Alex Salmond.

[Alternative Title]

4 hours 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 wonder if she could retain anonimity if he was sue to her for defamation. A court of law has already disagreed with her version of events, as he was found not guilty.
 

[SandyCromarty]

42 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

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.

Firstly, like the majority of SNP members, I was an admirer of Alex Salmond and absolutely applauded his political ability which eventually led us to the first referendum. I did hear rumours on Alex but I put this down to political rivalry and the usual dishonest muckraking that goes hand in hand with political life.

You are right that there was a police investigation into an incident at Edinburgh Airport in 2008 which Alex formally denied, however the two women involved made no formal complaint and the police investigation ceased.

Angus Robertson in a deposition to the ongoing inquiry has stated that he did receive a phone call from an airport manager asking him to have a word with Alex regarding his behaviour, Angus did so and Alex Salmond denied that any indiscretion on his part had taken place.

We are now in a run up to the May elections which hopefully will lead to an Independence referendum, sadly this ongoing Alex Salmond sideshow is detracting from our purpose and only provides sniping ammo to the likes of the tories and the Warks/Smiths.

Alex Salmond was cleared in court of all sexuall offences charged against him, a decision which upset his political enemies and so the debacle continues.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

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

Fabiani will almost certainly be waiting for the legal advice before anything is done

[DeeTillEhDeh]

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.

I was about to post but you have made the point I was going to make.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

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...
 

Aye - it's the Scottish Government that says the women are all liars.

Jesus wept.

You also clearly have f**k all understanding of what contempt of court is.

The initial ruling by the judge made it clear that full publication was not possible.

In Scotland, there is no specific provision which grants automatic anonymity to victims, or alleged victims, of sexual assault in cases tried under Scottish law but a judge has the power to make an order granting anonymity - and that is what has happened in this case.

Even with the new ruling there will not be full publication as it seems there would need to be redaction of evidence in order that the identity of complainants is not revealed.

Yet we still have zoomers like you insisting on full publication - it's as if you just don't give a f**k about the principle of anonymity in these sorts of cases.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

18 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

 

Aye - it's the Scottish Government that says the women are all liars.

Jesus wept.

You also clearly have f**k all understanding of what contempt of court is.

The initial ruling by the judge made it clear that full publication was not possible.

In Scotland, there is no specific provision which grants automatic anonymity to victims, or alleged victims, of sexual assault in cases tried under Scottish law but a judge has the power to make an order granting anonymity - and that is what has happened in this case.

Even with the new ruling there will not be full publication as it seems there would need to be redaction of evidence in order that the identity of complainants is not revealed.

Yet we still have zoomers like you insisting on full publication - it's as if you just don't give a f**k about the principle of anonymity in these sorts of cases.

 

Incoherent noise... bears no relation whatsoever to the post you imagine you’ve replied to.

You should give serious consideration to learning to read before replying; either that, or just stop posting...

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Incoherent noise... bears no relation whatsoever to the post you imagine you’ve replied to.
You should give serious consideration to learning to read before replying; either that, or just stop posting...

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Pretty sure you’re trolling and stupid... but wouldn’t rule out the possibility that you’re genuinely unable to read.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Pretty sure you’re trolling and stupid... but wouldn’t rule out the possibility that you’re genuinely unable to read.

"You'll be aware that Salmond has been threatened with contempt charges if he tells the inquiry everything he knows?"

This wee beauty sums up your stupidity.

Explain how you have full publication without being in contempt of court?

That is not the fault of the Scottish Government or the enquiry it's the bloody judge who made the ruling

How fucking thick are you that don't get that?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

On ignore now - Pepp at least attempted to debate - this dick doesn't.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I wonder if she could retain anonimity if he was sue to her for defamation. A court of law has already disagreed with her version of events, as he was found not guilty.
 

The ruling still applies to all the complainants - even after the trial.

In England, all victims of sexual offences, including children, are automatically guaranteed anonymity for life from the moment they make an allegation that they are the victim of a sexual offence. A victim is guaranteed anonymity even when someone else accuses the defendant of the offence. In Scotland, the law is different but the practice of respecting anonymity is the same.

Anonymity remains in force for the lifetime of the victim, even where the allegation is withdrawn, the police decide to take no action, or the accused is acquitted.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

28 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

"You'll be aware that Salmond has been threatened with contempt charges if he tells the inquiry everything he knows?"

This wee beauty sums up your stupidity.

Explain how you have full publication without being in contempt of court?

That is not the fault of the Scottish Government or the enquiry it's the bloody judge who made the ruling

How fucking thick are you that don't get that?


 

 

OK, let’s adopt the ‘glass half full’ approach....

Show me where, in the post to which you, eh, replied, I said ‘it's the Scottish Government that says the women are all liars’.

Then show me where in the same post I demand ‘full publication’ (clue: I don’t use that expression at all or anything like it; you do, over and over again, without any prompting, because that’s what you want to hear, so that’s what you did hear, because you have reading difficulties).

Then you could maybe go back to the post itself, get somebody to help you read it properly, and actually address what I did say.

Take your time and be very precise.

As for debate... there’s no debate at all about the fact that you’re an utter dick. You confirmed that with your first post on the subject... not to mention your sudden silence when invited to put your money where your mouth is. You confirm it every time you post.

Keep it up.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

49 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

On ignore now - Pepp at least attempted to debate - this dick doesn't.

Ooh, just noticed that... demand for ‘debate’ followed by block. A classic.

Another clown bites the dust.

[Alternative Title]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

The ruling still applies to all the complainants - even after the trial.

