Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Joanna Cherry (SNP) sacked

383 replies

LittleRa · 01/02/2021 14:26

twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1356233346565730304?s=21
ShockSad

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
ArabellaScott · 05/02/2021 14:41

The issues are connected to current ongoing case of accusations made against Alex Salmond. Maybe try 'advanced search' if you want to find older discussions of it.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 05/02/2021 14:42

Tell you what, I have high expectations of burn level from Cherry - she is more than capable of Baroness-Nicholson-polite-but-brutal-put-down.

I am going to enjoy that a lot.

MichelleofzeResistance · 05/02/2021 15:09

My responsibility?

I didn't tag you, it was a general 'you'. Smile

HeadPain · 05/02/2021 16:04

[quote HeadPain]mobile.twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1357613196081848322[/quote]
It appears that the SNP Students National Secretary has now deleted his tweet
mobile.twitter.com/otherchrises/status/1357463894994919426

Oh, no, he put his profile on private and deleted his bio that identified him as SNP Students National Secretary

mobile.twitter.com/OtherChrises

MichelleofzeResistance · 05/02/2021 16:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MichelleofzeResistance · 05/02/2021 16:09

sorry, wrong thread!

Manderleyagain · 05/02/2021 16:18

Made sense in this thread! That phrase would work in most threads.

niceberg · 05/02/2021 16:32

@zanahoria I thought that Guardian article was surprisingly balanced- I didn't keep wincing as I expected to. What did you make of it?

MissBarbary · 05/02/2021 18:01

@Justhadathought

What has been "widely discussed"? Cherry's support of Salmond? Not mentioned by anyone apart from me. You (general you) are happy to overlook it as long as she's "gender critical

I don't live in Scotland and so am not really very familiar with the precise details and basis of her " support" for Salmond. Can you expand?

He may be a creep, I don't know, but that doesn't mean he cannot also be treated in himself in unfair or under-hand ways.

I'd like to understand the basis of her support, before I could comment further.

Despite Arabella's protestations to the contrary Cherry's support of Salmond has not been widely discussed on here. The Salmond trial was discussed.

As soon as Salmond was found not guilty, despite his reprehensible conduct leading his own QC to label him a sex pest, Cherry was leading the charge to have him re-instated as a party member.

I'm puzzled, given the misogynistic nature of the SNP, that none of Cherry's fans think it's even worth questioning why she is happy to lend support to a sex pest to be re- admitted to the party to add to the misogyny.

stumbledin · 05/02/2021 18:10

I was also going to say that the Guardian has done a report that is very nearly factual, rather than a one sided report about trans being disrespected.

That the Guardian even admitted there is another point of view, ie that of women's rights is quite something.

Sad to have to be pleases that a newspaper has been factual.

midgedude · 05/02/2021 18:15

I have no idea to what extent she has supported salmond

I guess if someone is found not guilty then you should treat them as such

Even if you don't like him and suspect he is a horrible person , you should not say you can't play because we don't like you and we don't believe the court system

teezletangler · 05/02/2021 18:21

That article from the Guardian is actually... balanced Confused and it ended on a pro-debate note. Does anyone know either of the names from the byline and what they've written before?

JaimeLeeCurtains · 05/02/2021 18:28

I thought the Guardian article an improvement on their usual offerings.

I suspect its attempt at balance may be to do with the fact that its subject is a QC?

MissBarbary · 05/02/2021 18:59

@midgedude

I have no idea to what extent she has supported salmond

I guess if someone is found not guilty then you should treat them as such

Even if you don't like him and suspect he is a horrible person , you should not say you can't play because we don't like you and we don't believe the court system

There's a difference between treating someone as not guilty and wiping the slate clean. That point is frequently made on here- pretty much any time a man is found not guilty of anything.

I'm not suggesting I don't believe in the court system - so please don't invent things (although many posters on here are very ready to question acquittals)

I'm suggesting that even if not criminal Salmond's conduct was objectionable and unacceptable. Cherry was calling for his reinstatement as soon as the verdict was out.

Manderleyagain · 05/02/2021 19:19

@teezletangler

That article from the Guardian is actually... balanced Confused and it ended on a pro-debate note. Does anyone know either of the names from the byline and what they've written before?
Libby someone has written on the subject in a balanced straight forward way before from memory. I think she has tried not to give an opinion & hasn't joined in with the pro tra twittering of other guardianists.

I thought it was pretty factual too. But hardly any sauces named (which shows how toxic the area is) and I somehow didn't like the the way they handled the quote from an anon. basically accusing her of playing the victim. But if that's what was said it needs reporting. Not sure how better to do so in a non partisan way tbh.

Calyx72 · 05/02/2021 19:20

MissBarbary you keep saying Salmond is a 'sex pest' but he was cleared in court.

stumbledin · 05/02/2021 19:26

Yes Libby Brooks usually writes for the Observer which is usually better than the Guardian re GC feminism, though often adds a sort of sorry to mention this trans people!

