Printable View
The sex scandal unfolding at the very top of the Scottish National Party will surely do untold damage to their already frail hopes of another referendum. Indeed, it's almost certainly the final nail in the coffin of an independent Scotland.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...d-alex-salmond
He is now being affectionately referred to as Alex Wankstain.
As I have Arsenal blocked I've no idea what he's said (and I've no interest in finding out) so forgive me if I repeat anything he's said already.
Commentators (and moderators) would be best advised to note that no police investigation, arrest, charges, or conviction has taken place. The allegations at this stage emanate from an internal investigation only.
These are two complaints by 2 different women whose anonymity has been (rightly) protected whilst the identity of the accused (as well as the alleged details of ONE of the complaints) has been (I would say unfairly) fed to the media. Fair game you might think, but I personally don't - I believe the accused should have the same right to anonymity as the accusers, up to the point of any conviction. In fact wasn't this recently ruled on in the Cliff Richard case?
The accused person (Alex Salmond) has been under a Civil Service investigation conducted in secret, within which he has been allowed to know only that an investigation has been underway.
He has been unable to see the allegations, challenge the allegations, unable to submit any statement or denial whatsoever, unable to contact any of his Civil Servants at the time to provide witnesses in his defence or to aid a rebuttal or an alibi, and unable even to have access to his diaries to see where he was at a particular time of a particular day.
When the (8 month and secret) investigation was concluded, the Permanent Secretary intimated her intention to publish her findings. We do not know what the findings are, but since the investigation was supposed to be internal and since he'd has no opportunity to contribute, rebut, or deny - Alex Salmond sought an injunction but before that was either granted or denied, he withdrew it and applied for a Judicial Review of the process instead. Instead of then publishing her findings (which would be a Govt document) they were fed to the media instead. Note: the Permanent Secretary has still not published her findings and we have the Kafka-esque situation of Nicola Sturgeon insisting the investigation has "remained confidential" whilst e.g. the Daily Mail on Sunday devoted ELEVEN pages of reportage and character assassination to it. Can't get my head round that one.
The substance of the single allegation which has been published by the media is that (at his residence) he allegedly invited a woman (not a young person by any means) up to his bedroom late at night after a party and that once there he touched her tits and bum. No one else is alleged to have been present.
We are led to believe that this person was so traumatised that she then waited for 5 years before complaining - and then did so just 2 months after a new Civil Service investigation procedure was introduced by the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Goverment who, it is has been astonishingly revealed, reports not to the First Minister who is the head of that Government, but to the UK Govt (which, in the current constitutional debate is of course their opposition)
Nothing has been said of the second complainer's allegations - but it's fair to observe that it is very convenient to have a second complainant where there can be no corroboration of the first complaint (as Scots law requires) when the alleged incident took place in private with no witnesses. This is the Moorov principle - establishing a pattern of behaviour so that 2 (or more) separate complaints can corroborate each other.
Personally I think the entire thing smells fishier than a box of rotten fish.
We are not living in the 1960's when office secretaries (unacceptably) almost expected to have their bum pinched by the boss - we are in the age when women are well aware of their rights and of what is and is not acceptable behaviour in the workplace.
One has to ask why a mature woman would voluntarily accompany an (intoxicated, we are told) guy to his bedroom after a party had ended and what she might expect to happen when they got there (if anything did).
One also has to question why she kept quiet for 5 years - again, this was not some immature teenager who might be scared into silence - they don't get invited to parties at the First Minister's residence - this must have been either a civil servant, one of his staff, or a guest - who would be someone of some substance.
To date, we know nothing of the "back up" allegation. The media have reported only the first and it's fair to conclude they've gone with the strongest and juiciest as if the reverse was the case then the second would have followed the next day.
It's very tempting to revel in the discomfort of politicians (especially when you're biased against them) - but we do not yet know how this will play out.
I strongly suspect that this case is set to collapse under scrutiny - but not before the required damage has been done. It has all the hallmarks of a set-up.
