Alex Salmond show on Russia Today

[Rodhull]

26 minutes ago, Jambo99 said:

Oh yeah, you are part of a cult. 

Given how one note all your posts are you’re not in a position to accuse anyone.

20 minutes ago, Jambo99 said:

 

I notice neither of you are concerned about the women.

Like , in any way whatsoever.

 

Don’t pretend you are either. Just another bit of ammunition in your anti Independence tirades.

[Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier]

4 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

He will be proved innocent

And you know this for certain?

[Jambo99]

1 hour ago, Rodhull said:

Given how one note all your posts are you’re not in a position to accuse anyone.

Don’t pretend you are either. Just another bit of ammunition in your anti Independence tirades.

You don't seem overly concerned about the females "Rodhull"

[Jacksgranda]

8 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Post of the day.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

High praise indeed. 

[Tony Ferrino]

5 hours ago, Jambo99 said:

Why not try and take serious accusations seriously.

Oh yeah, you are part of a cult. 

Here comes the rain.

[Mastermind]

Pure speculation on my behalf, but I would suggest that Salmond would like history to show him to be the one that brought the accusations into the public domain.
If it all goes tits up for him, he can then play the "I hid nothing. I referred myself to the commissioner/ombudsman/whoever at the first possible opportunity" card that has been played so often by Con/Lab/Libdem politicians who have been caught out in various peccadilloes pver the years. 
If the allegations cannot be proved. the approach may cost him some legal fees, but will buy him invaluable publicity as an honest man.
Accordingly, the best possible result for the SNP is that the Scot Gov procedures signed off by Sturgeon are shown to be fair & equitable, and that the investigation shows that the allegations against Salmond are baseless. No slap in the teeth for Nic, and Eck's reputation enhanced [emoji4]
Obviously, any other result will be less favourable...

To be fair, it’s all been going tits up for wee Eck since that famous photo of him sitting seething in the back of the car on that dark September night four years ago. Pretty much everything has been downhill for him then, to the extent where even his harshest critics must actually feel a bit sorry for him.

On the other hand, the DR seem to have found out some more of the detail and have published this morning. Disgusting and extremey creepy if true.

[alta-pete]

Unless I've missed something during my skim through this thread, there seems to be a perception that the judicial review will determine Eck's guilt or innocence. My understanding is that he is seeking judicial review of the Scottish Government's complaints procedure i.e. the steps they carry out to conduct their investigation. 
Accordingly, the judicial review will NOT determine whether or not he is guilty of a criminal offence or any lesser misdemeanour. All it will determine is whether the process used in the investigation was fair.
As far as I am aware,  he has not been charged with any criminal offence at this time & no report has been made to the Fiscal. Nicola's statement says that the Permanent Secretary "had completed her investigation and that she intended to make the fact of the complaints public"
Nothing is mentioned about any findings that may have been made by the PS, or of any intent to release any findings.
So, at this moment, as far as I can see, 2 accusations have been made. That's all. A full investigation should follow.
If he's guilty of a criminal offence or of breaching Holyrood standards of behaviour, the appropriate sanction should be applied. Until then, he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence that anyone else is.

^^^ this is the correct current position.

I do however find it strange that Alec’s focus is on the due process rather than addressing the complaints made. Unless of course it’s a massive deflection exercise...

[harry94]

^^^ this is the correct current position.

I do however find it strange that Alec’s focus is on the due process rather than addressing the complaints made. Unless of course it’s a massive deflection exercise...

Wasn't his point that he hadn't actually been informed (at least formally) of any of the specifics so was in the dark and couldn't construct a response?

If this turns out to be true to the extent that the DR are suggesting, I think it could be something that eventually plays its part in taking Sturgeon down and really damages the SNP; even if he is shunned by the leadership.

[Londonwell]

6 hours ago, Sunrise said:

 

Leaving aside the boalk inducing self congratulatory tone of that article (given the subject(s) being discussed).  I find it strange that they feel comfortable making details of the accusations public and how they came across the information, seeing as we’re now into a legal process.

As for my thoughts, Tricia Marwick, said it best- if you know nothing and have nothing to say, say nothing at all. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

I notice neither of you are concerned about the women.
Like , in any way whatsoever.
 

If there are women who have raised genuine complaints based on hard evidence which confirms that Salmond is guilty of a punishable offence then of course we are.

But if the trail leads to a farrago of confected black political and media propaganda then we retain the right to an alternative view.

[williemillersmoustache]

Leaving aside the boalk inducing self congratulatory tone of that article (given the subject(s) being discussed).  I find it strange that they feel comfortable making details of the accusations public and how they came across the information, seeing as we’re now into a legal process.
As for my thoughts, Tricia Marwick, said it best- if you know nothing and have nothing to say, say nothing at all. 

It's just like John Leslie, except he definitely definitely did it.

[Dunning1874]

7 hours ago, Jambo99 said:

 

I notice neither of you are concerned about the women.

Like , in any way whatsoever.

 

How on earth do you infer that from Lichtgilphead's post?

You're every bit as bad as WATTOO - the posters you're responding to aren't the ones sacrifiing his accusers on a political altar here.

Saying any investigation needs to be given time to run its course by following due process to allow the facts become clear rather than jumping to snap judgements is the view that shows concern for the rights of victims, because it's the approach that allows their complaint to be heard and taken seriously.

