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.
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
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