Severin Carrell is apparently the Guardian's Scottish editor so I suppose they were paired up to get both the Scottish angle and the GC trans angle.

And in fact also good that they acknowledge that when dealing with politcal parties journalists are subject to factional briefings (ie when its about the Labour party they just pick the faction they want to report as though it were fact).

Still sad to actually have to recommend an article for following basic reporting principles.

Justhadathought · 05/02/2021 19:54

I'm suggesting that even if not criminal Salmond's conduct was objectionable and unacceptable. Cherry was calling for his reinstatement as soon as the verdict was out

Do you think that might due a combination of respecting the verdict ( She's a QC); and also an understanding of what may have been ruthless, partisan and expedient political shenanigans behind the scenes?

CharlieParley · 05/02/2021 20:31

As soon as Salmond was found not guilty, despite his reprehensible conduct leading his own QC to label him a sex pest, Cherry was leading the charge to have him re-instated as a party member.

His lawyer was not expressing his own opinion of Salmond but how he is being portrayed. That recording was edited to make it appear that he did.

And this isn't merely a case of he said/she said. He was found not guilty because the charges had no merit. (The police went on a fishing expedition and interviewed over 400 people to find something to pin on him. This included talking to all of his protection officers who ensured his safety day and night. Isolated incidents they might not have known about. A pattern of behaviour that amounted to "sex pest" they would.)

Not one of the alleged incidents involved an independent or outside complainer, which is highly unusual where the alleged behaviour is supposed to represent a pattern. The majority of the 14 offences were only brought up because of the Moorov Doctrine (a mechanism in Scottish law whereby corroboration to a similar but unrelated charge can come from an independent additional complainer - this means that if you can prove a systematic pattern of the same behaviour this weighs heavily against the defendant.)

The defence demonstrated in court that none of the charges had merit. For some of the offences that was because Salmond and the complainants in question were not even in the same place at the time the incidents were alleged to have happened.

There is a reason why the very detailed, day-by-day BBC documentary about the case against Alex Salmond skips the defence days completely. Because once you hear the case for the defence, you know he's not guilty.

The issues are connected to current ongoing case of accusations made against Alex Salmond.

I'd like to clarify this, if I may ArabellaScott lest others get the wrong impression:

There is no "ongoing case of accusations made against Alex Salmond". There are however two ongoing parliamentary inquiries into how Salmond came to be charged. One is looking specifically into the role the Scottish Government had in unlawfully changing the rules in order to pursue Salmond for misconduct, the other is looking specifically into the conduct of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister in relation to the whole affair.

Salmond won not only his criminal case in court, he also won his case against the Scottish Government having created new rules just so they could pursue misconduct charges against him. After contesting the case for the state, the Scottish Government lawyers threatened to walk away if the Scottish Government did not concede the case (that it had acted unlawfully against Salmond). Which is what the Scottish Government finally did in January 2019. In March 2020 he was then found not guilty in the criminal case.

So, Salmond has been cleared of all charges. The Scottish Government and the FM however are currently under investigation by two parliamentary inquiries. What the allegation amounts to, according to Alex Salmond and a number of others, is essentially that they conspired to deprive an innocent man of his freedom in order to get rid of a potential political rival.

ArabellaScott · 05/02/2021 20:50

Thanks, Charley, for that. Clear and more extensive than I could muster!

ArabellaScott · 05/02/2021 20:50

*Charlie, sorry.

Whatdoyoudowhendemocracyfails · 05/02/2021 21:10

What has Joanna Cherry ever done for women?

Well, apart from standing up for our right to single-sex provision (and losing her front bench position for it), she also forced Twitter and Facebook executives to admit they were failing to protect women on their platforms from misogyny.

She was also one of the first specialist sex crimes prosecutors in Scotland.

Whatdoyoudowhendemocracyfails · 05/02/2021 21:17

The National Sex Crimes unit achieved significant changes in how women and girls making complaints of sexual assault were treated.its aim was to treat women with dignity and improve the conviction rates for rapists and predators.

www.womensgrid.org.uk/archive/2009/07/01/scotlands-national-sex-crimes-unit-is-the-first-of-its-kind-in-europe/

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/new-sex-crime-chiefs-warning-1028804

I’d say being part of that effort that was quite a big contribution to helping women.

littlbrowndog · 05/02/2021 22:26

Just watched that video thanks for posting

Joanna cherry tryin* to pin down that Twitter executive was something to see

She is a great supporter of women

MissBarbary · 06/02/2021 00:12

@Calyx72

MissBarbary you keep saying Salmond is a 'sex pest' but he was cleared in court.
His own QC called him a "sex pest" and "an objectionable bully"

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

And as for being cleared in court, my goodness I don't know how you can write that with a straight face- as if being found not guilty has ever prevented reprehensible conduct being called out on here.