pwa wrote:I find this case troubling. How many people accused him? Nine? [/How likely is it that so many people would make false claims? I'm struggling to think of a scenario in which that would happen.quote]
Yeah......you're struggling as you don't know enough of the background.
Alex Salmond had announced in 2018 that he was intending to re-entering politics and this was in May. His doing so represented a threat to the present SNP leadership given his political stature. In August of the same year, there began an investigation of alleged sexual offenses which involved members of the present First Minister's coterie.....alleged offenses which occurred five years earlier. The permanent Secretary then began an internal investigation which was so biased and flawed that it evoked a lawsuit by Salmond which was successful, and he was awarded damages. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government proceeded with these allegations and the Police then embarked upon a two-year trawling exercise which involved twenty officers and four hundred interviews, searching for complainants. The trial which then ensued uncovered emails and other material which showed a concerted effort by the complainants to smear Salmond, the result of which ensured the failure of his attempt to re-enter politics. It was clear that the trial should never have taken place, such was the paucity of the evidence, and the whole thing emitted a strong odour of rotting fish.
Once the present emergency is over there are going to be repercussions as Salmond will pursue in Court those found to be responsible for this farce.
Thank you, a most helpful insight. We shall have to see what comes of all of this but as they say politics is a dirty game.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
merseymouth wrote:Morning all, Simple question - In either England or Scotland would a jury composed entirely of women have cleared? The point about the reduction of jurors is a perfectly valid one, fixed number for conviction with a harder percentage target. If losing 2 jurors had moved the target down to say 7 would he have had such a nice outcome for Salmond? Too many creepy pawers in the world with awful social skills! MM
I thought juries were supposed to be representative of the people. The people are not all women.
Being Male or female does not stop you reasonably representing other people and so shouldn’t (but might) be a factor in jury selection. However, in my experience women can form very dispassionate, independent and analytical decisions, their observation of the female witnesses would likely have insights typically outside of male experience. A male jury might well hold back on another Male, bias in favour if the defendant ‘cause that ‘could be me in the Dock’. Women can be hard on other women and they are aware that they are judging some other women’s husband, brother or father.
Would an all female jury have been better. For the sake of loosing wider perspectives probably not, but one with say 70% female would almost certainly be helpful towards ensuring a fair judgement.
pwa wrote:I find this case troubling. How many people accused him? Nine? [/How likely is it that so many people would make false claims? I'm struggling to think of a scenario in which that would happen.quote]
Yeah......you're struggling as you don't know enough of the background.
Alex Salmond had announced in 2018 that he was intending to re-entering politics and this was in May. His doing so represented a threat to the present SNP leadership given his political stature. In August of the same year, there began an investigation of alleged sexual offenses which involved members of the present First Minister's coterie.....alleged offenses which occurred five years earlier. The permanent Secretary then began an internal investigation which was so biased and flawed that it evoked a lawsuit by Salmond which was successful, and he was awarded damages. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government proceeded with these allegations and the Police then embarked upon a two-year trawling exercise which involved twenty officers and four hundred interviews, searching for complainants. The trial which then ensued uncovered emails and other material which showed a concerted effort by the complainants to smear Salmond, the result of which ensured the failure of his attempt to re-enter politics. It was clear that the trial should never have taken place, such was the paucity of the evidence, and the whole thing emitted a strong odour of rotting fish.
Once the present emergency is over there are going to be repercussions as Salmond will pursue in Court those found to be responsible for this farce.
Thank you, a most helpful insight. We shall have to see what comes of all of this but as they say politics is a dirty game.
If true, it makes the SNP look like a pretty ruthless load of stab-in-the-backs with no principles. If true.
Thank you, a most helpful insight. We shall have to see what comes of all of this but as they say politics is a dirty game.
If true, it makes the SNP look like a pretty ruthless load of stab-in-the-backs with no principles. If true.
We will see.......but do you really think that they differ from all politicians? I think back to when the Lib Dems used homophobic tactics to defeat Peter Tatchell being elected in London way back.
Afternoon all, It would seem that no one has a view over the voting number of jurors to produce a guilty verdict when the panel loses members? Obtaining a 8 vote count is potentially harder to achieve with a 13 person panel over a 15 person group! After all with elections it doesn't matter what the turn-out is, only the majority in favour of one candidate over others. So why shouldn't it have had in place lesser number for guilty with the smaller jury as opposed to a full panel? MM
Carlton green wrote:Would an all female jury have been better. For the sake of loosing wider perspectives probably not, but one with say 70% female would almost certainly be helpful towards ensuring a fair judgement.
I thought it was a jury if 9 women and 6 men? Whilst it doesn’t reach your magic figure of 70% surely 60% women must be better than 60% men.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Carlton green wrote:Would an all female jury have been better. For the sake of loosing wider perspectives probably not, but one with say 70% female would almost certainly be helpful towards ensuring a fair judgement.
I thought it was a jury if 9 women and 6 men? Whilst it doesn’t reach your magic figure of 70% surely 60% women must be better than 60% men.
