Alex Salmond - acquitted of all 14 charges

[rabbitsnose]

Just now

I don’t know whether Scottish society is more misogynist than any other society but my problem with all this as a feminist is that it extends far beyond the former first minister and I think there should be a focus on legal process and discourse.

The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates named two of the women in a phone call in a crowded train. The carelessness about their anonymity is deeply shocking to me. I also think it’s very important to use the term ‘not guilty’ rather than ‘innocent’ when someone has been acquitted of sexual assault.

Cards I completely agree the system and processes should be subject to scrutiny and it's not good enough for people to try to sweep it under the carpet.
It all reminds me a bit of the Tommy Sheridan case. Internal discontent and political manoeuvring spilled over and certain sections within his party saw an opportunity to make political capital. In that case it sunk their party. The SNP should have learnt from that. Their internal mismanagement from the moment when/if any issues were raised seems very poor and motivated by political considerations rather than safeguarding.

Sheridan was proven in a criminal court to be a liar. He thought he would make a killing suing The News of the World and it backfired.

What on earth is your point?

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

Are you confused?

I don't see what is confusing about this at all.

There are certainly SNP /Eck apologists who are painfully labouring the "he's not guilty," point as if people were too thick to understand it.

The issue is his conduct did not meet the criminal criteria but anyone with a shred of decency should be thinking on the stuff he openly admitted to. The SNP high ranks should be asking themselves "is this a man we should be welcoming back into the party with open arms?"

There are no Eck apologists here Dido . Maybe you're confusing MN with somewhere else.

Even his own lawyer called him as sex pest.

Disgusting man.

@DidoLamenting - I think you make a very good point. I think that the fact he has admitted to some behaviour suggests there was worse going on that he hasn't admitted to. I think it is quite common for people to admit to a lesser part of what they've done wrong - like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar who admits to eating one biscuit, but has actually eaten three - if that makes sense.

The phrase 'tip of the iceberg' springs to mind.

TheMagiciansMewTwo

There are no Eck apologists hereDido. Maybe you're confusing MN with somewhere else

Straw man. I didn't say there were. I think you may be confused.

It makes me cringe even hearing about how he was a 'tactile' person, in the context of a work environment that nearly always means groper. If you wanna be tactile do it with friends and family, be professional at work. Likewise when he said his working atmosphere was like a family environment, does not sound endearing, sounds really, really creepy.

TheMagiciansMewTwo

As you are a bit confused about whom I meant by "apologists" - not having referred to any one one here, here's a small selection of the apologists for Eck, including one who is demanding loss of anonymity for victims

And of course Cherry who sees no obstacle in welcoming back to the party with open arms a man who admitted behaviour which was inappropriate.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-joanna-cherry-demands-21740361.amp

www.thenational.scot/news/18343638.wee-ginger-dug-alex-salmond-innocent---trial-must-end-now/

www.thenational.scot/news/18343638.wee-ginger-dug-alex-salmond-innocent---trial-must-end-now/

And Cherry is now demanding that Salmond be welcomed back into the party and that an independent probe be held into how the SNP handled the initial claims made against him

In a statement she said: "I am very pleased that Alex Salmond has been acquitted of these charges

"Those of us who know him, and indeed many of the thousands of people who have met him over the years, did not recognise the man described in the evidence led for the Crown

This thread is interesting. Might be easier to take the layers of the onion apart if some were able to separate their loathing for SNP from everything else. There is absolutely no doubt that this does stink, and taking more than 5 minutes to read about it makes that fact patently obvious too. The legal system supported the prosecution - it was a jury that made the final call. They decided that what they heard didn't stack up and from what I know of proceedings, that decision doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

You can't look at this as a simple case of sexual assault, it's so much more complex than that, and you certainly don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognise that either.

Excellent, objective piece on all of this.

I especially recommend it to Craig Murray fans.

I knew it would be Dani's piece before I clicked on the link.
It is good although I don't agree with everything eg I wish she had unpacked a bit more the 'supporting people can be framed as collusion' because it's quite a big statement to make and it cuts to the heart of a lot of this.
There is a difference between support and collusion, and I don't think the courts generally confuse the two but if lay people are confusing them then it would be good to have a detailed breakdown from a solicitor to explain the difference. No-one wants cases to fail because the victims sought support in the 'wrong' way or because the people they sought support from then acted inappropriately.

^ Prospective members have to declare they meet the criteria contained in two documents. One is the SNP constitution. This requires applicants to endorse the aims of the party, respect its constitution and abide by its “policy and direction”. No obvious problem for Mr Salmond there, although some might quibble about “direction”.

The second document is the code of conduct, which sets out “minimum standards of behaviour”. This includes the duty to “refrain from conduct likely to cause damage or to hinder the party’s proper pursuit of its aims”. It further states: “No member shall abuse, harass or bully” any other member.^

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-next-episode-of-the-alex-salmond-show-will-be-gripping-9fn6zglhr

I'll say it again.

His OWN lawyer who saw all the evidence and more says he's a sex pest.

His OWN lawyer who saw all the evidence and more says he's a sex pest.

Mr Jackson adds: "OK, it's not right but it's not war crimes....this is hardly sexual. Sex offenders register? Not for you.
"Inappropriate, stupid...but sexual? Unfortunately [he then names two of the women accusers} say it's sexual."

The overheard words of Alex Salmond’s lawyer.

Just plopping in with a contribution from Private Eye.

@AnyOldSpartabix

Not sure what your point is? The added words of his lawyer you quote just add to the acknowledgment this man is a sleaze bag.

I also personally know someone to whom he let his bathrobe fall open when receiving a delivered meal at Bute House to show them 'wee eck' on parade. One of his common performances.

He's got form. Don't turn a blind eye to the pattern of sleaze. Don't be his apologist.

I also personally know someone to whom he let his bathrobe fall open when receiving a delivered meal at Bute House to show them 'wee eck' on parade. One of his common performances.

And yet in court, nobody seems to have seen anything inappropriate happening, which was reflected in the verdict.

I’m not his apologist. There are some very odd things occurring within the SNP and I have no idea who is telling the truth and who is lying.

But stating his lawyer said something when what the lawyer said is not certain (the part of the recording where the words ‘sex pest’ were said is very unclear and therefore the context is also unclear) doesn’t help anyone.

More thoughts on this situation.

I do not know whether Alex Salmond is a sex pest or not. It’s possible but remains unproven.

What I do know, is that a group of women close to Nicola Sturgeon support giving women’s rights to a group of men.

Some SNP women, who I believe heavily overlap with the above group, brought a case against Alex Salmond which was so full of holes that despite the high number of accusers and accusations, that every single case was dismissed as unproven.

Women’s rights have received a huge set-back as a direct result of those actions, so I will not throw my weight behind their campaign.

Continuing to contend their case with half-lies and untruths does nobody any favours.

@AnyOldSpartabix

It is a common experience for women to be sexually harassed by men and not to say anything because you get smeared and torn to shreds.

Many women who are raped don't report it let alone everyday harassment.

Salmond case is just another day in the lives of women experiencing this sort of entitlement.

But you keep defending him

I’m not defending him. I’m pointing out that people like you, who lie about what has been said, throw doubt on all the other claims you make. You are part of the problem that women who have been sexually abused face.

And stop @ namequoting me. I’m here on the thread.

I will @AnyOldSpartabix if I want to.

See, you can't always exercise your control.