Whilst the inevitable pile-on ensues, one of the most cogent commentaries has come from an implacable opponent of Alex Salmond and the SNP.
https://www.effiedeans.com/2018/08/w...ents-from.html
I neglected to mention that this alleged happened through her clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Perhaps he can join his fellow pervert in the Ecuadoran Embassy?:D:lol:;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
You'd be wise to re-read the second sentence of post#3
Sort of my point - the case against Julian Assange is pretty flimsy tooQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Then neither can fairly be deemed a "pervert" - sort of my point.
Apposite - but then you should know by now I post with my tongue firmly in my cheek - pervert in the ironical senseQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
In the case of certain members it's easy to tell where the individual keeps his tongue firmly planted, but with others it's sometimes a little more difficult.
:drink:
Update: So, Alex Salmond has now resigned from the SNP until the matter has been settled.
Immediately after doing so, he launched a crowdfunder to help pay the enormous legal costs involved in his application for Judicial Review of the Civil Service process.
The crowdfunder raised the target sum of £50K in 3.5hours and now stands (9am UK time) at a tad under £65K from 2500 contributors.
I hope I'd be brave enough to say "No, bring it to trial and we'll cross-examine the witness - at length"
Well there's a general problem with that approach, and a particular one with the case under discussion:
Generally, you're nowadays highly restricted in any cross-examination of female accusers where the accusation involves any sexual element and in this case in particular I find it hard to see how there can be any trial at all now that the media has completely prejudiced the case (11 pages in the Mail on Sunday alone).
Some might say that was always the intention.
Nikla is supporting the process of investigation undertaken by the Scottish Government.
Alex is challenging that process and is being funded by Scotnats .
Wonderful!
Allow me to educate you:
Nicola is supporting the process of investigation carried out by the Civil Service Permanent Secretary who sits within the Scottish Govt but who actually reports to the UK Govt and not Nicola. In other words, the Permanent Secretary is a UK Govt plant, put in place to keep an eye on what the Scot Gov gets up to. Nicola has to support her because Nicola signed off on the new internal investigatory process in November 2017.
Alex is challenging that process (as carried out by the Civil Service Permanent Secretary and is being funded by 3500 (and rising) supporters of all Parties and none (albeit most will be Yessers and SNP supporters). The £50K target has now been met and exceeded by a further £37K
There are some very strange circumstances surrounding the complaints and how they came to be made, but the most bizarre element is to see Nicola on tv defending the confidentiality of the process when even Gordon Brown with his one good eye can see it leaked over every newspaper in the land. The Iraqi Colonel who denied on live TV there were any tanks in Baghdad when we could see them trundling along behind him had more plausibility.
Having said all that, it's very tiresome when people outside Scotland profess to know what's happening better than those of us who actually live here.
No doubt yourself and Arsepiece will wish to donate, so:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/alexsalmond/?
I've always found that argument somewhat specious. People outside Burma, Cambodia or Thailand can know better than those who actually live there what's happening, because they have access to a free press - and that's just one example. Participants don't always see better than observers because they're too close to the action - a well-known psychological concept - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-you-observerQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Nate Silver makes a related point in his book The Signal and the Noise. In this case the closer you are, the noisier it is, the less likely you are to discern what's really going on (the signal)
Scottish Guy wrote.
"Having said all that, it's very tiresome when people outside Scotland profess to know what's happening better than those of us who actually live here."
That slightly desperate argument about location applies if we're talking about Goodboys or Eros. It doesn't apply when the story is on the same 24 hour media outlets we all have access to.
It's impossible to think of Salmonella without his lunge for Scottish independence (something I support by the way; its outcomes will feed my taste for schadenfreude for years). The Scottish Nationalists believe in holding the referendum again and again, until they get the result they want. It's rather like the Brexit referendum, and this week's Spectator includes a loving reminder of that. The Remainer agitator Anna Soubry is quoted. This is the lovely Anna before the Brexit referendum: "We are trusting the British people. We will go to the people, and let the people decide whether or not to stay within the EU." That was in 2015. Now listen to her: she backed the referendum "only because I thought we would win. Obviously, I wouldn’t have if I thought we would lose." Democracy is a bugger, isn’t it?
