Jump to content
Dawnrazor

Salmond wins his judicial review.

Recommended Posts

Dawnrazor

What will be the fall out from this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

The SNP will have to sacrifice someone. Are the allegations dead in the water then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
4 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The SNP will have to sacrifice someone. Are the allegations dead in the water then?

I think the police are still making enquiries so he's not out of the woods yet, he's really pushing how embarrassing it is for the Scottish Government and how unfair the process has been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jumpship

The Yoons will be raging down the lodge the night. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
5 minutes ago, jumpship said:

The Yoons will be raging down the lodge the night. 

Why's that then? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jumpship
1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

Why's that then? 

Gammons are always raging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor
2 minutes ago, jumpship said:

Gammons are always raging. 

Aye OK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
30 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

What will be the fall out from this? 

 

Procedures will be tightened.

 

Police investigation will be only action now. If found guilty or if there is enough other evidence the investigation will start again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Armageddon

I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty.  Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1.  These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
21 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty.  Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1.  These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome.

 

Weren’t the allegations made about two years before they became public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
51 minutes ago, Armageddon said:

I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty.  Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1.  These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome.

Utter balls.

Members of the public are not afforded anonymity, nor privacy until "proven guilty".

This is a sham victory- he is painting it to be a vindication- whilst he is still under criminal investigation- a "look at me I'm innocent, and this proves it" - nothing of the kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah O

Really pleased at this news. Splendid outcome for Eck however not a surprise.

 

Hope he enjoys a glass or two of vino tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2
33 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

Really pleased at this news. Splendid outcome for Eck however not a surprise.

 

Hope he enjoys a glass or two of vino tonight.

 

He's still under a police investigation and this in no way is a decision which says he did not do what is alleged.

 

Hardly scope for celebrating.

 

Serious questions for Scot Govt's procedures. But hardly a case for celebrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2
1 hour ago, Armageddon said:

I do believe the process, irrelevant of your position needs to 'respect' the privacy of the accused until proven guilty.  Salmond has been hung out to dry publically from day 1.  These criminal proceedings and HR processes are there to protect and guide all parties to the correct outcome.

 

He raised the JR. He made it more public than it need have been. In the process he's shown little consideration for those who raised the claims.

 

Scot Govt was cackhanded but it in no way removes the question from him of what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
16 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

He's still under a police investigation and this in no way is a decision which says he did not do what is alleged.

 

Hardly scope for celebrating.

 

Serious questions for Scot Govt's procedures. But hardly a case for celebrating.

He loves the Scottish people, but has just dumped the good old taxpayer with a £500,000.00 legal bill for a review of an HR process.

here piggy piggy piggy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
17 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

He loves the Scottish people, but has just dumped the good old taxpayer with a £500,000.00 legal bill for a review of an HR process.

here piggy piggy piggy!

 

That's surely the Scottish Governments fault though?  Or should Salmond have taken that on the chin, regardless of the unfairness of the process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

That's surely the Scottish Governments fault though?  Or should Salmond have taken that on the chin, regardless of the unfairness of the process?

Its the cost Boris!

Surely you bridle at the cost to taxpayers of a pyrrhic victory when the accused has wracked up half a million in bills and is STILL on the hook.

If it happened to you or I - a couple of grand maybe in legals, with the outcome utterly inconsequential.

He chose the most expensive counsel- that's his issue- public liability should be limited to the costs of an average person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
35 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

He raised the JR. He made it more public than it need have been. In the process he's shown little consideration for those who raised the claims.

 

Scot Govt was cackhanded but it in no way removes the question from him of what actually happened.

 

Agree with your second point regards the SG handling of it ("The Scottish government confirmed the civil servant tasked with investigating the complaints, Judith MacKinnon, had discussed both cases with the complainants several weeks before they were formally lodged. That meant the entire investigation, launched in January 2018, was a breach of fair process and was illegal in common law.Ministers admitted to the court that this gave rise to questions of “apparent bias” by the officials involved." From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/scottish-government-acted-unlawfully-over-alex-salmond-claims-court-rules )

 

So over to the police now, I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Its the cost Boris!

Surely you bridle at the cost to taxpayers of a pyrrhic victory when the accused has wracked up half a million in bills and is STILL on the hook.

If it happened to you or I - a couple of grand maybe in legals, with the outcome utterly inconsequential.

He chose the most expensive counsel- that's his issue- public liability should be limited to the costs of an average person

 

He's entitled to a defence, no?  Not his fault he won! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN

How could you actually get this wrong?

 

Some people seem to think rules don't apply to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
16 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

He's entitled to a defence, no?  Not his fault he won! :biggrin:

Comrade, we are ALL entitled to a defence- but some defences are more equal than others- should we not all be equal under the law?

