Do You Talk To The Television?
ChatterBank0 min ago
Alex Salmond
Was so sorry to hear that Alex Salmond had resigned from the SNP last night. I'm not altogether surprised as he is an honourable man and would be thinking about the effect the allegations against him would have on his party. Quote from BBC news.
"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has spoken of her "huge sadness" following the resignation of former SNP leader Alex Salmond from the party.
Mr Salmond announced he was quitting on Wednesday amid allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies.
The ex-first minister said he intended to apply to rejoin the party once he had an opportunity to clear his name.
Ms Sturgeon called Mr Salmond her "friend and mentor for almost 30 years" and said she understood his decision."
"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has spoken of her "huge sadness" following the resignation of former SNP leader Alex Salmond from the party.
Mr Salmond announced he was quitting on Wednesday amid allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies.
The ex-first minister said he intended to apply to rejoin the party once he had an opportunity to clear his name.
Ms Sturgeon called Mr Salmond her "friend and mentor for almost 30 years" and said she understood his decision."
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by maggiebee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Regarding who funds the costs of the action, etc., it is important to understand that in any civil action it is entirely possible for the "winner" to be heavily out of pocket in the end. Even if you are awarded "expenses" that is only often/usually/always (I am uncertain which applies) an amount calculated by the court, not a reimbursement of what was laid out for every aspect of preparing and fighting the case, whether pursuer or defendant. I do feel that some of the reactions being shown spring from an us-and-them attitude toward the public figure who is not destitute.
// but I think he should be given access to the alleged evidence against him. Withholding it isn't right.//
they ( scot gubmint) would be following their own ( new ) disciplinary procedure - which of course Salmond must have access to ( s3 employment act) and only one.
in which the charges should be made plain - but not actually the text of the complaint need be released
there will be all this fol-de-rol of not over stressing the victim complainant and perhaps relieving her of the necessity of answering questions.
if they (SG) refused - Salmond should have tried a data subject access request - but he has to be named in the documents - internal complaints are NOT criminal investigations - so that exception is not engaged. Perhaps he has - we dont kn ow
He has threatened JR ( cost at least £10k nearer £50k) - but not issued the writ so we can all discuss it and this and that - and the JR is gonna be - "follow your own procedure" OR "make your procedure compliant with Scots Law"
so we all have to wait and see
[ no JR but this occurred in a works disciplinary where I was union rep - so at the hearing I was forbidden to mention the barassment case or documents - so I asked the tribunal at the works inter alia, interim and seriatim (!) to exclude under the same criteria, bits of evidence of the fraud ( to admit would be unfair ) which disembowelled their case].
Handled like this - the case gets very close to - 'can you refute these allegations' and only lawyers can understand points like 'its not meant to work like that' - works tribunals certainly can't and try anything to crash on and find the fella guilty
they ( scot gubmint) would be following their own ( new ) disciplinary procedure - which of course Salmond must have access to ( s3 employment act) and only one.
in which the charges should be made plain - but not actually the text of the complaint need be released
there will be all this fol-de-rol of not over stressing the victim complainant and perhaps relieving her of the necessity of answering questions.
if they (SG) refused - Salmond should have tried a data subject access request - but he has to be named in the documents - internal complaints are NOT criminal investigations - so that exception is not engaged. Perhaps he has - we dont kn ow
He has threatened JR ( cost at least £10k nearer £50k) - but not issued the writ so we can all discuss it and this and that - and the JR is gonna be - "follow your own procedure" OR "make your procedure compliant with Scots Law"
so we all have to wait and see
[ no JR but this occurred in a works disciplinary where I was union rep - so at the hearing I was forbidden to mention the barassment case or documents - so I asked the tribunal at the works inter alia, interim and seriatim (!) to exclude under the same criteria, bits of evidence of the fraud ( to admit would be unfair ) which disembowelled their case].
Handled like this - the case gets very close to - 'can you refute these allegations' and only lawyers can understand points like 'its not meant to work like that' - works tribunals certainly can't and try anything to crash on and find the fella guilty
Can’t believe he’s sent out a request for funds for his court case. To date, £85,000 from mugs already coughed up. Probably paying back favours granted by him, from previous years in government. I thought you could get the state to support his defence and he’d only have to pay, if guilty?. Need I say more!.