You seem to have overlooked the fact that whilst the Press you read and which helps to form your opinion may be free, it is far from impartial as far as Scotland is concerned. Irrespective of their support for left or right politics, every section of the UK media holds and promotes the same political narrative when it comes to Unionism - they're all for it, Rule Britannia, three bags full and more of the same please.Quote:
Originally Posted by frequent
Now, you're an intelligent guy - well over 50% of Scots are sympathetic to independence and in 2014, following 2 (almost 3) years of Project Fear 45% were still sufficiently motivated to actively vote for it. How then can a cabal of foreign-owned newspapers and a State Broadcaster all promoting (at every opportunity) a political settlement which ~50% of Scots reject, possibly be representative of the mood ?
There is not a single newspaper you read which is Scottish-owned nor one which supports the constitutional choice of roughly half the Scottish population. All the propaganda masquerading as news that you are being fed is being reflected through an English, Unionist prism. Yet you unquestioningly take it at face value? Maybe I should withdraw my compliment about you being intelligent?
Can you imagine the outrage/riots there would be in England if it was decided that henceforth all their news would only be available via German newspapers and Al Jazeera TV? Yet that is deemed good enough for Scotland and promoted as a valid representation of our politics.
Worse still, we now have people on a Thailand forum for Elderly Gay Desperadoes, most of whom have never set foot in Scotland , and whose main interest in life is how much young cock they can get up their battered old cauliflower arseholes before they die (no offence :D), telling those of us who live here that they're better informed about Scottish politics because they're detached from it, even though they clearly never think about who's feeding them the information?
Can you not see how ridiculous that proposition is?
:drink:
And your point is, exactly? That I take my views unthinkingly from a non-English but foreign (ie. Murdoch) dominated print media? The weight of the British media was pro-Brexit but more than half of those who voted simply did not believe what their media was telling them. Why is that not also so for views about Scotland?Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
I have no intention of crowdfunding a rich man. Only the seriously deluded would do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
I have seen some of the rantings of the cybernats, some of whom blame Westminster, MI5 and Russia but not poor old Alex.
You bandy about percentages but here is one you don't like. 55% of those who voted said NO.
If you want me to accept that you don't take your views from the sources I've cited (and although some may be Murdoch owned, they're all English based and all Unionist) then I'd suggest it's incumbent on you to tell me which Independence supporting channels you do get your information from - and I await that information with great interest.
After that, you could compile a list of the alleged Anti and Pro Brexit print media (with circulation figures) and we'll see on which side the weight of numbers fell.
I don’t care whether you accept or not. Perhaps you missed my comment that I’m IN FAVOUR of independence for ScotlandQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Is Scottish Guy suggesting that the Scottish people do what Murdoch's media tell them to do? Because that suggests little in the way of independent thought.
Well, Frequent, if you don't care whether people accept what you say/ think then why bother posting your opinions at all?
The fact that you say you're in favour of Independence (and I know the punchline already, so don't bother), only goes to show how even-handed I am in questioning not only opponents but supporters too!
BTW you'd better answer whatever Arsenal has contributed. I'm assuming his post is for you? It surely can't be directed at me as, thanks to the Ignore feature I don't see his guff unless someone quotes it - an event which is almost as rare these days as anybody giving him a "like"
:drink:
I guess everyone needs a hobbyQuote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
A savage demolition of Salmand's conduct over this issue. And hardly from a right wing newspaper.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...bove-his-cause
To scotty's point, the British establishment has always been anti-Independence so would most likely make an appropriately anti-Salmonella reportQuote:
Originally Posted by arsenal
The article itself is shot full of holes - the biggest of the lot being the suggestion that you should simply submit yourself to an investigation process which prevents you knowing the details of what you are accused of, or having any opportunity within the process to defend yourself.
The single (and wholly inadequate) saving grace of the Civil Service process which has been used to accuse AS is that it is (supposed to be) confidential - until of course a person or persons unknown decides to leak it to the gutter press. At which point, according to The Grauniad, you should just accept that too!
The only known facts of this matter is that by any definition the process has been inherently unfair, requires to be challenged, and that the leaking is absolutely malicious - the sole intention being to wreck not just Alex Salmond’s career but his reputation before or perhaps instead of establishing any guilt.
