The Alex Salmond trial

Here is the full text of Alex Salmond's most recent submission, which the inquiry again at the last minute demanded should be removed from the web site and heavily redacted. The redactions demanded are highlighted in bold. No reasons for the redactions have been given and requests to share the legal advice that led to this development have been refused. Salmond's own lawyers believe there is nothing illegal or improper in the text.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...offered-for-copy-of-geoff-aberdein-testimony/

Murray is also (at the head of the article) offering a reward to anyone who will leak the submission of Geoff Aberdein, which has been refused in its entirety by the inquiry. Mr Aberdein was also at the meeting Sturgeon wants kept secret and it is believed that his statement, and the evidence that supports it, is if anything even more explosive than Salmond's.

Again, it appears that the inquiry will not allow one of the people at that meeting to be named, in any context. It is impossible to provide the evidence of wrongdoing without naming that person. Who made herself untouchable by adding herself to the list of complainants, and so acquiring anonymity which she and others are insisting must extend to any mention of her name at all, even though nothing is said to suggest that she is a complainant.

You may notice that everything redacted seems to involve Nicola Sturgeon's chief of staff. Now, of course everyone and his budgie knows that redacted passages refer to a complainant, even though the passages themselves only referred to the woman in her capacity as an official involved in drawing up the illegal and prejudicial complaints procedure.

The Lord Advocate is currently tying himself in knots trying to protect Sturgeon on this.
 
Paragraph 15 has not been redacted and it references Sturgeon's Chief of Staff.
 
Rolfe said:
Citation required.
Click to expand...

See the case, his sleepy cuddles, Kisses etc.
I note your offer to name names. I see someone had just been given 6 months jail time for similar.
The law protects alleged sex attack victims. That is to stop victims being scared to come forward.

The law is perhaps one sided but I suggest that solution to that would be to protect the accused not to 'slut shame' or publicise those who complained.
 
Lothian said:
Salmond turns into an inappropriate groper when he drinks.

Seems he has a vendetta against the women he pestered and who forced him to admit his inappropriate behaviour under oath.
Click to expand...

Family friends who have met him on numerous occasions, often socially where drink was involved, say that he is tactile, but not in a disturbing way.
 
Lothian said:
See the case, his sleepy cuddles, Kisses etc.
I note your offer to name names. I see someone had just been given 6 months jail time for similar.
The law protects alleged sex attack victims. That is to stop victims being scared to come forward.

The law is perhaps one sided but I suggest that solution to that would be to protect the accused not to 'slut shame' or publicise those who complained.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that contempt law is being used to suppress evidence that has nothing to do with the trial.

That is why the redaction of evidence that was put into the public domain is very odd, because it has clearly identified one of the complainers. In effect, COPFS has broken the law, as it has enabled an easy jigsaw identification.

That is one reason why this whole episode is a farce and it has further revealed COPFS to be not fit for purpose.
 
Nessie said:
Family friends who have met him on numerous occasions, often socially where drink was involved, say that he is tactile, but not in a disturbing way.
Click to expand...

I recall that was his evidence. He confessed to needing to be more careful with people's 'personal space'. The problem from a social aspect is that it is the feelings of the "victim" trump those of the "space invader.". Not everyone will agree it is non disturbing even if it falls short it assault.
 
Nessie said:
The issue here is that contempt law is being used to suppress evidence that has nothing to do with the trial.

That is why the redaction of evidence that was put into the public domain is very odd, because it has clearly identified one of the complainers. In effect, COPFS has broken the law, as it has enabled an easy jigsaw identification.

That is one reason why this whole episode is a farce and it has further revealed COPFS to be not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
Was Salmond identifying complainers in his statement? Was he using " evidence" as an excuse to shame victims or was he naming then in a context not connected with the complaints?
 
Lothian said:
I recall that was his evidence. He confessed to needing to be more careful with people's 'personal space'. The problem from a social aspect is that it is the feelings of the "victim" trump those of the "space invader.". Not everyone will agree it is non disturbing even if it falls short it assault.
Click to expand...

I don't like tactile people. I like being assaulted even less. I know the difference and so do most people. In this case, tactile acts were being overstated by the prosecution and made to appear to be assaults. The jury was not convinced in the slightest and as a result it was not guilty to the lot.

