Jump to content
Dawnrazor

Salmond wins his judicial review.

Recommended Posts

ri Alban
12 hours 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!

Do u think Cliff Richard should have just let the BBC off with it. £850000 that cost the good auld taxpayer. No, me neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
5 hours ago, Glib and Shameless Crier said:

 

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

My old man was raging :lol: he’s a real unionist, Tory voting, SNP hating, GSTQ, Rangers loving arsehole god love him. 

don’t particularly like Salmond either but some people are literally seething their tits off he’s got this thrown out. 

Very, very pleasing indeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glib and Shameless Crier
3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

My old man was raging :lol: he’s a real unionist, Tory voting, SNP hating, GSTQ, Rangers loving arsehole god love him. 

don’t particularly like Salmond either but some people are literally seething their tits off he’s got this thrown out. 

Very, very pleasing indeed. 

 

:lol:

 

Politically I like Salmond. Obviously if turns out he’s a sexual predator, then all bets are off, I couldn’t condone that. If he’s no case to answer however, then I hope there’s a few apologies winging their way to him.

 

This remains one of the most entertaining stories/photos until then...

18F8754B-EA06-426B-9357-FA9BF98FD2D4.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
7 minutes ago, Glib and Shameless Crier said:

 

:lol:

 

Politically I like Salmond. Obviously if turns out he’s a sexual predator, then all bets are off, I couldn’t condone that. If he’s no case to answer however, then I hope there’s a few apologies winging their way to him.

 

This remains one of the most entertaining stories/photos until then...

18F8754B-EA06-426B-9357-FA9BF98FD2D4.jpeg

Heart warming picture on a cold January morning :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rousset1

His wife is rarely seen in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DETTY29

Imagine if it goes to court and was televised?

 

Imagine being a fly on the wall watching the ****wittery of jurors reasoning behind a guilty / not guilty decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
2 hours ago, Rousset1 said:

His wife is rarely seen in public.

Is that not because she’s about 90? Pretty strange relationship imo. I always thought when the first accusations appeared they’d come out and he’d have been batting for the other lot tbh :whistling:

 

Share this post


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

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

 

Thst it's more about him and his reputation to people as the Father of Independence than anything else. 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

The coverage of the case stated that the case was dismissed because the Scottish Government accepted procedural errors in the process and agreed to have the JR dismissed. The substantial hearings never proceeded. Roddy Dunlop QC, Scottish Government's Counsel, said the government did not accept the other elements of the claim; in particular disclosure of the documents produced regarding the testimony of the claims. They said they were nugatory given the process was held to be improperly conducted and that this was enough.

 

Lord Pentland accepted this point.

 

See Phillip Sim's Twitter feed on the coverage from the court room for that.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

His legal team requested it. If court proceedings from the ongoing investigation are brought then he will likely have sight. But otherwise this raises a big question around the complainants rights and those in other situations which may arise in other events if they are disclosed. 

 

Quote

 

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?

 

Pardon? Was it not shown that Carmichael lied and it was his SPAD not civil servants? In fact there was a huge investigation into that. Hardly a conspiracy.

 

Quote

 

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.   

 

He's not been convicted. I'm not equating this to guilt. I'm saying the coverage of these stories always focuses and is narrated from the political space and the centres on the men involved. Why not the culture which facilitates these events? Why are political parties prone to this? Why were allegations (especially Walker) not followed up on quickly? 

 

Equally, whilst you are right this isn't proven yet. There's also the other side to this which is the complainants allegations have not yet been shown to be inaccurate or false. 

Share this post


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

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?

 

How do we know it was a government source who leaked? 

 

I think this would have come out eventually. Given the man and his importance in the governing party. 

 

10 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

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.

 

I agree with this point. A point he didn't make when he made his statement after the dismissal. Instead it was attack the Perm Sec.

 

10 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

 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.

 

We are not yet aware of his innocence. 

 

10 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

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.

 

The leak wasn't what the case was dismissed over but the HR process itself. Albeit the FM yesterday defended the process and persons involved and said the process would be made more robust.

 

Going as far to say as providing the government did in her view did not amount to "encouraging" the complainants to raise proceedings - as Mr Salmond and his legal team alleged.

 

10 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

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.