In such a situation, who would not fight? No criminal charges have yet been brought (any may never be) so the fight must focus on the process. The financial cost of doing so in the Court of Session in Scotland is estimated at a minimum of £50,000 and if you lose, you can at least double that. We assume that Alex Salmond is not short of a few bob of course but £100K is a considerable hit if things go the wrong way and the leaker gets their (her?) wish that you never work again.
Yessers and SNP supporters who wanted to help were suggesting a crowdfunder long before he launched one. £50K was targeted but £100K was raised in 3 days. Alex then closed it.
I see absolutely nothing wrong in how he has behaved over the past few days. Any accused person must be allowed a defence and the fact it costs £50K to exercise it is appalling.
Whether it is subsequently proved in a Court of law that he behaved badly within the substance of the allegations, will be another matter - although I suspect the media has now poisoned the prospect of any fair trial to the extent that one becomes impossible.
The article then goes on to suggest that Salmond had split the SNP and I’ve even seen elsewhere that “Civil War” has broken out. Such hyperbole is wishful thinking from the Unionist press bankrolled by the UK Govt (do you know the UK Govt via the BBC now funnels hard cash into the print media) - not to mention all the free advertising on BBC news and “papers” programmes. The reality is that there is neither any split nor any Civil War - it’s laughable.
However, should Salmond win this then, in my view, Sturgeon has some very serious questions to answer over why she signed off a wholly unfair Civil Service investigation process and inexplicably has continued to insist that confidentiality has been maintained when everybody can clearly see it has not.
Those who defend Salmand's conduct with regards to the due process show zero respect for it.
I have broken my rule by viewing your post.
You are correct, I have no respect for a “due process” which allows for no defence against life-ruining allegations which have not been tested to the standard which would be required in a criminal Court (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt).
Frankly I don’t see why you would expect me to respect it. Especially if the “due process” seeking to ruin a life was not even in place at the time the accused person was in post - apart from all the other valid concerns, it’s retrospective regulation!!
I will not be replying to or reading any further from you.
Good Day!
The longer this drags on, the more damage will be done to the Scottish National Party. I also question the morals of those who donated to the crowdfund appeal.
Let's be realistic; the sole purpose for this thread is arsenal's vendetta against scottish-guy. Salmonella's sex life is a distraction to the main poilitical story of this and the last few weeks - the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's alleged anti-semitism. That threatens to do what the Salmonella's sideshow can never achieve - splitting a major political party. Here's the latest episode in that saga - https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...emitism-crisis
The other crisis (unspoken because the politically-correct brigade are terrified of being accused of any form of -ism) is the age of Corbyn and his circle. Assuming the next election is held when it should be, both Corbyn and most of his inner circle will be older than the standard retirement age in the UK - and older than any cabinet since Churchill's. Don't mention it - you could be accused of ageism
I assumed that almost went without saying - of course he only started the thread because he knew I'd reply and I doubt he really believes that a person should be able to be destroyed on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, without even knowing the substance of those allegations or allowed to submit evidence on his own behalf. The position he is espousing is simply designed to keep the pot boiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by frequent
However, if he does believe that, then it's a very strange tack from a sex tourist attracted to young male prostitutes in a country where anything can be alleged at any time and where any notion of justice is far removed from our own. He ought to hope he never finds out.
Moving onto Corbyn - I don't see his travails as being a big story - I believe there is not a cat's chance in hell of England electing his party as the Govt and thus him as PM. He has struggled against the most rudderless and incompetent Govt and the worst and weakest PM since Callaghan. He carries far too much baggage with him from his 40 years as a left-wing supporter of unpopular causes - and yes, he is widely seen as too old even though, bizarrely, he draws substantial support from younger votes. Unfortunately these younger voters often don't actually bother to vote whereas over 60 gammons turn out to vote at the drop of a hat and the elderly postal vote is money in the bank for the Tories
His only chance of power is in a coalition or at least with the support of another party - and we can see how well that's worked out in recent years.
<snore>...
I'll try again.
Some posts in this thread have been moved to the Holding Room.
https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showt...?20268-Scandal
If he keeps trying a447 can eventually post his messages in the right thread.
:D