In England, all victims of sexual offences, including children, are automatically guaranteed anonymity for life from the moment they make an allegation that they are the victim of a sexual offence. A victim is guaranteed anonymity even when someone else accuses the defendant of the offence. In Scotland, the law is different but the practice of respecting anonymity is the same.

Anonymity remains in force for the lifetime of the victim, even where the allegation is withdrawn, the police decide to take no action, or the accused is acquitted.

It almost looks like a complainer can perjure themselves, yet remain unidentified.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

It almost looks like a complainer can perjure themselves, yet remain unidentified.

Not quite.

In England, in rare cases, a judge can order that the anonymity be withdrawn in the interests of justice.

In England, the issue of perjury is covered by section 1(4) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, the effect of which is that an alleged victim who is subsequently prosecuted for an offence in relation to the reporting of the alleged sexual offence in question, such as perjury, will lose their anonymity and can therefore be identified.

This Act does not apply to Scotland (or Northern Ireland) where instead we have the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act where Witness Anonymity Orders can be issued by courts requiring such specified measures to be taken in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings as the court considers appropriate to ensure that the identity of the witness is not disclosed in or in connection with the proceedings.

They are used in conjunction with the Contempt of Court Act as well as gentlemen's agreements to preserve anonymity.

In England it is anonymity unless the judge decides otherwise - in Scotland there is no anonymity unless the judge decides.

[git-intae-thum]

On 14/02/2021 at 18:39, SandyCromarty said:

Firstly, like the majority of SNP members, I was an admirer of Alex Salmond and absolutely applauded his political ability which eventually led us to the first referendum. I did hear rumours on Alex but I put this down to political rivalry and the usual dishonest muckraking that goes hand in hand with political life.

You are right that there was a police investigation into an incident at Edinburgh Airport in 2008 which Alex formally denied, however the two women involved made no formal complaint and the police investigation ceased.

Angus Robertson in a deposition to the ongoing inquiry has stated that he did receive a phone call from an airport manager asking him to have a word with Alex regarding his behaviour, Angus did so and Alex Salmond denied that any indiscretion on his part had taken place.

We are now in a run up to the May elections which hopefully will lead to an Independence referendum, sadly this ongoing Alex Salmond sideshow is detracting from our purpose and only provides sniping ammo to the likes of the tories and the Warks/Smiths.

Alex Salmond was cleared in court of all sexuall offences charged against him, a decision which upset his political enemies and so the debacle continues.

 

As reported at the time, his met detective (who one would assume to be an impartial, competent witness and relevant to any enquiry as a statement was noted from them) saw nothing untoward in Salmonds alleged conduct. No police report was forthcoming. One would have to assume then, that on the balance of probabilities the whole Edinburgh airport thing is a load of made up shite.....or something daft totally blown out of proportion

You have to remember that Salmond is probably the most polarising figure in Scottish political history. There were/ are plenty of persons (even in his own party) desperate to throw mud and have some of it stick.

 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

 
As reported at the time, his met detective (who one would assume to be an impartial, competent witness and relevant to any enquiry as a statement was noted from them) saw nothing untoward in Salmonds alleged conduct. No police report was forthcoming. One would have to assume then, that on the balance of probabilities the whole Edinburgh airport thing is a load of made up shite.....or something daft totally blown out of proportion
You have to remember that Salmond is probably the most polarising figure in Scottish political history. There were/ are plenty of persons (even in his own party) desperate to throw mud and have some of it stick.
 

So, just to be clear, the various women who bought charges against Alex Salmond did it A) because they were collectively indulging in a load of shite and/or B) they did it because he is the most polarising figure in Scottish politics.

[SandyCromarty]

10 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Not quite.

In England, in rare cases, a judge can order that the anonymity be withdrawn in the interests of justice.

In England, the issue of perjury is covered by section 1(4) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, the effect of which is that an alleged victim who is subsequently prosecuted for an offence in relation to the reporting of the alleged sexual offence in question, such as perjury, will lose their anonymity and can therefore be identified.

This Act does not apply to Scotland (or Northern Ireland) where instead we have the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act where Witness Anonymity Orders can be issued by courts requiring such specified measures to be taken in relation to a witness in criminal proceedings as the court considers appropriate to ensure that the identity of the witness is not disclosed in or in connection with the proceedings.

They are used in conjunction with the Contempt of Court Act as well as gentlemen's agreements to preserve anonymity.

In England it is anonymity unless the judge decides otherwise - in Scotland there is no anonymity unless the judge decides.

Honestly I do not want to get into this argument.

But on the issue of ruling in England and Scotland isn't it the case that english law is based on precedent and that the Judge is bound by that, however if that Judge can prove a precedent in a particular point of law that it can be used in a case, anonymity eg.

In Scottish law a Judge has more freedom and is not bound by precedent and can waive anonymity in his opinion as long as it is within the law and in the interest of the case..

Plse correct me if I'm wrong. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I

Honestly I do not want to get into this argument.
But on the issue of ruling in England and Scotland isn't it the case that english law is based on precedent and that the Judge is bound by that, however if that Judge can prove a precedent in a particular point of law that it can be used in a case, anonymity eg.
In Scottish law a Judge has more freedom and is not bound by precedent and can waive anonymity in his opinion as long as it is within the law and in the interest of the case..
Plse correct me if I'm wrong. 

Yep - judges in Scotland have a lot more leeway.

[alta-pete]

I thought this a very well written article on the whole thing:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/insight-alex-salmond-inquiry-heads-final-showdown-3134295#disqus-comment-section

tl;dr? Looks like it'll all end as a fudge with no-one really satisfied at the outcome. No-one outside of those with the keenest interest in politics really cares, NS carries on due to her huge personal approval ratings and AS retires a bitter old man, stymied by his own, earlier and poorly worded, legislation.