Jump to content

 

 

The Great Salmond Sex Scandal


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, stewarty said:

Indeed.  But this is murky territory with claim and counter-claim.  Who knows (yet) what to believe on certain matters, other than somebody isn’t being entirely truthful. Probably all of them.  
 

To be clear, I’m not defending this, just offering a possible explanation in the absence of more detailed information.   It seems very odd to me that such a thing is necessary in the circumstances. It smacks of an attempted cover up 

Given what you say re Salmond and civil service there you have the answer to your own question re why he would need legal advice, no?

 

He knows how the apparatus of party and state work better than anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Given what you say re Salmond and civil service there you have the answer to your own question re why he would need legal advice, no?

 

He knows how the apparatus of party and state work better than anyone.

Maybe I’m at crossed wires here.  If I were him I’d be lawyered up.  Whether he knows the system or not, he still needs independent and objective legal advice given the implications for him personally.   That’s straight forward.  

The question was about the use of consultants for the civil servants.   That’s altogether different.  I suggested there may be some contractual reason for it, is all, in the absence of knowing the details.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stewarty said:

Maybe I’m at crossed wires here.  If I were him I’d be lawyered up.  Whether he knows the system or not, he still needs independent and objective legal advice given the implications for him personally.   That’s straight forward.  

The question was about the use of consultants for the civil servants.   That’s altogether different.  I suggested there may be some contractual reason for it, is all, in the absence of knowing the details.  

The only possible reason for the "consultants for the civil servants" is Operation Save Sturgeon, it is illegal for witnesses to be "coached" but as has already been demonstrated in this case Sturgeon & Co think they're above the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems it was a civil service union that had pressed for the advice to be given since the inquiry is operating in a quasi-judicial manner with witnesses giving evidence under oath.  
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are civil servants at personal risk from evidence given to a parliamentary enquiry? If not then it's hard to see why they would need legal coaching. All they should need to do is tell the truth without fear or favour. That's how it works in government, the politicians take responsibility, not their officials. Once you start using the civil service to further partisan political goals, you enter the realm of totalitarianism.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stewarty said:

Seems it was a civil service union that had pressed for the advice to be given since the inquiry is operating in a quasi-judicial manner with witnesses giving evidence under oath.  
 

 

That's still illegal though.

 

If you don't believe me then ask Joanna Cherry QC for it was her who highlighted that fact.

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.