 

There is an ongoing police investigation. The SG process can be restarted at a later date - so I understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN

This is brilliant. He's not been found innocent/Guilty. On the other hand the Scottish govt. acted with such a degree of incompetence that even if he is guilty he will probably get away with it. Who would celebrate that? Every nationalist I know it would appear :laugh2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
2 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

This is brilliant. He's not been found innocent/Guilty. On the other hand the Scottish govt. acted with such a degree of incompetence that even if he is guilty he will probably get away with it. Who would celebrate that? Every nationalist I know it would appear :laugh2:

If he's guilty he should get what's coming to him. The moronic element of the Unionists couldn't wait to pin something on him. Allegedly happened 5 years ago so why come forward now? An issue always crops up when independence gathers traction! How I loath the British state and it's disgusting perversion of so called democracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay
2 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

If he's guilty he should get what's coming to him. The moronic element of the Unionists couldn't wait to pin something on him. Allegedly happened 5 years ago so why come forward now? An issue always crops up when independence gathers traction! How I loath the British state and it's disgusting perversion of so called democracy. 

Been masters at it since Tudor times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Been masters at it since Tudor times.

I just wish they didn't think we were all zipped up the back. There are some absolute roasters when it comes to politics. Some people should have to pass a test to qualify for a vote. 😂

Edited by Roxy Hearts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jlv2004
3 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

If he's guilty he should get what's coming to him. The moronic element of the Unionists couldn't wait to pin something on him. Allegedly happened 5 years ago so why come forward now? An issue always crops up when independence gathers traction! How I loath the British state and it's disgusting perversion of so called democracy. 

Is independence gathering traction as opposed to 5 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

I was surprised Salmond said "...but I'm no angel".

 

Suggests he has done something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
30 minutes ago, Jlv2004 said:

Is independence gathering traction as opposed to 5 years ago?

Yes. Small margins but the constant negative headlines with our glorious impartial media go all out to temper it, eh? 

Share this post


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

 

Thst it's more about him and his reputation to people as the Father of Independence than anything else.

 

  I have no idea what this means. It might be yet another attempt to belittle independence supporters suggesting that they are supporting the man and not capable of understanding the issue.

 

 

The coverage of the case stated that the case was dismissed because the Scottish Government accepted procedural errors in the process and agreed to have the JR dismissed. The substantial hearings never proceeded. Roddy Dunlop QC, Scottish Government's Counsel, said the government did not accept the other elements of the claim; in particular disclosure of the documents produced regarding the testimony of the claims. They said they were nugatory given the process was held to be improperly conducted and that this was enough.

 

Lord Pentland accepted this point.

 

See Phillip Sim's Twitter feed on the coverage from the court room for that.

 

This is true and that is why i challenged your previous comment when you said Salmond's case "fell" The other elements of his case were never considered and so they never "fell".

 

 

His legal team requested it. If court proceedings from the ongoing investigation are brought then he will likely have sight. But otherwise this raises a big question around the complainants rights and those in other situations which may arise in other events if they are disclosed. 

 

His legal team may well have requested it but this does not mean that Salmond was "desperate" to see them. As i said previously and you have now repeated he would be able to see all documentation if a case is made against him.

 

12 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

Pardon? Was it not shown that Carmichael lied and it was his SPAD not civil servants? In fact there was a huge investigation into that. Hardly a conspiracy. 

 

Spads are civil servants and it was proved that Carmichael did collude with at least one before the CS leaked the story to the Telegraph and Carmichael embarked on his smear and lies campaign. If Carmichael and the spad were not conspiring or did not realise that he was conspiring why did he initially deny he knew anything about it. That was the lie not that Nicola wanted a Tory government. A very small conspiracy yes but a conspiracy nonetheless. 

 

12 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

 

He's not been convicted. I'm not equating this to guilt. I'm saying the coverage of these stories always focuses and is narrated from the political space and the centres on the men involved. Why not the culture which facilitates these events? Why are political parties prone to this? Why were allegations (especially Walker) not followed up on quickly? 

 

Yes you are equating this with guilt. You categorised Salmond with Walker and Rowley. Salmond is guilty of nothing and they are.

You are still doing it when you suggest that this should centre on the "culture which facilitates these events". There are no events yet as far as Salmond is concerned. Walkers situation is not in the workplace and is not of a sexual nature though it is serious physical abuse. It also happened before Walker went into politics. When the SNP found out what he was doing he was suspended and subsequently went to jail. I presume it was some failing with the police that prevented prosecution previously, maybe his victims never reported it and his employers turned a blind eye. 

