Nipper Salmond

[renton]

Just now, ICTChris said:

There is no criminal trial or case at the moment - there is an investigation by the Scottish Government, which he is challenging in court.  What happens if that investigation judges that he was responsible for sexual harassment?   It's perfectly clear that there are plenty within the SNP who side with Alex Salmond over the civil service on this, would they accept him being excluded from the party?

Is that within the review's competence to do so? My - probably mistaken - understanding was that he was challenging the process by which the investigation was conducted, believing that the way it acted was prejudicial to his position. I don't think the Civil service has the authority to rule that he definitively was responsible for any harassment - only whether there was a sufficient case to pass on to the proper authorities, and therefore any review into that process that upholds or dismisses that process can neither condemn or rehabilitate him. It can only judge whether or not the review was correct in how it approached his case, no? I believe the outcome of the investigation was to pass the details onto Police Scotland? At which point it's up to the procurator fiscal to bring forward a case if it thinks there is evidence to do so.

I imagine he thinks there is insufficient evidence of criminality, and it probably isn't that hard to dump all over the Civil service procedures. If he's wrong, and the Judicial review finds that the Civil Service acted properly, then so long as no criminal case is brought forward, he isn't actually guilty of anything. In which case it becomes a question of people's memories as to when he is "safe" to try and return to public life. If there is a criminal case, and he's found guilty then he's fucked on all counts anyway - and rightfully so.  

In either event, I can't see that causing a schism in the SNP, If there are muddied waters and the Judiciary review finds that Salmond's case was dealt with fairly, but there are no criminal charges? That might create some sense of grievance, but ultimately what is to be done? Twitter raging at the permanent secretary? If there is no pro-Salmond power base in the elected party then there is no substantial threat to party unity. If he's guilty, then ostracising him is the only, politically, pertinent thing to do and there is no realistic way for the opposition to bring that down on the head of a female first minister, or her female permanent secretary. If there is no criminal case brought and the review finds in his favour, then he'll trade his magnanimity for a front row seat at the next referendum.

[ICTChris]

15 minutes ago, renton said:

Is that within the review's competence to do so? My - probably mistaken - understanding was that he was challenging the process by which the investigation was conducted, believing that the way it acted was prejudicial to his position. I don't think the Civil service has the authority to rule that he definitively was responsible for any harassment - only whether there was a sufficient case to pass on to the proper authorities, and therefore any review into that process that upholds or dismisses that process can neither condemn or rehabilitate him. It can only judge whether or not the review was correct in how it approached his case, no? I believe the outcome of the investigation was to pass the details onto Police Scotland? At which point it's up to the procurator fiscal to bring forward a case if it thinks there is evidence to do so.

I imagine he thinks there is insufficient evidence of criminality, and it probably isn't that hard to dump all over the Civil service procedures. If he's wrong, and the Judicial review finds that the Civil Service acted properly, then so long as no criminal case is brought forward, he isn't actually guilty of anything. In which case it becomes a question of people's memories as to when he is "safe" to try and return to public life. If there is a criminal case, and he's found guilty then he's fucked on all counts anyway - and rightfully so.  

In either event, I can't see that causing a schism in the SNP, If there are muddied waters and the Judiciary review finds that Salmond's case was dealt with fairly, but there are no criminal charges? That might create some sense of grievance, but ultimately what is to be done? Twitter raging at the permanent secretary? If there is no pro-Salmond power base in the elected party then there is no substantial threat to party unity. If he's guilty, then ostracising him is the only, politically, pertinent thing to do and there is no realistic way for the opposition to bring that down on the head of a female first minister, or her female permanent secretary. If there is no criminal case brought and the review finds in his favour, then he'll trade his magnanimity for a front row seat at the next referendum.

Is the complaints procedure purely to establish evidence of criminality and then pass it to the police? 

I read Andrew Tickell's article on this in theTimes.  Here's what he says about it, I'm paraphrasing some of it:

A complaint is made about a current or former employee of the government.  An investigating officer is appointed with no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter being raised.  The investigating officer then undertakes an impartial collection of facts from the complainant and any witnesses.  This is written into a report and provided to the permanent secretary, who then decides if the report gives cause for concern over the behaviour of the ex or current Minister.  If so, then the accused is provided with a details of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond.  They can request that statements are taken from additional witnesses at this point.  Following this the permanent secretary will consider the revised report and decide whether the complaint is well founded. 