The views that disregard potential victims of sexual offences are those which amount to, on one side, 'Westminster conspiracy there can't be any truth in it because see me I'm SNP!' which effectively says anyone on their side of a debate should have impunity to behave how they like and they'll always cry conspiracy regardless of the truth of any allegation. Whether this particular investigation results in Salmond being referred to police and/or charged and found guilty or not, jumping to such a conclusion shows a willingness to throw victims under the bus if the crime they've suffered is politically inconvenient and that's a deeply concerning and abhorrent position to take.

The other viewpoint, which you're trying and failing to conceal is yours, of 'Yas I always knew Salmond was a creep, I hope this destroys the SNP because I don't like them politically' is also one that shows no concern for the women, because you're actively hoping someone is the victim of a sex offence then celebrating if that's the case because it's convenient politically. It's a small step away from Rangers fans showing their concern for victims of child abuse by singing 'the bears are having a party, the **** are shagging weans', or someone responding to news of a celebrity being charged with such offences with 'I hope it's *other celebrity* next!' Of course, everyone should hope that no one is next because we should hope that people stop committing sexual offences and no one has to be a victim of it. It's a view that actively celebrates the suffering victims have had to endure, which is also a deeply concerning position to take.

[Ad Lib]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

You approve of racial profiling?

No because it isn’t statistically justifiable.

[Ad Lib]

14 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Just surprised it was their first item, going the "sex sells" popular route, especially with so little to go on. C4 news is usually a solid hour of global misery. Yemen did get a brief mention towards the end, the Saudis have slaughtered more children using American weaponry,  not British thank God.

 

[Ad Lib]

25 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

How on earth do you infer that from Lichtgilphead's post?

You're every bit as bad as WATTOO - the posters you're responding to aren't the ones sacrifiing his accusers on a political altar here.

Saying any investigation needs to be given time to run its course by following due process to allow the facts become clear rather than jumping to snap judgements is the view that shows concern for the rights of victims, because it's the approach that allows their complaint to be heard and taken seriously.

The views that disregard potential victims of sexual offences are those which amount to, on one side, 'Westminster conspiracy there can't be any truth in it because see me I'm SNP!' which effectively says anyone on their side of a debate should have impunity to behave how they like and they'll always cry conspiracy regardless of the truth of any allegation. Whether this particular investigation results in Salmond being referred to police and/or charged and found guilty or not, jumping to such a conclusion shows a willingness to throw victims under the bus if the crime they've suffered is politically inconvenient and that's a deeply concerning and abhorrent position to take.

The other viewpoint, which you're trying and failing to conceal is yours, of 'Yas I always knew Salmond was a creep, I hope this destroys the SNP because I don't like them politically' is also one that shows no concern for the women, because you're actively hoping someone is the victim of a sex offence then celebrating if that's the case because it's convenient politically. It's a small step away from Rangers fans showing their concern for victims of child abuse by singing 'the bears are having a party, the **** are shagging weans', or someone responding to news of a celebrity being charged with such offences with 'I hope it's *other celebrity* next!' Of course, everyone should hope that no one is next because we should hope that people stop committing sexual offences and no one has to be a victim of it. It's a view that actively celebrates the suffering victims have had to endure, which is also a deeply concerning position to take.

I think he’s inferring it from the “best case scenario for the SNP” chat. Obviously that’s not how lichtgilphead meant it but I can kind of see how someone could (in error) misconstrue it that way.

I would say the “best case scenario” for the SNP is any scenario in which the truth is found, regardless of whether the allegations are true or false and regardless of whether the evidential basis for proving them (not the same thing) is substantiated or not. Vindicating the rights of survivors is (or should be) far more important for a progressive political party than vindicating the reputation of their estranged former leader.

[Rodhull]

7 hours ago, Jambo99 said:

You don't seem overly concerned about the females "Rodhull"

I haven’t made any comments positive or negative regarding anyone in the case so it’d be hard to determine any opinions i have on it.

What i generally don’t do is gleefully post about cases like this because it suits my political opinions. I especially don’t do so while using it as a stick to beat others for not ‘caring’ enough.

 

[ICTChris]

.
Saying any investigation needs to be given time to run its course by following due process to allow the facts become clear rather than jumping to snap judgements is the view that shows concern for the rights of victims, because it's the approach that allows their complaint to be heard and taken seriously.

I might be wrong but hasn’t the investigation been completed and details of the conclusions passed to the police? The Scottish Government were about to release details of the investigation publicly when the legal cases started this week, with Alex Salmond first challenging the release of the details and then the process of dealing with the complaints. As I say I might be wrong about that, there will be others on here who can correct me if I am.

The rest of your post is bang on. There obviously isn’t a conspiracy to smear Alex Salmond with this. It is a big news story, he’s probably the most senior British politician to be accused of something like this. No voters high-fiving each other is also unseemly.

In terms of the wider debate, it could have an impact on the case for Scottish independence. The biggest force in Scotland for independence is the SNP and if this investigation causes rifts to develop within the party that will have an affect on its ability to make the case for independence. If SNP activists or even elected representatives start peddling conspiracies then it’s a very bad look for the SNP.

[ICTChris]

It’s a minor point I know but I think the words “refute” and “smear” may be the most misused in British politics.

[git-intae-thum]

Well the DR seems in the know regarding the allegations.

One must question....who within the Scottish civil service and who within the DR are colluding to release details of the affair for sordid public consumption.

This would seem deeply unfair on both the accused who apparently has been denied knowledge of the allegions and therefore unable to make defence....and the complainers, who must be worried regarding possible exposure.

Further, such public release may well prejudice the fairness and impartiality of any future legal hearing.

[haufdaft]

Will John Mason be boycotting SNP meetings until Salmond is removed from the party?