Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1754744
Keeping politics out of it…can we read anything in to the outcome of Alex Salmond's court case.

Reading some of the accusations during the trial I did raise an eyebrow at the authenticity of the allegations, however with 10 women making accusations I expected something to stick. Nothing did. :shock:

Should the women now be named?
#1754764
Pete L wrote:I think we can continue to believe what we like.

And therein lies the injustice, people will believe what they like (me included) and that will stick with him for his lifetime, even although he has been cleared of all wrong doing. Meanwhile the women retain anonymity. Coming across to anyone as a bully doesn't warrant what he has had to endure over the last while nor how his life has been ruined.

Something tells me this isn't the end of this matter.

I don't have answers as to how the system should change, but change it should, IMO.
VictoryRoll, Katamarino liked this
#1754774
There are clear rules about this:

https://www.ipso.co.uk/member-publisher ... -offences/

The Law

All victims of sexual offences, including children, are automatically guaranteed anonymity for life from the moment they make an allegation that they are the victim of a sexual offence. A victim is guaranteed anonymity even when someone else accuses the defendant of the offence. In Scotland, the law is different but the practice of respecting anonymity is the same.

A large number of offences are considered sexual offences in law. These include rape, sexual assault, exposure and taking an indecent photograph of a child. Anonymity is also extended to victims/alleged victims of female genital mutilation and, in some circumstances, of ‘human trafficking’ and modern slavery.

Anonymity remains in force for the lifetime of the victim, even where the allegation is withdrawn, the police decide to take no action, or the accused is acquitted. The exceptions to this legal protection are very limited and specific:
#1754777
riverrock wrote:Do I like Mr Salmond? No.

Nor I particularly (but heh I don't know him), however I don't consider that relevant to whether he deserves what's happened to him, or whether changes are required.

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:There are clear rules about this.

Goes without saying really, does it not? :? The rules aren't in question, it's whether they are appropriate that's questionable.

I can't imagine what he has had to suffer over the last however long it has been. Not liking him doesn't translate to not feeling empathy.
#1754779
I have never met the man, I don't like his politics - that doesn't mean that I would necessarily have any reason to dislike him personally if I did. I have many friends whose politics I disagree with.

Such a large number of acquittals on similar charges are, well, interesting! He has made accusations that these were co-ordinated and politically motivated, and that must at-least be regarded as now a suggestion with some weight behind it.

Seems to me that this should be investigated as a possible abuse of the justice system. That can be done without naming the women who made these accusations.

I would think that if any of them genuinely are found to have made any malicious accusations, they should be named and punished. If they are not, then the next stage is probably to look at the whole justice system and how it functioned in this case, but whilst maintaining their anonymity.

G
#1754787
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:No.

This. ^

Salmond doesn't come out of it well anyway so if it was political the dirty work has been done. If the accusers wish to take out a private prosecution there is a good chance that they will find a pro-bono lawyer and / or crowdfunding to take it on whether or not it is political shenanigans.
PaulB liked this
#1754817
And for those who think that there was foul play, there are mechanism for false allegations to be investigated and if found to be true for perpetrators to be prosecuted.

Sexual assault cases are difficult. Difficult to prove, difficult to defend.
#1754850
Miscellaneous wrote:
CloudHound wrote:He admitted having consensual sex on Government property.
:scratch:


As did John Prescott and John Major.

Classy they are not.

:roll: :roll: