-was-a-bully-and-a-sex-pest-his-own-qc-says-on-train-jfgbkr857

I don't know how to do share tokens but this Times article has video and audio footage of Gordon Jackson discussing the case on a train and naming 2 of the victims.

I think it was fairly well know that Salmond was a bully and a sex pest, but it appears that is acceptable in Scottish society - the rot starts at the very top.

I have no insights into this case, and I can well believe Alex Salmond's behaviour towards those women was shameful and maybe even criminal. What I have also come to believe is that whether such cases are brought to trial has everything to do with the question, whether it would be expedient for political players around such men to have them removed or not. For most political players the accusation of sexual harrassment in politics has become nothing more than a cudgel used to beat down one's opponents while ignoring accusations on one's own side while smearing the victims.

Just look at what is happening around the accusations against Biden. All those 'believe women' Democrats in the US have now changed their tune to 'yeah, but not that woman', now that a woman accuses Biden of sexual assault. And this woman isn't even hiding behind anonymity. And even TIME'S UP have dragged their feet, when it came to supporting her. Because, it would be political interference. I sure wonder, if TIME'S UP would also have declined taking up the cause, had the accused politician been, say, Trump or Bernie.

www.newsweek.com/biden-campaign-team-denies-past-sexual-assault-allegation-former-senate-staffer-1494794

Still waiting for Neera Tanden to say 'believe women', there.

I'm so sick of this tribalism and opportunism.

true but this his own QC admitting it, although the defence was basically that he was sleazebag but not guilty of the charges.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/alex-salmonds-qc-under-pressure-21774161

The point re the Gordon Jackson story is it is a serious breach of professional standards. He should never have named the accusers at any time but this conversation was held in public during the first week of the trial.

Yes - when your best defence is ”my behaviour was sleazy and inappropriate but not ACTUALLY illegal” - that isn’t a ringing endorsement of the man’s character.

Yes - when your best defence is ”my behaviour was sleazy and inappropriate but not ACTUALLY illegal” - that isn’t a ringing endorsement of the man’s character.

Actually a statement that is clearly true for both, the GOP candidate and the prospective Democratic candidate for US president in 2020. (Though, in both cases, the alleged but not proven incidents imply illegality).

And it won't prevent one of the two from becoming US president.

In this light, it is outright absurd to believe that anyone in the political class (and beyond) is actually bothered about 'their' candidates being sex pests or even rapists. It simply does not matter.

Nice try Dido but I haven't once defended Salmond. I'm just not happy at your repeated attempts to smear everyone involved with the SNP and your tendency to manufacture 'facts' to achieve that aim.

TheMagiciansMewTwo

Nice tryDidobut I haven't once defended Salmond. I'm just not happy at your repeated attempts to smear everyone involved with the SNP and your tendency to manufacture 'facts' to achieve that aim

Who are you? I don't recall noticing your name.

I've no idea which posts you are referring to. In case it needs explaining, which it obviously does, my posts this morning refer to Jackson's serious breach of professional standards. If you don't understand why that is an issue it's beyond my capacity to explain it to you.

TheMagiciansMewTwo
Perhaps you are referring to SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius's post?

Because otherwise I am not clear what your hyperbolic comment is about.

As for "smearing" the SNP- Stick your head in the sand if you want but it's obvious the party is riven with infighting and factions. No one need "smear" them for that.

This is inevitable when you have a one party state. People take liberties that should be questioned by a functioning opposition. We are slowly heading that way in the rest of the uk and it’s not a good place to be.

And so much for the great FWR feminist hope that is Joanna Cherry. Nothing to say except let Eck back into the party as soon as possible.

No acknowledgement that even if his conduct failed to meet the criminal standard the conduct he admitted to, which his own defence acknowledged, was reprehensible. On that alone should he be welcomed back ?

Gordon Jackson refers himself to legal watchdog

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/29/alex-salmond-qc-to-be-investigated-after-naming-trial-women

I have decided that the proper course of action is to self-refer this matter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and that has been done. It will be for the Commission to consider this matter

Anyone can make a complaint to the SLCC. They do not have to be involved in the matter being complained of.

I'm guessing an orderly queue of complainants was being formed.

Dido are you not embarrassed to be using this for political ends and lying about facts to try to achieve that? You keep setting up straw men.
No-one is denying the women have been failed by the internal system and the court system. No-one is denying the SNP is riven with factions the same as any other party. I don't think anyone is even denying he seemed to be a bully and committed adultery. But you're obsessed with blaming Cherry and the entire party. And that seems much more connected to your agenda than trying to find out what actually went wrong here and when.
Many of the complainants don't share your politics. You should at least show them the courtesy of not misrepresenting what has happened here. But your repeated posts show you don't care about what the women want at all.

I must apologise - my post was not aimed at any poster on this thread, and I am very sorry if it offended anyone.

Didoare you not embarrassed to be using this for political ends and lying about facts to try to achieve that?

What lies would that be?

Salmond has been damned by his own defence counsel and a defence witness. Perhaps you could direct your rants at them. Are they lying too?

Cherry was setting herself up as the great saviour of feminism yet has conspicuously made no worthwhile comment. Cherry is clearly quite happy for a man whom several people have described as a creep to be admitted back into the party.

You ask me if I'm embarrassed? Really? I'm embarrassed for Cherry at how craven, weaselly and self- serving she is. She clearly thinks hanging on in the Eck camp is the way for her to get Sturgeon's job.

Embarrassed no? I'm amused by your efforts to defend the lack of integrity in the SNP leadership by your attempts at point scoring.

I am struggling to believe that Scotland's top QC can have been so foolish - I'm wondering if he was fancying retirement from public life and decided to make sure Salmond was buried - interesting that the footage mentions Nicola flatteringly.

I never thought Salmond could realistically come back - that's exactly what that defence was, he's a pest/creepy uncle/a bit of thug but it's not enough for a conviction and we can discredit these witnesses.

That horrible line used by Jackson “All I need to do is put a smell on her” is yet another example of the standard tactic of presenting women complainants as unreliable and not worthy of being believed. I can’t believe he spoke like that on a train but it shows how for some men misogyny is very near the surface.

I wonder how they sleep really, describing someone as a bit flaky and admitting you’ve defended a bully and a pest and got then legally exonerated.

The front page of The National this morning reads: ‘Alex Salmond is innocent ... so it’s time for the trial to end’.
No. Alex Salmond was found not guilty (and on one charge not proven). The word ‘innocent’ is unsuitable and inappropriate. The behaviour he admitted to is not acceptable in any workplace and in no stretch of the imagination ‘innocent’. His own lawyer called him a ‘sex pest’. The same lawyer named two of the complainers in public, which is an outrage.

As a feminist I feel really frustrated at the discussions around this case. To me the issue is about justice for women. I think high profile cases that end in acquittal need to be examined closely, not swept under the carpet or derailed by discussions of party politics. Ten women made allegations against this particular man, and the defence strategy by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates involved putting ‘a smell on’ at least one. It’s profoundly disturbing.

It is absolutely not ‘time for the trial to end’ - it is time to discuss how misogyny pervades the criminal justice system.

He was in court for sexual assault and attempted rape. In a court presided over by a female judge, with a majority female jury he was acquitted.

He was not in court for being a bully and a sleaze of which he evidently is guilty.

He can be innocent of the one and guilty of the other at the same time - it confuses matters to conflate the two.

As it is now in the public domain that the former First Minister was a bully and a sex peat while he was in office, what does that tell us about misogyny in Scottish society?