He BROUGHT the review- surely his "defence" would have been a union rep/ lawyer at his meetings with the govt whilst under investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
7 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Comrade, we are ALL entitled to a defence- but some defences are more equal than others- should we not all be equal under the law?

He BROUGHT the review- surely his "defence" would have been a union rep/ lawyer at his meetings with the govt whilst under investigation?

 

He brough the review because the process was illegal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Agree with your second point regards the SG handling of it ("The Scottish government confirmed the civil servant tasked with investigating the complaints, Judith MacKinnon, had discussed both cases with the complainants several weeks before they were formally lodged. That meant the entire investigation, launched in January 2018, was a breach of fair process and was illegal in common law.Ministers admitted to the court that this gave rise to questions of “apparent bias” by the officials involved." From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/scottish-government-acted-unlawfully-over-alex-salmond-claims-court-rules )

 

So over to the police now, I guess.

 

 

This whole thing has totally shown up the populism around him if you ask me. The Scottish Government HR team has totally dropped a clanger. However all he has done is have the case dismissed on the process. The other elements of his case fell when he agreed to dismiss.

 

He also will not see sight of the report he was desperate to get a hold of as Lord Pentland agreed with the Government that it was improper pending the other investigation.

 

As Roddy Dunlop QC (Scottish Government's Counsel) said - this in no way has any impact of the veracity of the complaints.

 

Yet, there are those more interested in attacking Leslie Evans (Perm Sec of Scot Govt), who Sturgeon is backing, and building some faux conspiracy. 

 

Scottish politics has had 3 major cases about this type of stuff in the past 10 years and not come out well: Rowley, Bill Walker and now this.

Edited by JamboX2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
21 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

He brough the review because the process was illegal!

So its OK for fatcats and the wealthy to cost tax payers half a million in a recession in an action Joe Bloggs couldn't afford to bring ( or would have to spend considerably less bringing)?

Shame on you Boris

Did he not have representation during this process asking relevant questions?

Or is he now scrabbling for loopholes now he is the merde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
8 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

So its OK for fatcats and the wealthy to cost tax payers half a million in a recession in an action Joe Bloggs couldn't afford to bring ( or would have to spend considerably less bringing)?

Shame on you Boris

Did he not have representation during this process asking relevant questions?

Or is he now scrabbling for loopholes now he is the merde

 

I think that's his point I.e. He wasn't represented at the start hence the lawsuit. Only party to blame here isr the govt, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

I think that's his point I.e. He wasn't represented at the start hence the lawsuit. Only party to blame here isr the govt, IMO.

1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union.

Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation.

Feck him, he should pay his own bills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union.

Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation.

Feck him, he should pay his own bills

 

I think the point is they started the process without telling him, therefore unable to be represented!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

He loves the Scottish people, but has just dumped the good old taxpayer with a £500,000.00 legal bill for a review of an HR process.

here piggy piggy piggy!

He raised the money to fight this. One of those online things. £80/100k was the number he needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union.

Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation.

Feck him, he should pay his own bills

so he brings a case, wins it and you want him to pay for the privilege??  Maybe we should have rape victims only allowed to bring someone to court if they can afford it??  (OK a bit extreme but every one has the right to go to court and, if they win, they get costs).

This case is a terrible one for Salmond and the Government and, although Salmond has won this part, there is still the legal case to be heard, if it goes ahead. If not, there will still be a parliamentary inquiry I presume. IF, at the end, he doesn't have a case to answer then he can declare he is the winner but at what cost to the party    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
5 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

1st rule Boris- ALWAYS have representation/witness/union.

Probably thought he could bluster and arrogant his way out of the investigation.

Feck him, he should pay his own bills

Your hate has blinded you. Aw well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

So its OK for fatcats and the wealthy to cost tax payers half a million in a recession in an action Joe Bloggs couldn't afford to bring ( or would have to spend considerably less bringing)?

Shame on you Boris

Did he not have representation during this process asking relevant questions?

Or is he now scrabbling for loopholes now he is the merde

He went to court because he had not been afforded representation, because he was not told of the allegations.

How can 2 people be allowed to discuss things before they report it. That's not right. 

If he's did wrong, he'll get his baws booted, but if this is bollox, they should be charged.

Edited by ri Alban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
5 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Your hate has blinded you. Aw well. 

I don't hate him.

- does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you?

Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth

eye watering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

He went to court because he had not been afforded representation, because he was not told of the allegations.

How can 2 people be allowed to discuss things before they report it. That's not right. 

If he's did wrong, he'll get his baws booted, but if this is bollox, they should be charged.

who should be charged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban

A bit weird that Alex said he was making a come back, then a week or two later this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Just now, doctor jambo said:

I don't hate him.

- does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you?

Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth

eye watering

He crowd funded this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Just now, doctor jambo said:

who should be charged?

The accusers. If it's proved they lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgiewave

Regardless of the outcome of these proceedings or of the police investigation, the main thing is that Indyref 2 is on and independence is imminent.

