Alex Salmond.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This is not an enquiry into the actions is Mr Salmond.....it is the enquiry into the unlawful actions of scotgov and it's civil servants that has cost us all (and continues to cost us) a shed load of money. Needless to say their behaviour nearly cost Salmond a whole lot more. 
He wants his evidence heard in full. I don't blame him.
The civil service legal teams action to prevent Salmonds evidence has caused Lady Dorrian to step in and ammend her definition of what would constitute a contempt. His evidence should now be able to be heard.
This whole thing just makes scotgov and it's civil service look obstructive and a bit shady tbh.

Try reading.

The whole point is that the judge feels now that evidence can be presented in full but when published will be redacted to protect the identity of the complainants.

It's about the only way to try and bridge two conflicting positions.

[git-intae-thum]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Try reading.

The whole point is that the judge feels now that evidence can be presented in full but when published will be redacted to protect the identity of the complainants.

It's about the only way to try and bridge two conflicting positions.

Well obviously

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Stinky Bone said:

But there are too many that take NS side that she is innocent in this.

And that is what is destroying the SNP.

 

Nothing’s destroying the SNP.

[strichener]

On 12/02/2021 at 18:59, DeeTillEhDeh said:

If it is redacted as the revised court order is suggesting then it can be published.

You would assume that redaction would be up to the committee itself (following legal advice) so it does not reveal the identity of the complainants.

It still has to be published, redacted or not.  The vote that the committee have just taken was to not do this.  It will be interesting to see what they do now that the court ruling has, on the surface, removed any barriers that the committee may have thought existed.  Tellingly they initially refused to reconvene on Friday to discuss it as it was inconvenient for the Chair.

Edited February 13, 2021 by strichener

[DeeTillEhDeh]

It still has to be published, redacted or not.  The vote that the committee have just taken was to not do this.  It will be interesting to see what they do now that the court ruling has, on the surface, removed any barriers that the committee may have thought existed.  Tellingly they initially refused to reconvene on Friday to discuss it as it was inconvenient for the Chair.

I think they are going to have to reconsider on the basis of the new ruling.

That being said, it will depend on what Salmond does, I still have doubts that he is willing to do an oral submission unless it is full publication.

[strichener]

14 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I think they are going to have to reconsider on the basis of the new ruling.

That being said, it will depend on what Salmond does, I still have doubts that he is willing to do an oral submission unless it is full publication.

I think everyone is waiting for the actual text of the ruling before setting out their stall.  Could be an explosive week ahead.

[strichener]

I see one of the accusers has now come out (still under the cover on anominity) to give an interview where she states that the Inquiry is worse than the criminal trial.

[sophia]

40 minutes ago, strichener said:

I see one of the accusers has now come out (still under the cover on anominity) to give an interview where she states that the Inquiry is worse than the criminal trial.

I saw the interview with Glenn Campbell this morning and whereas there were balancing caveats, there did seem to an assumptive air of guilt about the broadcast.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

On 12/02/2021 at 10:16, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Of course there's proxies - where do you think the rags are getting their stories from?

Instead of leaking stuff to the papers he really needs to appear without any preconditions.

That's the real fucking issue - Salmond wants to appear on his terms only.

Eh, you'll be aware that someone in the SG leaked the entire thing to the papers when they realised their defence of the judicial review was collapsing?

You'll be aware that Salmond has been threatened with contempt charges if he tells the inquiry everything he knows? And that no lawyer who didn't want to be struck off would advise him to appear until that is cleared?

You'll be aware that Swinney has done everything in his power (and beyond, lolz) to suppress evidence, including the SG's legal advice re judicial review?

But no, your hot take is that Salmond is deliberately 'drip-dripping', through proxies, evidence that he would have chosen to put in the public domain a year or more ago...

He's a bad, bad man...

 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

On 12/02/2021 at 10:30, Granny Danger said:

You’ve got to love the seethe from zoomers like Ghostie.   Sitting battering away in tears on a keyboard because the world won’t agree with you.

He/she/they will be apoplectic come the results of the Holyrood elections.

From you, Granny man -- truly the zoomer's zoomer -- I'll take that as a compliment.

But tell me, from one zoomer to another, what happens next in the event, however unlikely, the SNP get a majority in May with Sturgeon still in place?

On 12/02/2021 at 10:43, Granny Danger said:

Maybe, but I wonder if the Mark Hirst guy will point out it’s a non-profit, or maybe he knew this when he did his initial tweet.

Aye, 'the Mark Hirst guy', you know the guy who was maliciously prosecuted on James Wolffe's say-so, for reasons that couldn't possibly be linked to the Salmond fit-up. That guy.

On 12/02/2021 at 20:45, Granny Danger said:

Nothing’s destroying the SNP.

Depends.

Depends on how soon and on what terms the current leader accepts the inevitable... or whether she's intent, as currently looks to be the case, on burning down the house.

[SandyCromarty]

Sadly there is a bit more to the story that many knew about welll before the accusations were discussed in court.