His own QC Gordon Jackson was no fan of his behaviour, as made well know by the recording of his comments during a train journey. But Jackson understands the law and what is criminal sexual assault.

That has happened at the same time as various other prosecutions where it is clear now COPFS acted maliciously or went to trial knowing there was insufficient credible evidence or exculpatory evidence meaning a prosecution was highly unlikely.

COPFS has become more and more politicised and less an independent prosecutor.
 
Lothian said:
Was Salmond identifying complainers in his statement? Was he using " evidence" as an excuse to shame victims or was he naming then in a context not connected with the complaints?
Click to expand...

Salmond's submission as it stood, by naming certain people due to their jobs, if anything took suspicion away from them.

The issue is that the complainers against him in the trial also worked in politics and so when it comes to his complaint about how Parliament investigated him, there is bound to be an overlap.

Redacting the evidence that was in the public domain means one name stands out as in the submission as a worker and then disappears with the redactions, which shows she is more than likely also a complainer.
 
Nessie said:
Family friends who have met him on numerous occasions, often socially where drink was involved, say that he is tactile, but not in a disturbing way.
Click to expand...


That is my experience of him as well. He comes over as avuncular, not creepy. And this has been attested by so many people I would think that Lothian's statement could well be defamatory. As was one he made earlier in this thread of course.

The "sleepy cuddle" was admitted as a one-off incident, which was consensual but recognised after the fact as inappropriate by both parties. Apologies were tendered and accepted and all seemed to be settled until the allegation was resurrected with a lot of additional detail that Salmond did not agree happened. The jury rejected this along with the rest of it, although I believe this was the "not proven" one, which is still an acquittal. I think this was because this allegation was a he said/she said thing based on a real occurrence, whereas there was concrete evidence that the rest of the allegations had not happened, at least in the way the complainants described.
 
Lothian said:
See the case, his sleepy cuddles, Kisses etc.
I note your offer to name names. I see someone had just been given 6 months jail time for similar.
The law protects alleged sex attack victims. That is to stop victims being scared to come forward.

The law is perhaps one sided but I suggest that solution to that would be to protect the accused not to 'slut shame' or publicise those who complained.
Click to expand...


Everybody in Scotland with an IQ above room temperature and an actual pulse knows who (at least some of) these harpies are. The draconian steps being taken at the moment are to prevent people discussing the shenanigans in public.

The most damaging thing that can happen for real victims of sex attacks is for vindictive witches to make false, lying, invented allegations. This inevitably undermines the credibility of all complainants.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Was Salmond identifying complainers in his statement? Was he using " evidence" as an excuse to shame victims or was he naming then in a context not connected with the complaints?
Click to expand...


He was doing none of this, and you seem very unfamiliar with what is going on.

It was Salmond himself, early in the course of events, who took positive steps to ensure the anonymity of the complainants. NOT victims, by the way, because no crime was found to have been committed against them.

His statements have been gone over by his own lawyers with a fine-tooth comb and certified every which way to Tuesday as not identifying any complainants. However the inquiry, which is as bent as a corkscrew, is hiding behind spurious claims of "naming a complainant" to reject all of Salmond's evidence so that he can't bring forward what he knows about various meetings and so on.

Ironically, although Salmond's submissions as they stood wouldn't have given any clue as to the identity of any complainant, subsequent events have done just that. His submissions (twice) were published on legal advice that all was OK, then belatedly the inquiry then shouted no, we insist on redactions. All one then has to do is look at which paragraphs were redacted to see whose name (not identified as a complainant by Salmond) they are trying to suppress.

I did explain this in a long post above, which I can only assume you haven't read. The entire unredacted text of the submission is posted here, see if you can find out where he identifies anyone as a complainer, let alone shames her.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Everybody in Scotland with an IQ above room temperature and an actual pulse knows who (at least some of) these harpies are. The draconian steps being taken at the moment are to prevent people discussing the shenanigans in public.

The most damaging thing that can happen for real victims of sex attacks is for vindictive witches to make false, lying, invented allegations. This inevitably undermines the credibility of all complainants.
Click to expand...
Yes,that is what I am talking about. Victimising women who complained. Just because a court decides an act is not criminal doesn't mean that women were not made to feel uncomfortable. These women as I understand it were witnesses they were not personally suing Salmond.