The Labour party however have big problem though. It appears that Monica Lennon and others have been sexually assaulted but are too scared to report it. Rowley has returned to the front bench yet Salmond who is as yet guilty of nothing is castigated for daring to defend himself. https://wingsoverscotland.com/brass-neck-gleaming/#more-108149

 

Equally, whilst you are right this isn't proven yet. There's also the other side to this which is the complainants allegations have not yet been shown to be inaccurate or false.

 

That side has to wait until there is a guilty verdict or at least until the process is over. I thought perhaps you might understand that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck

The suggestion of a conspiracy against Salmond is intriguing. Who might be the conspirators? Perhaps it is members of the SNP. 

 

A civil war war in the SNP, that would be 

708E6F45-D46D-47B8-9622-B60524754FF7.gif

Share this post


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

The suggestion of a conspiracy against Salmond is intriguing. Who might be the conspirators? Perhaps it is members of the SNP. 

 

A civil war war in the SNP, that would be 

708E6F45-D46D-47B8-9622-B60524754FF7.gif

Didn't so your handlers any harm. You still love them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck
30 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Didn't so your handlers any harm. You still love them.

 

Speaking of handlers, is Alexei Salmondovich still dancing on the end of Putin’s puppet strings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
14 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

If he's guilty he should get what's coming to him. The moronic element of the Unionists couldn't wait to pin something on him. Allegedly happened 5 years ago so why come forward now? An issue always crops up when independence gathers traction! How I loath the British state and it's disgusting perversion of so called democracy. 

What, is their a five year rule on sexual assault? FFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Gentleman
On 08/01/2019 at 23:06, Mikey1874 said:

 

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.  

So who's going to 'find him guilty' before an investigation starts/restarts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
6 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Speaking of handlers, is Alexei Salmondovich still dancing on the end of Putin’s puppet strings. 

Why don't you have a look and see, then you can report back to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
3 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

What, is their a five year rule on sexual assault? FFS

Why not report at the time. FFS! Sexual assault is disgusting and if guilty hope he gets hammered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moogsy
21 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Why not report at the time. FFS! Sexual assault is disgusting and if guilty hope he gets hammered. 

 

There are a whole slew of reasons why victims of sexual abuse may not report it immediately after the event. With all the highly publicised cases of historic sexual abuse in the last few years it blows my mind that people still can’t comprehend this and see it as evidence that alleged victims are making things up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Governor Tarkin
7 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Speaking of handlers, is Alexei Salmondovich still dancing on the end of Putin’s puppet strings. 

 

:lol:

Share this post


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

So who's going to 'find him guilty' before an investigation starts/restarts?

 

Usually a court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Weir
On 08/01/2019 at 13:38, 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 a horrible ****ing ***** 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Why not report at the time. FFS! Sexual assault is disgusting and if guilty hope he gets hammered. 

If you don't understand why people often don't report sexual offences at the time, or at all in some cases, then you should do some reading. This would particularly be the case with someone in a position of power. but you know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
2 hours ago, moogsy said:

 

There are a whole slew of reasons why victims of sexual abuse may not report it immediately after the event. With all the highly publicised cases of historic sexual abuse in the last few years it blows my mind that people still can’t comprehend this and see it as evidence that alleged victims are making things up. 

It's the politicisation of it because of who it is. The media practically salivating instead of letting due diligence take its course. Any kind of sexual abuse is abhorrent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
1 hour ago, SE16 3LN said:

If you don't understand why people often don't report sexual offences at the time, or at all in some cases, then you should do some reading. This would particularly be the case with someone in a position of power. but you know this.

Read what? Empathy is the requirement for the alleged victims. Salmond seen as guilty before process. As I have said, if he's guilty he should get what's coming to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Tears and snotters everywhere from the usual demented uneducated posters on here.

 

Fantastic. 😎

DpLaRGfW0AgMYJ1.jpg large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
16 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Tears and snotters everywhere from the usual demented uneducated posters on here.

 

Fantastic. 😎

DpLaRGfW0AgMYJ1.jpg large.jpg

Most no voters I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
Just now, Roxy Hearts said:

Most no voters I know. 

 

Naw voters are in the minority now and they know it. And the new gap is only going to get bigger day by day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy

I imagine those celebrating will be offering Paul Gascoigne their unwavering support in his case too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tazio
9 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Naw voters are in the minority now and they know it. And the new gap is only going to get bigger day by day.

 

 

 

Well after all democracy is indeed the will of the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
4 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

I imagine those celebrating will be offering Paul Gascoigne their unwavering support in his case too.

 

You would think after the Michelle Thomson fiasco that people would learn to look before they leap?