I've mentioned it before but take no pleasure in doing so but if you want you can Google Alex Salmond and Edinburgh Airport lounge incident.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

I see one of the accusers has now come out (still under the cover on anominity) to give an interview where she states that the Inquiry is worse than the criminal trial.

Remarkable that should happen the morning after COPFS issue a tweet, with no context at all, giving an inaccurate definition of a 'complainer' under Scots law.

Enter BBC, who've tried to ignore this up to now, piling on the narrative that everybody has forgotten the 'victims'... and giving air-time, with no balancing commentary whatsoever, to someone who is now abusing the anonymity (rightly) granted before and during the trial.

Desperation on all fronts; this is (thank f**k) entering its final days...

 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Sadly there is a bit more to the story that many knew about welll before the accusations were discussed in court.

I've mentioned it before but take no pleasure in doing so but if you want you can Google Alex Salmond and Edinburgh Airport lounge incident.

You really need to say what your point is (and no, I'm not suggesting you name names...).

[SandyCromarty]

3 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

You really need to say what your point is (and no, I'm not suggesting you name names...).

Google the 2008 Edin Airport Lounge incident.

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

I haven't read the interview but I think you probably could argue the inquiry is worse than the trial because at least the trial was narrowly focused on whether he was guilty or not. The inquiry is theoretically focused as I understand it on the SG ballsing up their HR process, but because it was politically driven by the opposition with the intent of damaging the FM, and Salmond and his acolytes seem to want to use it to do the same, the discourse around it ranges much wider and allows all the crap about 'they were making it up' etc to persist. The fact it's all in the hands of towering intellects like Murdo Fraser and Alex Cole Hamilton as opposed to professional lawyers etc would also give me much less reassurance were I one of the complainers.

The fact that Liz Lloyd and Geoff Aberdein aren't being allowed to appear shows that a huge effort is being made to keep this away from Sturgeon's door. 

I also don't think it's wrong to ask whether the anonymity granted because of an allegation of hair tousling, a kiss on the cheek or leg touching should outweigh the need to investigate illegal (as confirmed by the court of session ruling) action by senior civil servants and potentially elected politicians against a former First Minister. It can't be reasonable that a person can act illegally then invent a false allegation which renders any investigation of their actions impossible. 

Even if Salmond was guilty and the allegations were credible there is still loads of evidence of people very close to Sturgeon ignoring legal advice, breaking civil service rules and potentially perverting the course of justice. The Court of Session ruling in itself should have ended several careers, the fact that it didn't suggests Sturgeon is also up to her neck in it. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

1 minute ago, SandyCromarty said:

Google the 2008 Edin Airport Lounge incident.

I know about the Edinburgh airport incident... and my interpretation of what I know reflects well on Salmond, not so well on Murrell and Robertson...

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The fact that Liz Lloyd and Geoff Aberdein aren't being allowed to appear shows that a huge effort is being made to keep this away from Sturgeon's door. 

I also don't think it's wrong to ask whether the anonymity granted because of an allegation of hair tousling, a kiss on the cheek or leg touching should outweigh the need to investigate illegal (as confirmed by the court of session ruling) action by senior civil servants and potentially elected politicians against a former First Minister. It can't be reasonable that a person can act illegally then invent a false allegation which renders any investigation of their actions impossible. 

Even if Salmond was guilty and the allegations were credible there is still loads of evidence of people very close to Sturgeon ignoring legal advice, breaking civil service rules and potentially perverting the course of justice. The Court of Session ruling in itself should have ended several careers, the fact that it didn't suggests Sturgeon is also up to her neck in it. 

That is it, right there.

[Erih Shtrep]

34 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

 

But no, your hot take is that Salmond is deliberately 'drip-dripping', through proxies, evidence that he would have chosen to put in the public domain a year or more ago..

 

Surely you accept that Stuart Campbell's bizarre  behaviour towards Sturgeon ramped up many notches after Stuart appeared on the Alex Salmond show?   

Just about every day there's a *inhale through your teeth* article about how the FM is 'blinking a lot today' or similar pointless guff.  

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

Surely you accept that Stuart Campbell's bizarre  behaviour towards Sturgeon ramped up many notches after Stuart appeared on the Alex Salmond show?   

Just about every day there's a *inhale through your teeth* article about how the FM is 'blinking a lot today' or similar pointless guff.  

I really, really don't care about Stuart Campbell...

My guess, for what it's worth, is that his behaviour towards Sturgeon 'ramped up' after someone filled him in on what had happened with the Salmond case... which is why it appeared to you and many others as 'bizarre'.

But none of that actually matters.

[git-intae-thum]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

Google the 2008 Edin Airport Lounge incident.

My understanding is that any alleged incidents at Edinburgh airport were thoroughly investigated....as you would expect....and found to be completely unsubstantiated. That's was certainly what was reported in the press.

Indeed from recollection, his Met police bodyguard (who accompanied him everywhere) gave a statement to detectives confirming nothing untoward ever happened.

***edit**** as suggested I did a quick Google search. Nothing in addition to the above.