Alex Salmond - court case concluded

[Ben@Forest]

The most obvious answer to why five years later? is of course that the complainant has only recently come forward. #Me Too has had a significant impact in the last year or so. Crimes don't have to have been committed yesterday to be prosecuted.

[georgew]

The most obvious answer to why five years later? is of course that the complainant has only recently come forward. #Me Too has had a significant impact in the last year or so. Crimes don't have to have been committed yesterday to be prosecuted.

"The Scottish government claimed last August the complaints were first made in January 2018. But Clancy told Pentland that MacKinnon and three other civil servants, including Evans, had become aware of the allegations from Miss A and Miss B in November 2017, two months before their formal complaints were lodged."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ourt-rules

"Two complaints in relation to Mr Salmond were made in January of this year.

According to the Daily Record, they relate to events in 2013 when he was first minister."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45295578

As to the truth of these allegations, I have no opinion and clearly it's right that these have to be investigated. That said, there is some scepticism here in Scotland as to the timing of this....forgivable in my opinion given the behaviour of civil servants when they acted illegally during the Independence referendum in a way which broke the code demanding neutrality.

[Ben@Forest]

I presume (l don't know but you may be better informed) that the charges may not relate to the allegations he was already cleared of in the internal investigation? It could be different people?

[georgew]

Not a scooby I'm afraid.

[irc]

I presume (l don't know but you may be better informed) that the charges may not relate to the allegations he was already cleared of in the internal investigation? It could be different people?

He wasn't cleared of anything in the internal investigation. He won a ruling that the internal investigation hadn't been conducted fairly. The court did not make any ruling on the truth of the allegations.

Mr Salmond's case focused entirely on the fairness of the government's procedures and will have no bearing on a separate police inquiry into the allegations, which is still ongoing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-46428570

I would be wary of any speculation on the case as it is now "live". The law applies to everyone, not just journalists.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/a ... -1-4862716

[Canuk]

Reporting restrictions are much more strict in Scotland. They do not apply in the rest of the UK, nor the world for that matter. As seen in the Tommy Sheridan case ,there were tens of thousands of contentious posts made online, and many documents and photos leaked from the press ('anonymously') pre trial. None of those were followed up, never mind prosecuted. Can you imagine trying to censure 100,000 Social media users? Once a public figure is identified in a court case, unfortunately in this day and age the majority of the public think them fair game.

[thirdcrank]

I'd be slow to lecture irc about this.

[irc]

Reporting restrictions are much more strict in Scotland. They do not apply in the rest of the UK, nor the world for that matter. As seen in the Tommy Sheridan case ,there were tens of thousands of contentious posts made online, and many documents and photos leaked from the press ('anonymously') pre trial. None of those were followed up, never mind prosecuted. Can you imagine trying to censure 100,000 Social media users? Once a public figure is identified in a court case, unfortunately in this day and age the majority of the public think them fair game.

You are probably correct that the chance of any action being taken for forum posts is trivial. Of course we could just refrain from public speculation about the case because it is also the right and fair thing to do.

[Tangled Metal]

It's Scotland, isn't there always pressure building for independence (in some quarters)?

[Paulatic]

It's Scotland, isn't there always pressure building for independence (in some quarters)?

aye and the pressure is the highest I’ve ever witnessed.

[Mick F]

Let them go if they want.
Have yet another referendum maybe?

[Cugel]

Reporting restrictions are much more strict in Scotland. They do not apply in the rest of the UK, nor the world for that matter. As seen in the Tommy Sheridan case ,there were tens of thousands of contentious posts made online, and many documents and photos leaked from the press ('anonymously') pre trial. None of those were followed up, never mind prosecuted. Can you imagine trying to censure 100,000 Social media users? Once a public figure is identified in a court case, unfortunately in this day and age the majority of the public think them fair game.

You are probably correct that the chance of any action being taken for forum posts is trivial. Of course we could just refrain from public speculation about the case because it is also the right and fair thing to do.

Yes indeed. I'm always surprised that so many people who read a bit of infotainment - so-called news - are more than anxious to speculate, opine and condemn based on effectively no knowledge whatsoever of those they discuss or their actions, other than breathless speculations of some semi-inebriated "journalist" and his circulation-desperate editor.

I suppose this sort of behaviour in a forum or other social media is the modern equivalent of toxic fishwife gossip in the gutting shed - often mean, nasty and very keen to create, bait and generally condemn subjects of the gossip.

To be frank, blunt and entirely undiplomatic about the subject, I find modern consumers of "news" and their endless stupid, mean-minded and ignorant comments very tiresome. I'd put them all in the cupboard under the stairs for, oh, hours and hours!

Cugel, gutting his own fish with a dollop of spiteful comment.

[Tinnishill]

So, you were saying ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-52012145

[Carlton green]

From time to time false allegation and false witness does happen, but similarly guilty people sometimes manage to walk free from the Courtroom when they should have been convicted. IMHO our Courts are imperfect but they’re the best we can hope for and a lot better than the alternatives.

I find the result rather concerning. In order to bring a prosecution against someone of such high standing there must have been a significant amount of evidence yet somehow he is found innocent. Defence costs were, I believe, crowd funded and no doubt he had the best legal team whereas the crown prosecuting service probably didn’t. I don’t believe that justice is served well by having significantly different ability levels in the prosecution and defence teams.

In normal circumstances physical protest against an innocent rape type judgement would have been expected from women’s groups but Coronavirus has made that protest impossible - that situation (no protest allowed) doesn’t seem quite right to me. As far as I’m concerned his acquittal raises a lot of questions and makes me wonder about the integrity of the Scottish legal system.

I don’t know whether it would prove to be the case or not but if a forum member was similarly charged (same weight of evidence) then my instinct is to believe that they’d be behind bars for a very long time. Makes me wonder about the jury system when applied to popular figures, but I am a cynic and appreciate that I don’t know all the details.

[Paulatic]

. Makes me wonder about the jury system when applied to popular figures, but I am a cynic and appreciate that I don’t know all the details.

I think you missed out 'wondering' about the people who brought the charges and why?
I don’t know all the details either but It looks like the rumours were right and the reason people subscribed to crowdfunding.