Jump to content

 

 

The Great Salmond Sex Scandal


Recommended Posts

Meanwhile, and unfortunately not in a galaxy far, far away,

 

SNP defied police chief’s advice not to go public with Alex Salmond claims

Tom Eden

Wednesday March 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

A crown agent offered to give the police a copy of the findings of the government’s internal inquiry into Alex Salmond

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-defied-police-chiefs-advice-not-to-go-public-with-alex-salmond-claims-mp38vf86q

 

Scotland’s chief constable warned the SNP government against going public about its investigation of Alex Salmond, a witness statement released by the Crown Office has confirmed.

A Police Scotland detective chief superintendent said that they and the chief constable, Iain Livingstone, “both voiced our concerns” about the government’s plan to announce there were allegations of sexual harassment against the former first minister before officers had investigated the claims.

 

The extract of the witness statement was released after the Holyrood inquiry into the government’s unlawful investigation of Salmond used powers in the Scotland Act to demand the Crown Office release evidence. It also confirmed the crown agent David Harvie offered to give the police a copy of the findings of the government’s internal inquiry — an offer that was rejected.

 

In the witness statement, the detective chief superintendent, whose name has been redacted, recounts a meeting when police were told the government had referred the complaints about Salmond to the Crown Office “for investigation of potential criminality”.

They said that it was agreed a “proactive approach” was required to identify other potential complainers, including by contacting people in similar roles to the women who had come forward.

They added: “Harvie was in possession of a copy of the Scottish government’s internal conduct conclusion report and offered to provide me with a copy. I refused this offer and neither I, nor the chief constable, viewed this document.

“I was also informed that Scottish government may be making a public statement in relation to the outcome of their investigation and potentially refer to information being provided to Police Scotland. Both the chief constable and I voiced our concerns about such a statement being provided.”

 

Salmond subsequently challenged the lawfulness of the inquiry, and the government conceded a judicial review as its defence was undermined by the investigating officer’s prior contact with complainants.

Lord Pentland at the Court of Session described the investigation as “unlawful” and “tainted by apparent bias”, and Salmond was awarded the maximum possible legal costs of £512,250. He was later acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault.

 

Responding to the Holyrood committee’s order for the release of the witness statement, Kenny Donnelly, the procurator fiscal, also offered to share notes from evidence given under oath by the officer during the criminal trial.

 

When giving evidence to the committee, Salmond said he was told the government planned to issue a public statement announcing it had investigated two women’s complaints and was passing it on to the Crown Office. The former SNP leader thought that was “remarkable” as “any hope of confidentiality in the process would have gone once that statement had been made”.

He then said the government’s plan was “even more remarkable” once he learnt that the crown agent “was advised against any publicity by the police in a meeting two days previously”.

 

Around when the government had intended to make a statement, details of the inquiry were leaked to the Daily Record, which broke the story.

Referring to the leak, Salmond said: “The permanent secretary was asked about that in questioning, and she said that it had caused enormous distress to everyone concerned. I am absolutely sure that it did . . . The only question that I would have . . . is this: notwithstanding the leak, what did she think would have happened if she had gone ahead and put out the statement at 5 o’clock on that day? I find it extraordinary.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

And.....

The Dunlop Report

(From Laura Dunlop QC, not Roddy Dunlop QC, who features, passim, in this thread, and I don't know if they are related)

 

"John Swinney, the deputy first minister, said that the government would consider the recommendations."

Well, that's OK: in Swinney we trust. 

 

Dunlop report calls for impartial investigators in harassment cases

Marc Horne

Wednesday March 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

John Swinney, the deputy first minister, said the government would consider recommendations made by Laura Dunlop QC

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dunlop-report-calls-for-impartial-investigators-in-harassment-cases-5pgfnf927

 

Investigations into harassment claims against present or former ministers should be carried out independently of the civil service, an official report has concluded.

Laura Dunlop QC was commissioned to examine the government’s procedures after its handling of complaints against Alex Salmond was found to be unlawful.

She presented a range of recommendations yesterday, including allowing complainers to refuse police involvement and for claims to be investigated by an independent body — such as the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, or the Independent Advisers on the Ministerial Code — rather than civil servants.

 

The Scottish government was taken to court by Salmond in 2018 over its handling of two internal harassment complaints against him. The government admitted that the way a newly devised complaints process had been applied was “unlawful”, because the civil servant who conducted the investigation had had prior contact with both complainers.

 

“It is clear that the investigating officer’s involvement with the complainers’ side of the process was considered to have been too close to be considered fair,” Dunlop’s report says. “My suggestion would be a requirement that anyone involved in factual investigation, and/or preparation of a report, should have had no prior involvement with any aspect of the matter being raised.”

 

John Swinney, the deputy first minister, said that the government would consider the recommendations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's gone all coy at today's Covid briefing stating she refutes what Davis said on the issue and she won't be answering any further questions on the matter if any more journalists deign to ask her. Apparently it's a Covid briefing and that's all she's going to be answering questions on. It was just a few weeks ago she launched an 11 minute tirade against Salmond at which she impugned the jury's vetdict in Salmond’s criminal trial.

 

She's rattled.

 

Rather conveniently BBC 1 left the broadcast a second before the journalists question, it's as if they knew what was coming given the inbuilt 7 second delay on live broadcasts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One look at her face tells you immediately just how rattled the FM is. She seems to have aged ten years since the Salmond trial a year ago. It's becoming harder and harder to keep her mask in place these days and, win or lose, the post-election response will almost certainly include her departure from politics. Damaged goods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.