 

Salvadores de la patria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

The accusers. If it's proved they lied.

you must be off your peeper if you think women making claims of sexual assault should be charged if their accuser gets found not guilty!

What a way to deter victims of sexual crime from coming forward.

- though I suspect its just your fandom bypassing rational thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

you must be off your peeper if you think women making claims of sexual assault should be charged if their accuser gets found not guilty!

What a way to deter victims of sexual crime from coming forward.

- though I suspect its just your fandom bypassing rational thought.

I think liars should be charged, not the way you've put it. Or do you think men should have there lives ruined because of vindictive women, without comebacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts

Whatever the outcome. SNP will still get my vote. Best of the bunch! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

That's surely the Scottish Governments fault though?  Or should Salmond have taken that on the chin, regardless of the unfairness of the process?

 

It seemed to me like an aggressive campaign to try to establish his innocence into the public view. 

 

I thought he should have stayed quiet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
21 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It seemed to me like an aggressive campaign to try to establish his innocence into the public view. 

 

I thought he should have stayed quiet. 

Perhaps, although given the allegations, you'd want to clear your name, and in doing so, you'd want procedures to be followed properly.

 

Im certainly not saying Salmond is innocent because of this ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!

Was the case dismissed on a technicality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dunks
2 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Was the case dismissed on a technicality?

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dunks

I would be very surprised if the Police bring any charges against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
11 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

He raised the JR. He made it more public than it need have been. In the process he's shown little consideration for those who raised the claims.

 

Scot Govt was cackhanded but it in no way removes the question from him of what actually happened.

Really! Don't you think the people in the government who leaked the story and the Daily record and other media who sensationalised it are responsible for making it more public than it need have been?

 

Did he not express a concern for the complainants when he stated o/s the court that the inabilty of the SG to carry out their own procedures potentially compromised those complaining about him and any future complaints that might be made against any other employee.

 

 If i were in his position and innocent of the claims i would regard them as malicious and have no consideration for the complainants at all.

 

Scottish government were not cackhanded they were incompetent and couldn't follow their own guidelines. They leaked confidential information to the press breaking their own protocols. Remeniscent of Carmichaels lies about Nicola.

 

Tyhe question of what happened is not really relevant at the moment unless AS has broken the law. There is no other investigation at present because the SG have failed their employees.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
10 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

This whole thing has totally shown up the populism around him if you ask me. The Scottish Government HR team has totally dropped a clanger. However all he has done is have the case dismissed on the process. The other elements of his case fell when he agreed to dismiss.

 

He also will not see sight of the report he was desperate to get a hold of as Lord Pentland agreed with the Government that it was improper pending the other investigation.

 

As Roddy Dunlop QC (Scottish Government's Counsel) said - this in no way has any impact of the veracity of the complaints.

 

Yet, there are those more interested in attacking Leslie Evans (Perm Sec of Scot Govt), who Sturgeon is backing, and building some faux conspiracy. 

 

Scottish politics has had 3 major cases about this type of stuff in the past 10 years and not come out well: Rowley, Bill Walker and now this.

shown up the populism around him" I've no idea what this means and i suspect you don't either.

 

Which other elements "fell" and what do you mean by fell in this instance?  According to AS and his team the Government case fell at the first hurdle and was lost, meaning there was no need to consider any of the other elements of concerning the conduct of the Scottish Government.

 

What evidence do you have to prove that AS was desperate to get hold of the SG report? If he is charge he will have access to all allegations made against him will he not? He would have a pretty good idea of what's in it anyway.

 

How do you know it isnt a conspiracy? The secretary of state for Scotland conspired with civil servants and others to discredit Nicola did he not?

 

This case has nothing in common with Walker or Rowley. They were convicted or admitted their guilt, AS remains innocent. It is the height of cheek for you to remind us that this decision has no bearing as to whether the allegations are true or not and at the same time classify Salmond along with these low lifes. Come back and tell us all about it as and when AS has been convicted. Is there not a law against this kind of behaviour? Do Lawyers not have some professional standards.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icon of Symmetry
9 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

I don't hate him.

- does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you?

Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth

eye watering

 

Comes across as if you hate him. Almost like you want him to be found guilty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
9 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

I don't hate him.

- does the phrase "waste of taxpayers money" mean nothing to you?

Then add in a parliamentary inquiry and so on and so forth

eye watering

Salmond's team offered to go to legal arbitration to seriously restrict the costs. The Scottish government refused. It is not Salmond's fault the proceedings cost so much. If he had been at fault then he would have been liable.

 

Does the phrase "innocent until proved guilty" mean anything to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
10 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

Regardless of the outcome of these proceedings or of the police investigation, the main thing is that Indyref 2 is on and independence is imminent.

 

Salvadores de la patria.

Utter tripe again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...