Joanna Cherry (SNP) sacked

[LittleRa]

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

Any comments on this?

To extend the analogy further - this is like responding to the Keira Bell document with a link to a Stonewall press release.

The court examined the testimonies and evidence. There not only was a lack of evidence for the accusations, there was evidence directly contradicting them.

What, specifically, do you think the court got wrong? What evidence was missed? What contradictory evidence was false?

Gist of the National column:

'We are closer to independence than we have ever been. The only thing that can stop us from achieving independence, and making that progressive Scotland a reality, is ourselves. Given the trend in worldwide politics, particularly America, it is dangerously stupid to think Scotland is exempt from bad actors and disinformation, particularly online. '

'...The formula is usually along the lines of finding an obscure or nuanced issue, and then using that issue to stoke division. To prey on the legitimate worries or genuine grievances that people may feel, and then manipulate that into their own egotistical conspiracy theory'

A vague suggestion that any criticism of Sturgeon and/or the party is conspiracy theory, no mention at all of current turmoil or dissent. And a 'rousing' call to keep the eye on the prize.

tl/dr: 'Nothing to see here, everything's fine, just close your eyes and think of Scotland'.

@MissBarbary

NecessaryScene1

Any comments on this?

www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/blogs/news/1004/redir/

FWR posters aren't usually so keen on dismissing the views of alleged victims whose alleged accounts of assault have failed to meet the criminal standard.

Rape Crisis is not only wrong here, but have provided - against the court judgement - a piece of jigsaw information that could be used to identify the complainers, whose identity remains protected.

Rape Crisis Scotland is neither a benign nor neutral player in this affair.

@NecessaryScene1

Any comments on this?

To extend the analogy further - this is like responding to the Keira Bell document with a link to a Stonewall press release.

The court examined the testimonies and evidence. There not only was a lack of evidence for the accusations, there was evidence directly contradicting them.

What, specifically, do you think the court got wrong? What evidence was missed? What contradictory evidence was false?

Good analogy.

I'm not a hypocrite though.

You (general you) can't defend this extraordinary departure from the usual stance on here, even to point of trashing the statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland, so you resort to insults.

I'll leave you to your echo chamber of applauding Cherry, who of course now finds the "irrelevant Westminster" is oddly now relevant when she's appointed to an important committee.

@MissBarbary

I'm not a hypocrite though.

You (general you) can't defend this extraordinary departure from the usual stance on here, even to point of trashing the statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland, so you resort to insults.

I'll leave you to your echo chamber of applauding Cherry, who of course now finds the "irrelevant Westminster" is oddly now relevant when she's appointed to an important committee.

I see you have swerved the issue of Salmond’s lawyer explicitly rejecting the view you have attributed to him.

I’ll post it again here for anyone who may have missed it -

“After the video footage was released, Mr Jackson said: "To be clear...I do not regard Alex Salmond as a 'sex pest', and any contrary impression is wrong."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790

What I should add here is that the Rape Crisis Scotland complaint amounts to "How dare you ask for private messages exchanged by victims!"

And

"How dare you make disparaging remarks about messages exchanged by victims/about victims!"

However, that is not what happened. Committee requested messages exchanged between people holding a particular position in Scotland. They made remarks about them in that function.

They did not know (because the identity of the complainers is protected) that this included all of the complainers.

But thanks to Rape Crisis Scotland we all know that now.

The problem is here is that those of us defending Salmond are, thus, claiming a conspiracy.

And that's a remarkable claim. I find it hard to believe myself.

I'm not Scottish, have no real view on Scottish independence (apart from that it's not inherently daft, as some seem to think - Scotland would fit in as a sixth Nordic country), and I don't have any real view on Salmond. I hadn't heard of Cherry until her Twitter grilling, and have liked the cut of her jib since. (So I'm inclined to trust her judgment).

But, looking at the wider behaviour of the SNP, clearly they have been taken over by a cabal of Woke (or at least Woke-enabling/using) authoritarian nutjobs.

The goings on around this case, including the prosecution of Craig Murray (who I am a long-time supporter of), and the bizarre post-case enquiry stink to high heaven. If it's not a conspiracy, why would they be letting it look so very much like one?

Would I normally countenance a conspiracy involving a dozen false accusations? No - it seems ridiculous. But in the GC fight we've seen how unhinged some of the Right Side of History people are. And how ridiculous they're prepared to be. Maybe in this case they really did decide the ends justifies the means and decide to stitch Salmond up via the mechanism of anonymous accusations.

It would be a lot easier to find out if there wasn't so much concealment happening. They're trying desperately to block what (apparently) is key evidence of conspiracy being presented.

I don't think it's been posted - an article in Spiked by Joanna Williams who doesn't hold back on her views about the SNP, Sturgeon and the sacking of Joanna Cherry
www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/02/joanna-cherrys-crime-defending-womens-rights/

Would I normally countenance a conspiracy involving a dozen false accusations? No - it seems ridiculous. But in the GC fight we've seen how unhinged some of the Right Side of History people are. And how ridiculous they're prepared to be. Maybe in this case they really did decide the ends justifies the means and decide to stitch Salmond up via the mechanism of anonymous accusations.

And it’s very harmful to rape and sexual assault victims if this is proven to be what happened. We all know how the charge of “false accusations to damage a man’s reputation” is thrown against victims. If it’s truly what has been done here, then resignations at the highest level must follow, so that no-one ever thinks of trying it again.

You (general you) can't defend this extraordinary departure from the usual stance on here,

FWIW, I disagree with the "usual stance" you are presenting here, and I'd hope people here didn't hold with that.

I don't hold the view that anyone acquitted must actually be guilty and just got away with it.

