The idea then that the board would be against any party investigating it even if it lost really doesn’t make sense to me
I agree with what you say here for the most part but…
There are obviously many reasons why a conviction may be deemed as unlikely in cases of harassment Impunity for predators is widespread, convictions are notoriously low in so-called ’he-said, she-said’ cases
and a failure to criminally convict - and perhaps even breaches of the Ministerial code - might have seemed acceptable risks to take in an attempt to support the survivors of Salmond’s alleged behaviour and seek out justice for them in a system that’s obviously heavily stacked against them
The dubious misrembering might even be to protect individual survivors or others involved
I’m very much inclined to believe that Sturgeon had the best of intentions
I witnessed second hand a series of similar power/harassment behaviours from a male boss towards (predominently but not exclusively) female staff at an old job. Bad enough to be a continued pattern of abuse but never any one single incident with enough evidence or witnesses to lead to a sacking let alone a conviction
It’s almost impossible to do anything about such behaviours while ’playing by the book’ when the book is part of the same framework of power that promotes abusive people into power roles
I’ve struggled to follow the story tbh. It’s become so politicised I’m not sure what has or hasn’t happened. I know a like-for-like comparison isn’t great, but the BBC and other media going absolutely batshit crazy over it while the UK Government get a pass on anything and everything leaves me uncomfortable. Every conceivable twist and turn has been exaggerated to the point of meaning nothing. Is there a simple explainer somewhere?
EDIT: Salmond has a reputation amongst staffers in the SNP, Parliament, Government and media (there were plenty of stories of his ‘handsiness’ well before these specific allegations) so I just hope he gets fucked over regardless of what happens elsewhere.
I’m not sure that’s what has been said either. I think what’s been said is pursuing an investigation in a particular way when you’ve been given legal advice that it would actively jeopardize the chances of the investigation succeeding is (a) just pretty foolish in general and (b) apparently a significant breach of the ministerial code.
To then “forget” your own role in trying to “mediate” the situation prior to launching the investigation and say in front of parliament that you did no such thing (when recent evidence seems to strongly suggest that you actually did) does significantly undermine the integrity of the investigation into.
Neither of these things mean I think Salmond is innocent. I also agree with Pervo that if a Tory had done the same things we’d all be spitting blood if they weren’t forced to resign. So as annoying as it is that there is the double standard that the Tories are never made to resign for these things, I dont think that means Sturgeon has done no wrong here.
Well if they acted purposefully in a way to jeopardise their own chances that’s really bad I agree, but also something I don’t see any evidence of as yet.
The thing about the legal advice is odd. The papers released yesterday corroborated what Sturgeon And Swinney have been saying for months that they thought they might win, but that in late Dec 18 they were telt it wouldn’t for sure and they conceded in Jan 19. That doesn’t seem too shocking.
Also saw the “30 breaches” and saw loads asking for a list - but no one on twitter actually had a list?
The reporting by the BBC has been as bad as I’d have expected. I mean, leading with “resign!” last night, before she’d had her chance to give evidence based on the Tories Press release always and forever feel deeply awful
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “purposefully” but to clarify my statement I’m in no way suggesting they continued to pursue that course in order to intentionally sabotage the investigation.
More that as I understand it (and I’m no legal expert) the legal advice that was published last night basically said that “if you continue with this person who contacted the witnesses before being appointed this will almost certainly mean that Salmond will get off on a technicality” and the Scottish govt decided to follow that exact course anyway.
That’s what I did mean by purposefully, yeah, that they intentionally went along with it knowing it’d fail
Sorry i’ve had a bunch of dental drugs this morn
Contactless going up to a ton in the budget. Purposely targeting drunk me to restart the economy. Bastard
Budget chat, come on
“You’re all going in the workhouse next year”
Budget chat would be in the March politics thread surely?
Shit, forgot it was March
Still pushing the BS line that austerity put us in a good place.
Corporation tax increase
Sounds good so far. Very happy there is going to be extra funding for the arts and that furlough will be going on for longer.
That lad isn’t going back in the clubs on June 21st and he knows it.
If that’s not some pre-cursor to some targetting of “latte drinking young people on furlough” start to a culture war i don’t know what is
Why have they chosen Black Flag for their budget layout?
Album: The Decline of Western Civilization