You accuse them of lying. I don't think a court has found them guilty of that. Because the court did not convict Salmond doesn't mean the women lied. If this was a criminal case you are not looking at balance of probability.

The language you use about these women says a lot, not so much about them.
 
Rolfe said:
He was doing none of this, and you seem very unfamiliar with what is going on.

It was Salmond himself, early in the course of events, who took positive steps to ensure the anonymity of the complainants. NOT victims, by the way, because no crime was found to have been committed against them.

His statements have been gone over by his own lawyers with a fine-tooth comb and certified every which way to Tuesday as not identifying any complainants. However the inquiry, which is as bent as a corkscrew, is hiding behind spurious claims of "naming a complainant" to reject all of Salmond's evidence so that he can't bring forward what he knows about various meetings and so on.

Ironically, although Salmond's submissions as they stood wouldn't have given any clue as to the identity of any complainant, subsequent events have done just that. His submissions (twice) were published on legal advice that all was OK, then belatedly the inquiry then shouted no, we insist on redactions. All one then has to do is look at which paragraphs were redacted to see whose name (not identified as a complainant by Salmond) they are trying to suppress.

I did explain this in a long post above, which I can only assume you haven't read. The entire unredacted text of the submission is posted here, see if you can find out where he identifies anyone as a complainer, let alone shames her.
Click to expand...
In any litigation you have two sides going in on the back of legal advice. One of those will normally be wrong. Legal advice doesn't mean you are right.
I don't think Salmond needs to shame people when he had others labeling them witches and harpies.
 
Lothian said:
Yes,that is what I am talking about. Victimising women who complained. Just because a court decides an act is not criminal doesn't mean that women were not made to feel uncomfortable. These women as I understand it were witnesses they were not personally suing Salmond.

You accuse them of lying. I don't think a court has found them guilty of that. Because the court did not convict Salmond doesn't mean the women lied. If this was a criminal case you are not looking at balance of probability.

The language you use about these women says a lot, not so much about them.
Click to expand...


You can think what you like about me, I'm entitled to think and indeed express what I believe the actual evidence demonstrates about the behaviour of these women, which is that they were lying in their teeth. It simply is not the case that all women are truthful, honourable, and entirely incapable of stooping to damage another person by lying. Some women are vindictive harpies who are entirely prepared to lie and cheat, either to take revenge on someone, or to advance their own careers by acting on behalf of others who wish to damage that person.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
In any litigation you have two sides going in on the back of legal advice. One of those will normally be wrong. Legal advice doesn't mean you are right.
I don't think Salmond needs to shame people when he had others labeling them witches and harpies.
Click to expand...


Salmond has never at any point shamed or attempted to shame anyone. He has been, from the first, exercised to ensure their anonymity was protected. Unless of course you can point me to somewhere where he did? Others are not compelled to follow his example of course.

Here's his latest submission, if you're at all interested in what's actually happening.

https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/statement-on-behalf-of-alex-salmond/
 
Rolfe said:
He was doing none of this, and you seem very unfamiliar with what is going on.

It was Salmond himself, early in the course of events, who took positive steps to ensure the anonymity of the complainants. NOT victims, by the way, because no crime was found to have been committed against them.
Click to expand...



Careful with this:

The acquittals of Salmond meant nothing more or less than this: the court decided that Salmond's guilt BARD had not been established wrt the crimes he'd been charged with.

That does not necessarily logically imply that the crimes did not occur. And nor does it necessarily logically imply that these women were "crying wolf", overexaggerating, or otherwise making these allegations up.

So, in other words, Salmond's acquittals do not necessarily mean that these women were not victims.
 
Rolfe said:
Everybody in Scotland with an IQ above room temperature and an actual pulse knows who (at least some of) these harpies are. The draconian steps being taken at the moment are to prevent people discussing the shenanigans in public.

The most damaging thing that can happen for real victims of sex attacks is for vindictive witches to make false, lying, invented allegations. This inevitably undermines the credibility of all complainants.
Click to expand...


See my previous post.

Incidentally, if law-enforcement authorities actually did believe there was evidence that one or more of these women had lied (whether for political gain or for another reason), then this in itself constitutes a criminal offence and the woman/women in question ought to be prosecuted accordingly.

Outside of that, I'd suggest that it probably isn't too wise an idea to be openly accusing any of these women to have been liars........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom