Nipper Salmond

[welshbairn]

They're planning to work one day a week from August. Report expected 2135, ish.

[welshbairn]

Craig Murray's contempt case starts on Wednesday. You can listen to it by phone if you're keen, found out by applying to listen in on the Hearts case.

Scroll down to the bottom.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing

[welshbairn]

Hearing lasted less than 5 minutes, full case to be heard in October. Murray got a bit of a warning about posting stuff about the case on his blog yesterday that could identify witnesses, so double contempt, the Salmond case and his own. Going all out for martyrdom by the looks of it.

[Suspect Device]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53686740

I thought that the Scottish government were all for openness and honesty.

When it suits them.

 

[welshbairn]

17 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53686740

I thought that the Scottish government were all for openness and honesty.

When it suits them.

 

Attorney-client privilege is a standard thing isn't it?

[Suspect Device]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Attorney-client privilege is a standard thing isn't it?

I'm not Petrocelli but I'm interested in their double standards. It's not a good look to call for transparency from Westminster and then refuse to release documents themselves.

I'm also worried that this turns into a shit show which drags on into the elections next year and damages the chances of another referendum soon.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Suspect Device

[strichener]

9 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Attorney-client privilege is a standard thing isn't it?

Yes apart from when your MPs demand that the Government Legal advice on Brexit is published and then vote to hold the Government in contempt to force it.

The wider issue with the concept of privilege relating to a government is that the government is supposed to represent the people and therefore in not releasing advice they have received they are preventing accountability. There should be no right for the state to hide legal advice with the exception of national security.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, strichener said:

Yes apart from when your MPs demand that the Government Legal advice on Brexit is published and then vote to hold the Government in contempt to force it.

The wider issue with the concept of privilege relating to a government is that the government is supposed to represent the people and therefore in not releasing advice they have received they are preventing accountability. There should be no right for the state to hide legal advice with the exception of national security.

If you can't have any confidential conversations in Government about colleagues and potential legal difficulties it would be impossible to function. Frankness would go out of the window and conversations would have to be by winks and nods, and misunderstandings would multiply. Of course you're going to demand the legal advice the Westminster Government got on Brexit, I would argue it was a national security issue. Equally the Government had a right to say GTF and fight it out in the courts.

[strichener]

20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If you can't have any confidential conversations in Government about colleagues and potential legal difficulties it would be impossible to function. Frankness would go out of the window and conversations would have to be by winks and nods, and misunderstandings would multiply. Of course you're going to demand the legal advice the Westminster Government got on Brexit, I would argue it was a national security issue. Equally the Government had a right to say GTF and fight it out in the courts.

I think you need to learn about legal privilege on relation to governments.  It isn't about confidential conversations but the specific asking and receiving of legal advice from a suitably qualified person.  Additionally, this is being requested by  elected parliamentarians who have been appointed to oversee an investigation into the governments handling of a situation that has already been settled in the legal sense.   The information  doesn't have to be released to the general public (although I believe it should be).  Voter's should be wary of a  government that seeks to hinder openness in this situation.

Edited August 7, 2020 by strichener

[welshbairn]

24 minutes ago, strichener said:

Voter's should be wary of a  government that seeks to hinder openness in this situation.

I would argue that every government would. If you lose the ability to get candid advice it would damage not only governance but the privacy of people who may be unjustifiably accused, and the willingness of people to complain about bad behaviour.

[strichener]

14 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I would argue that every government would. If you lose the ability to get candid advice it would damage not only governance but the privacy of people who may be unjustifiably accused, and the willingness of people to complain about bad behaviour.

We already have FOI.  There is already an ability to redact personal details.  In this instance the legal advice cost us over £500k and I really would like to know how either 

A) This advice was so out wrong given the outcome of the review or;

B) That the government knew that it had made a mistake in the process and continued on regardless.

Neither of these are personal matters not should they be protected under legal privilege.

[Detournement]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/17/alex-salmond-scottish-government-refuses-to-hand-legal-papers-to-inquiry

Surprise surprise.

[sophia]

Wark is interviewing in a style that is assuming guilt.

It's all very tabloid.

[alta-pete]

No fan of Salmond despite his evident charisma.

No fan of Wark, largely due to her distinct lack of same charisma. But mainly her matey-ness with Mr & Mrs Blair. 

However. I tend to agree with the jury. Inappropriate behaviour but not proven as criminal. 

Meanwhile, Swinney refuses to hand over their papers to the enquiry:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/17/alex-salmond-scottish-government-refuses-to-hand-legal-papers-to-inquiry

you do the math. As they say. 

[HTG]

Nothing in that programme told you anything that wasn't already known. There are people who are close to Salmond who want the world turned upside down to show the conspiracy against him.  There are people who are close to the complainants who still can't believe the outcome. What I took from it was that the women bringing the case did so because there was evidence of really poor behaviour. That they were unable to prove criminality doesn't mean they didn't believe they had a case. Salmond was within his rights to defend himself. That's about it. 

As for the refusal to hand over papers, I'm assuming there are very strong legal reasons for not doing so. Embarrassment isn't a strong enough reason. 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

4 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

No fan of Salmond despite his evident charisma.

No fan of Wark, largely due to her distinct lack of same charisma. But mainly her matey-ness with Mr & Mrs Blair. 

However. I tend to agree with the jury. Inappropriate behaviour but not proven as criminal. 

Meanwhile, Swinney refuses to hand over their papers to the enquiry:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/17/alex-salmond-scottish-government-refuses-to-hand-legal-papers-to-inquiry

you do the math. As they say. 

Is the math answer that Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are desperately looking for any mud they can sling at the SNP?

Fucking Alex Cole Hamilton is worried about the cost of prosecuting Salmond but not with the costs of his own little trial by committee. The SNP will put up the shutters. Salmond will remain a disgraced arsehole who admitted he had "sleepy cuddle" and who his lawyer described as a "sex pest"

By investigating Salmond's conspiracy theories the opposition parties are saying that Salmond should not have face a jury for his actions.

 

[alta-pete]

8 minutes ago, HTG said:

Nothing in that programme told you anything that wasn't already known. There are people who are close to Salmond who want the world turned upside down to show the conspiracy against him.  There are people who are close to the complainants who still can't believe the outcome. What I took from it was that the women bringing the case did so because there was evidence of really poor behaviour. That they were unable to prove criminality doesn't mean they didn't believe they had a case. Salmond was within his rights to defend himself. That's about it. 

As for the refusal to hand over papers, I'm assuming there are very strong legal reasons for not doing so. Embarrassment isn't a strong enough reason. 

Aye. Mainly self preservation ‘legal’ reasons. 

[Billy Jean King]

No fan of Salmond despite his evident charisma.
No fan of Wark, largely due to her distinct lack of same charisma. But mainly her matey-ness with Mr & Mrs Blair. 
However. I tend to agree with the jury. Inappropriate behaviour but not proven as criminal. 
Meanwhile, Swinney refuses to hand over their papers to the enquiry:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/17/alex-salmond-scottish-government-refuses-to-hand-legal-papers-to-inquiry
you do the math. As they say. 

These documents cannot be withheld without legitimate legal recourse. That legality may well be tested in the courts in due course. It may well be that if they do ever see the light of public scrutiny they may be so heavily redacted as to be next to useless. No matter the outcome most will draw their own conclusions. As for tonight's programme, a bit of a damp squib with little if anything new.

[Ludo*1]

#ISupportSalmond is the second biggest trend on Twitter in the UK right now and even The Telegraph are saying the documentary was shite.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2020/08/17/trial-alex-salmond-review-kirsty-wark-gets-personal-strange/

Safe to say she's made a complete arse of an easy hatchet job.

[BawWatchin]

Never bothered watching it. But i'll assume it was something along the lines of what they did with Jeremy Corbyn. Black and white mug shots and eerie background music every time they showed a clip of the devil himself.