 

Enjoy!

 

https://twitter.com/Trickyjabs/status/978334234069946373?s=20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
15 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You would think after the Michelle Thomson fiasco that people would learn to look before they leap?

 

Enjoy!

 

https://twitter.com/Trickyjabs/status/978334234069946373?s=20

 

I'm not a Tory, so highlighting their indiscretions is completely pointless.

 

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
On ‎09‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 12:45, JamboX2 said:

 

How do we know it was a government source who leaked?

 

We dont but it seems unlikely that AS is going to leak allegations about himself whist claiming not to be aware of the allegations. The detailed nature of the allegations would suggest that they are from an accurate source close to the complainants but would not be from the complainants themselves as had they wanted publicity they could have sold the stories themselves to the Daily Record. Who else could it be?

 

I think this would have come out eventually. Given the man and his importance in the governing party. If the man is not guilty and the allegations made against him are not substantiated then there is little if anything to come out.

 

On ‎09‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 12:45, JamboX2 said:

 

 

I agree with this point. A point he didn't make when he made his statement after the dismissal. Instead it was attack the Perm Sec.

 

He did make this point outside the court, i heard him say it. Perhaps you only watched the BBC edited version.

 

 

We are not yet aware of his innocence. 

 

As far as i am aware in this country we are innocent until proved guilty and that applies to AS as well.

 

 

The leak wasn't what the case was dismissed over but the HR process itself. Albeit the FM yesterday defended the process and persons involved and said the process would be made more robust.

 

 I think every man and his dog who is interested in this case has worked  out that it is the process that was deemed "unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair and that they were tainted with apparent bias" to use the judge's own words. I never said nor implied that it had anything to do with the leak as you infer. Neither has Nicola "defended the process"  as you claim. Using your own words you said that she thought the process should become more robust, that means, it's not good enough. AFAIK she did not defend the "persons involved" as you suggest but did give the perm sec her full support. At the moment she has no choice but to do this. She is not and cannot be involved. when it is all over,if not before the perm sec will be retired. The process has been botched and potentially compromised the complainants as well as AS. Salmond has hinted at sueing and perhaps the complainers might do the same. The Perm sec is responsible for this 

 

Going as far to say as providing the government did in her view did not amount to "encouraging" the complainants to raise proceedings - as Mr Salmond and his legal team alleged.

Presumably Salmond has some evidence to support this claim. It's just a pity the government were so incompetent or we might have found out what it was in the Judicial review. It might have something to do with the unfairness and bias the judge was talking about. Seems strange that one of the complainers should seek to repeat her claim 5 years after it had already been resolved.

 

 

There is an ongoing police investigation. The SG process can be restarted at a later date - so I understand.  I know, that's why i used the word "other". They probably can reinvestigate if they want but what level of confidence would a complainer have in their complaint being investigated for a third time if the police do not charge Salmond.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
1 hour ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I'm not a Tory, so highlighting their indiscretions is completely pointless.

 

Sorry.

 

DUP, still the same given current circumstances :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
5 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

DUP, still the same given current circumstances :)

 

I don't vote DUP either.

 

You're starting to look a bit silly here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
1 minute ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I don't vote DUP either.

 

You're starting to look a bit silly here.

 

Funny how none of you Unionists mentions what party you vote for on here, no wonder I look silly. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

Funny how none of you Unionists mentions what party you vote for on here, no wonder I look silly. :)

 

I don't feel the need to divulge my voting history to internet freaks like yourself.

 

:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
Just now, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I don't feel the need to divulge my voting history to internet freaks like yourself.

 

:) 

 

I think it's you that's looking a bit silly now :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

I think it's you that's looking a bit silly now :) 

 

Like that time you said you were going to post screenshots of me being sectarian on Twitter before slinking off again when I laughed at you?

 

:)

Share this post


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

 

I think it's you that's looking a bit silly now :) 

😅😅 Anthor pot calling the kettle black classic 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Like that time you said you were going to post screenshots of me being sectarian on Twitter before slinking off again when I laughed at you?

 

:)

 

Whats that got to do with this conversation? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Whats that got to do with this conversation? :)

 

 

Mind that time you went off on a mad rant about me being all sectarian and got yourself banned?

 

That was silly :) 

Edited by Phil Dunphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel
Just now, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Mind that time you went off on a mad rant about me being all sectarian and that and got yourself banned?

 

That was silly :) 

 

Whats this got to do with you not disclosing what you have previously voted? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×