I can't believe being a "feminist" means "never accepting a not guilty verdict in a sex case against a man". That's not rational.

False accusations are possible, and they do happen. (For most crimes). For sex crimes, MRAs certainly overplay their frequency, but I think some feminists underplay their possibility. The claim "no-one would make a false assault accusation" is demonstrably false. People will do a lot of stuff for a bunch of reasons - including possibly the conviction that they're the Good People and anything is justified against the Bad People.

This is not remotely like a "he said/she said" case of "they had sex, but she couldn't prove it was non-consensual", or "it was reported too late so no evidence apart from her testimony". This case had multiple witnesses able to testify the women were not at the events they claimed to be, or that the claimed assault could not have happened without the witness seeing.

If Salmond is innocent, there was a conspiracy to bring false accusers against him. If Salmond is guilty, there was a conspiracy to bring false witnesses to defend him.

Given it's a conspiracy either way, those of us suspecting conspiracy against rather than conspiracy for Salmond aren't being that outlandish, I feel.

You (general you) can't defend this extraordinary departure from the usual stance on here, even to point of trashing the statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland, so you resort to insults

i think it is incorrect to suggest that there is a hive mind on the forum when it comes to accusations of sexual assault/rape/'Me Too'....That everyone automatically takes "a woman's word" as a rigid article of faith. Life s far more complex than that.

other than Conservative? I don't like anything Tory but I will vote for them to protect my sex based rights

If you think tories are pro women you're deluded!

It is with immense pride therefore for LGBT+ Conservatives that it is the Conservative Party which is leading the way on trans rights

Direct quote from lgbt+ conservatives

I've said on several such threads now that the tories have been the ones in power and making the legal changes in this debate that are making women and girls more vulnerable. They may be quieter and less vocal about it, but actions speak louder than words!

Currently I don't think there's ANY gender critical party which is extremely depressing!

If gender critical politicians/potential politicians were to form a centre left gender critical party they'd certainly get my vote and I suspect that of many others too! Not just women either there are gc men out there too, thank goodness as we need as many gc people as possible at the moment

@glinner fancy starting such a party?

Even better a Scots independence within eu centre left gc party - I can but dream!

I have zero skin in the game with SNP, nor do I understand its implications for Scotland, but watching this trans ideology so bitterly divide a party with a higher goal just further cements the sense I get that such a small minority of men seem to be able to wreak such havoc in movements across the globe.

I think of if the momentum from the 2016 Women's March continued without fissures from men's special interest groups, Poland and the southern states in the US could have had an international

Oops. I hit post too soon...

...international women's political movement that could have more strength behind reproductive right, education for girls, period poverty, child marriages, sex trafficking...but no, now women's wins seem to come in the forms of lipstick for soldiers and sports trophies.

This ideology is destroying large-scale movements.

I can't believe being a "feminist" means "never accepting a not guilty verdict in a sex case against a man". That's not rational.

Indeed.

I have zero skin in the game with SNP, nor do I understand its implications for Scotland, but watching this trans ideology so bitterly divide a party with a higher goal

To be fair, I think the in party division came first.

@ArabellaScott

I can't believe being a "feminist" means "never accepting a not guilty verdict in a sex case against a man". That's not rational.

Indeed.

I suggest you do an advanced search. You'll find plenty of examples of not guilty verdicts being questioned as being wrong.

It's difficult to tell who is who because of name changes but here's one.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3858565-alex-salmond-acquitted-of-all-14-charges

@merrymouse

I have zero skin in the game with SNP, nor do I understand its implications for Scotland, but watching this trans ideology so bitterly divide a party with a higher goal

To be fair, I think the in party division came first.

I agree. The in-party division, in my view started when those wielding power slacked off on pursuing independence. It seems to me they decided that being in power now better than losing it with independence.

Of course, there are large numbers of SNP members who only see the party as a vehicle to independence. And many more SNP voters who will happily abandon the party once independence is won.

The grassroots independence movement has not enjoyed Scottish Government support for years. Until now, a number of its players only grumbled their suspicions about the SNP leadership's changed position to each other, bandied about like a nutty conspiracy theory, but the attempt to take Scotland's most renowned independence campaigner out of action is strongly suggesting they were right.

I'm not a hypocrite though. I know MNHQ doesn't want us to trollhunt, but this whizz required no hunting.

You (general you) can't defend this extraordinary departure from the usual stance on here, even to point of trashing the statement issued by Rape Crisis Scotland, so you resort to insults.

Well, we didn't "defend" it, as your mischaracterisation is frankly and demonstrably wrong, but loads of people did clarify it - and you ignored the clarifications and then flounced.

I'll leave you to your echo chamber of applauding Cherry....

Thanks, ma head zips up the back and it's ay sweaty; thank god am aff later the night - is that what you want Scottish people to say?

.... who of course now finds the "irrelevant Westminster" is oddly now relevant when she's appointed to an important committee. She was already on the committee and doing great work. Of course someone dedicated to Scottish independence - a position you evidently cannot understand - feels talent would be better used in Holyrood with a separatist government than in Westminster with a strong Conservative government and no effective opposition. How is this hard?

Thanks @CharlieParley and @merrymouse that's helpful info.

BBC News have just said that the SNP have sacked the vaccination officer at Westminster?

Something about Kirsty Blackman? Nothing coming up on google yet.

Oh hai @MissBarbary, thought you’d gone.

Ready to set the record straight on Alex Salmond’s lawyer yet? Given how many times on this thread you’ve misrepresented his view?

“After the video footage was released, Mr Jackson said: "To be clear...I do not regard Alex Salmond as a 'sex pest', and any contrary impression is wrong."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52081790