The complaint being well founded doesn't necessarily require details to be passed to the police.  In most workplace situations a complaint of workplace  harassment doesn't lead to the police being called in.  Obviously if it is worthy of being passed to the police then it would be.  It's perfectly possible that the Scottish Government will find the complaints well founded but that he won't be prosecuted by the police.

ETA - ThatBoyRonaldo has provided a link to the policy that might have saved me typing all this out  This seems the relevant part of the code:

Quote

The outcome of the investigation will be recorded within the SG. The Permanent Secretary will also determine whether any further action is required; including action to ensure lessons are learnt for the future.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by ICTChris

[John Lambies Doos]

Just look at all these 'Progressives' suddenly demanding the right to a fair hearing, innocent before proven guilty. What happened to simply listening and believing victims of powerful male predators?
Tribal scum of the highest order, but delighted at the enlightenment forming.

Considering your undying support for D Trump, you surely must see the irony of your post.

[renton]

11 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Is the complaints procedure purely to establish evidence of criminality and then pass it to the police? 

I read Andrew Tickell's article on this in theTimes.  Here's what he says about it, I'm paraphrasing some of it:

A complaint is made about a current or former employee of the government.  An investigating officer is appointed with no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter being raised.  The investigating officer then undertakes an impartial collection of facts from the complainant and any witnesses.  This is written into a report and provided to the permanent secretary, who then decides if the report gives cause for concern over the behaviour of the ex or current Minister.  If so, then the accused is provided with a details of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond.  They can request that statements are taken from additional witnesses at this point.  Following this the permanent secretary will consider the revised report and decide whether the complaint is well founded. 

The complaint being well founded doesn't necessarily require details to be passed to the police.  In most workplace situations a complaint of workplace  harassment doesn't lead to the police being called in.  Obviously if it is worthy of being passed to the police then it would be.  It's perfectly possible that the Scottish Government will find the complaints well founded but that he won't be prosecuted by the police.

Aye, fair play.  So for him, casting doubt on the Civil Service process is probably sufficient for his reputation, assuming no criminal case can be brought. Still, I think in that scenario - the review finds against him, but no actual criminal case -  falls under the category of did he/didn't he and it's a period of time before he can come back into the public domain, something no doubt his ego would rebel against. I don't think that scenario breaks the SNP - not by itself.  A softer than soft Brexit, torpedoing a second Indy Ref prior to the 2021 election, or even just a listless drift towards that election might well release a lot of pent up frustration in the membership which could find an outlet in the (in their eyes) martyred figure of Alex Salmond.  Still, Sturgeon is popular, and there isn't a lot of open flank for the opposition to attack her over this. 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by renton

[banana]

5 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

2 hours ago, banana said:

Just look at all these 'Progressives' suddenly demanding the right to a fair hearing, innocent before proven guilty. What happened to simply listening and believing victims of powerful male predators?
Tribal scum of the highest order, but delighted at the enlightenment forming.

Considering your undying support for D Trump, you surely must see the irony of your post.

I've been perfectly consistent and vocal in highlighting the insane 'Progressive' embracing of Feminist mob-rule, regardless of the accused, thank you very much.

[jamamafegan]

I’m not too concerned about this debacle. I think he’s innocent and will clear his name. To start believing this will split the SNP - this is what the unionist media and parties want. If this had been a Tory they wouldn’t nearly be making such a fuss as they are with Salmond - they absolutely despise the man and will leap on anything to smear his name.

Don’t get me wrong, if he’s found guilty he should be punished accordingly and there’s no denying it would be a blow to the independence movement. But I’m not too worried for now. A video statement and a crowdfunder - I don’t think these are the acts of a man who is guilty. Unless he’s acting in desperation because he thinks he’s f****d but I don’t think that’s what he’s doing.

[Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier]

How on earth can people say he is innocent or guilty without seeing the evidence? An investigation is underway. We have to see what comes out. If he is innocent it will show his accusers up. If he is guilty there will be a lot of blood letting.