My text was in answer to a more general question but it did overlap to the current case. IMHO 60% women is better than 60% men but you seem to miss the point made: ie. for such cases in general it is best to have an a substantially female jury with just enough men remaining to give a wider view. Note that I have made ‘say’ into bold text above, we are talking approximations here but aiming for somewhere between and including 2/3 to 3/4 seems about right to me.
Last edited by Graham on 27 Mar 2020, 1:24pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Title updated
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Oldjohnw wrote: Or leave an innocent person having s cloud over their head for ever.
That is true but the alternative to that is a polarised judgement that would see the accused either acquitted or convicted. I’d have thought that for an innocent man a not proven verdict is in practice near the same result as an innocent verdict but a guilty verdict would see a penalty imposed. Personally I wouldn’t like my future to be decided by a polarised vote that could feel pushed into convicting me, the alternative of a cloud over me would be a better option.
I think that in Scotland such a verdict only gives credence to that dreadful concept of no smoke without fire. Such a cloud will stop you getting a job and exclude you from society.
This is true I reckon.
If course the gov.scot website says not proven and not guilty are the same in that it is not a guilty verdict and it means the accused cannot be tried again.
An interesting summary of research into the topic here.
Basically it's a cop out! Juries need to agree a verdict but can't agree on guilty or not guilty so they compromise and allow not proven with all that "no smoke without fire" stigma. Nothing would be lost taking b it out of Scottish law. Juries should be able to get a verdict or a retrial if not. It's a duty and IMHO a cop out option is failure of duty even if it's allowed in law. Can we have a "jury can't agree so leave the accused in limbo" verdict option? Ten minutes deliberation, let's get home to our families and just go in with the cop out option. Is that an extreme view? Personally I believe strongly in a good jury trial where a verdict that's unequivocal as to guilt is given. If not possible then retrial to hell with cost! Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent given not proven or guilty. Clear or apportion guilt decisively.
Of course that one not proven verdict still allows his opponents and everyone else to cast doubt on Salmon's other not guilty offences. He did it in one allegation (but the prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt) so it's likely be done it with the others, right?
Back to politics! Does this make SNP politics a little more muddy? Where are the next political knives coming from / getting stuck into? Will it harm the SNP next opportunity to vote?
merseymouth wrote:Afternoon all, It would seem that no one has a view over the voting number of jurors to produce a guilty verdict when the panel loses members? Obtaining a 8 vote count is potentially harder to achieve with a 13 person panel over a 15 person group! After all with elections it doesn't matter what the turn-out is, only the majority in favour of one candidate over others. So why shouldn't it have had in place lesser number for guilty with the smaller jury as opposed to a full panel? MM
In Scotland, more jurors are empaneled than are required. If a juror or jurors fall out for any reason, then they can be replaced.
Carlton green wrote:.........................................
<snip> Of course that one not proven verdict still allows his opponents and everyone else to cast doubt on Salmon's other not guilty offences. He did it in one allegation (but the prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt) so it's likely be done it with the others, right?[b]
[/b]Back to politics! Does this make SNP politics a little more muddy? Where are the next political knives coming from / getting stuck into? Will it harm the SNP next opportunity to vote?
You have to understand that in Scotland the whole of the press is unionist and that only one newspaper supports the cause of Independence. No matter the verdict......it was always going to happen that Salmond would be utterly condemned.....in fact this happened even before the trial when the allegations against him were featured on the same full-page featuring serial killers.
Reported in Sunday Times today that Salmond's own QC described him as a, 'sex pest' and a 'bully'. Apparently recorded by a member of the public. Can't link because tne ST is paywalled, but lawyers must've gone through this with a fine toothcomb before printing it on the front page.
Any idea that this is some pro-unionist agenda, is frankly grasping at straws, any newspaper would print this about any politician if facts substantiated it.
Ben@Forest wrote:Reported in Sunday Times today that Salmond's own QC described him as a, 'sex pest' and a 'bully'. Apparently recorded by a member of the public. Can't link because tne ST is paywalled, but lawyers must've gone through this with a fine toothcomb before printing it on the front page.
Any idea that this is some pro-unionist agenda, is frankly grasping at straws, any newspaper would print this about any politician if facts substantiated it.
I accept that a jury found that the case(s) against Salmond did not prove that he committed a crime, and that he is therefore innocent of criminal behaviour. But are we to believe that nine different women conspired to concoct stories for political reasons? I find that very unlikely indeed. The only explanation that fits the facts is that Salmond sexually harassed women, but that a jury did not believe he did so in a criminal way. That makes him innocent of crime but still not a very nice man. Portraying him as a martyr looks perverse to me.
Ben@Forest wrote:Reported in Sunday Times today that Salmond's own QC described him as a, 'sex pest' and a 'bully'. Apparently recorded by a member of the public. Can't link because tne ST is paywalled, but lawyers must've gone through this with a fine toothcomb before printing it on the front page.
Any idea that this is some pro-unionist agenda, is frankly grasping at straws, any newspaper would print this about any politician if facts substantiated it.
Let me help. The video's enough. I don't think it's damaging, particularly, except to the reputation of a QC who discusses matters in public, and who is clearly in contempt of court at one point.