[Joe Terrapin]

Well seen he's a Heart's man, 3 statements and a video. At least the grammar is bearable.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Joe Terrapin

[welshbairn]

I've no problem with Salmond fighting to protect his reputation if he's done nothing wrong. What I do find troubling is him conflating his personal problems with the struggle for independence, as if his interests are equivalent to Scotland's interests. Politicians go mad when they start thinking that way. His loosely veiled threat to split the SNP over it doesn't help his cause either. 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by welshbairn

[Granny Danger]

If Salmond is not guilty it should not enhance the case for Independence.

If Salmond is guilty it should not diminish the case for Independence.

If this has been referred to the police I trust they will be thorough but will also act as quickly as is practical.  Anyone accused of any crime deserves not to have an accusation hanging over their head for a long period.

[DA Baracus]

Wait, there are folk who are genuinely so incredibly thick that they'd change their vote from YES to NO if Salmond is guilty?

What the f**k?!

"Naw I don't want us to govern ourselves. I want to tie us to the murdering, nonce filled filth that is the Tory party and let them drag us in to shit like Brexit and perpetual austerity just because a guy in Scotland was an arsehole creepy touchy scumbag that time."

[Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier]

4 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Wait, there are folk who are genuinely so incredibly thick that they'd change their vote from YES to NO if Salmond is guilty?

What the f**k?!

"Naw I don't want us to govern ourselves. I want to tie us to the murdering, nonce filled filth that is the Tory party and let them drag us in to shit like Brexit and perpetual austerity just because a guy in Scotland was an arsehole creepy touchy scumbag that time."

Such is the high morality of the voter these days.

[Loondave1]

If Salmond is not guilty it should not enhance the case for Independence.
If Salmond is guilty it should not diminish the case for Independence.
If this has been referred to the police I trust they will be thorough but will also act as quickly as is practical.  Anyone accused of any crime deserves not to have an accusation hanging over their head for a long period.

Absolutely correct but doubt that is how it will pan out in the real world somehow.

[ICTChris]

I think a lot of people are posting what they want to be true about this rather than what is.

[John Lambies Doos]

I think a lot of people are posting what they want to be true about this rather than what is.

Welcome to P&B

[Londonwell]

What do people think if Salmond wins his court case against the Scot Gov?

That wouldn’t  prove his innocence but does severely damage the Scot Gov ie. the First Minister. 

This court case isn’t about whether or not he did what he has been accused of but rather the process of the investigation into him. I’m only really coming to terms with how messy this could be. 

I don’t know what the accusations are btw, but there are rumours, that’s for sure. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Londonwell

[lichtgilphead]

7 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

For info - the process which Salmond is challenging via judicial review has been posted online by the SG. I'm not a lawyer but having read through it, it seems perfectly fair and if they have followed the policy correctly then I don't see how Salmond has a case... 

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/handling-of-harassment-complaints-involving-current-or-former-ministers/

I don't see the section that says that it's ok for the Civil Service or the Police to pass details of the investigation to the Daily Record. Am I missing something?

[AyrExile]

It’s a poor show someone wealthy tapping tenners from grassroots supporters already struggling through Tory austerity. Innocent or guilty neither side will come out of this without damage. The worrying part for the SNP being Salmond is a restless character who I can’t see being decent if certain decisions don’t go his own way

[John Lambies Doos]

What do people think if Salmond wins his court case against the Scot Gov?
That wouldn’t  prove his innocence but does severely damage the Scot Gov ie. the First Minister. 
This court case isn’t about whether or not he did what he has been accused of but rather the process of the investigation into him. I’m only really coming to terms with how messy this could be. 
I don’t know what the accusations are btw, but there are rumours, that’s for sure. 

Possibly a good opportunity for the emergence of a stronger cross functional independence movement. Labour will split quite soon imo. A centralist party will emerge, play it right and perhaps a separate labour in Scotland may also back independence.

[jimmer]

SUPPORT ALEX AND SCOTLAND. THE UNIONIST SCUM WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO DISCREDIT OUR NATION AND DESTROY THE MOVE TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE...…..https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/alexsalmond/backers/