Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Straight question then, do you think Salmond secured consent?
Alex Salmond accused (and then cleared) of sexual misconduct.
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
Border Reiver
Active Member
I have no idea. I do know it was not possible to prove any crime. Guilt is not decided by guesswork. The jury which heard the evidence did not accept that he failed to secure consent. I have an d fashioned view that respecting principles of jury trial are important before people are punished.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Not asking you about anything legal, not asking you about process. I'm asking if you think Salmond secured consent from the various women in the case. What do you think?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
To be clear, and for the avoidance of doubt, it is my belief, based on reading, research and the experience of friends and family, that most rapists are running around free because the legal system is, in practice, designed for near impunity in committing sexual assault. This is an horrific fact of life.
Anyone with any honesty and decency should realise this.
——- separate point ——-
As part of his defence, and in public statements surrounding the trial, Salmond admitted to behaviour that he said was not criminal but about which he said he was “no saint”. He apologised in person to one of the women.
Now, the events he admits to, amount to behaviour which no boss should put subordinates in. The degree to which people were able to consent to these situations is exactly the point. Your boss gets you drunk and attempts to carry out work business with you in bedrooms, wearing his dressing gown, or in any similarly compromising conditions, and you wonder if your job is at stake if you say “sorry, boss, let’s do this sober in an office tomorrow during the day”. You are not the one with the power in those circumstances.
My earlier point was that that sort of abuse of power should not be something bosses should just be able to shrug off.
Anyone with any honesty and decency should realise this.
——- separate point ——-
As part of his defence, and in public statements surrounding the trial, Salmond admitted to behaviour that he said was not criminal but about which he said he was “no saint”. He apologised in person to one of the women.
Now, the events he admits to, amount to behaviour which no boss should put subordinates in. The degree to which people were able to consent to these situations is exactly the point. Your boss gets you drunk and attempts to carry out work business with you in bedrooms, wearing his dressing gown, or in any similarly compromising conditions, and you wonder if your job is at stake if you say “sorry, boss, let’s do this sober in an office tomorrow during the day”. You are not the one with the power in those circumstances.
My earlier point was that that sort of abuse of power should not be something bosses should just be able to shrug off.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes, I lost my temper earlier. I’m entitled to.
Border Reiver
Active Member
How could I know? If a jury could not be convinced....
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Damn right.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Fucking hell, even Salmond goes closer to admitting he didn't secure consent than you do.
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
I'm really disappointed about the Proclaimers. Legit gutted. I thought they were alright.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
A jury needs to be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt. You only need to go on balance of probabilities. Bloody big difference.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
There's always Jedward.
Border Reiver
Active Member
I decide what criteria I use.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yes you will and it seems like you'll be using one eyed political criteria.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I suspect he won't be king in the land of the blind
Border Reiver
Active Member
Just as biased as your view.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
You're a failure of a human being. Away and drown in your own shite.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Not much tolerance of alternative views there. Nor any sign of debate.
JimW
支那暗杀团
The boards are full of debates where alternative views compete. You might ask yourself what it is about your notion that sleeping women can give consent has put you beyond the pale, and why your particular posting style puts anyone off engaging with you.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
And you have chosen one that absolves abuse, it seems. So excuse me for not giving a fuck about your reactionary opinion.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Only your misunderstanding caused by your difficulty understanding complex concepts.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Does my face look bovvered.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
There is nothing particularly complex about the absolutely typical behaviour that bullying sex pest Salmond partook in. Nor,sadly, in your refusal to recognise it.
Border Reiver
Active Member
In your partial opinion only.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Well, let's take a moment over that. Yes, I'll admit, my 'bias' is to take seriously women who are alleging sexual violence. I won't rehearse the reasons for that, they are obvious. So, does my 'bias' lead my to a position where I might end up believing the accusations against someone who has been falsely accused? Yes, it's quite possible. Not very likely and certainly not very often - statistics - but is possible.
Are there good reasons to think Salmond's case is one of those, some kind of malicious accusation/prosecution? Obviously not, that's not waht this case is about. He was in a position of power over the women and he was forced into the usual defence made by men in those circumstances, that he's 'touchy feely' and 'no saint'. This was all about the point where Noel Clarke is at right now, the fallback position of 'I did some of what I'm accused of, but not the criminal stuff'. In fact his own lawyer went further and said he's 'a sex pest'. So, multiple accusations and a bloke who has to mount his defence along the lines of 'hey, I'm a scumbag, but I'm not a criminal'.
So, having gone through that painfully slowly, it looks to me like a situation where if you heard the evidence in real life, you'd believe the women, you'd think it very likely they were telling the truth. He is after all, a 'sex pest'. But like so many similar cases it doesn't cross the legal threshold of 'reasonable doubt'. Anyway, I'll finally get back to biases. In post 1022 I simply asked for your best guess as to whether salmond secured consent. You decided to ignore the question and go straight to the formal legal position. My question for you is why you seem to ignore what we know about what happens to sexual violence cases at all stages through the legal process? It was for England and Wales, but I've just seen that rape convictions are actually falling and were less than 1/2 of the figure for 2016-17, last year. And why you ignore what we know about gender and power, as pretty much every week brings another story of sexual harassment by a politician (Hartlepool by election, for example)? So, y'know, about this 'sex pest', this powerful man, who is 'no saint', bearing in mind the statistics, our understanding of power, of what goes on in the court room, do you think he secured consent?
Border Reiver
Active Member
You seem to be mistake by me for someone who cares what you think.
JimW
支那暗杀团
You've mistaken this board as in need of a tedious pedant who can't see the wood for the trees and with a sideline in rape apology, so here we all are. You don't care what other posters think, find no signs of debate and feel barely tolerated. But it's not you, it's the others.
Border Reiver
Active Member
Border Reiver
Active Member
You too.
Border Reiver
Active Member
I originally posted to point out a major problem of the Scottish system of justice, not to speculate on matters on which my opinion has no effect. There seems to be a claque of people just interested in gossiping about matters on which there is no real debating point.
Similar threads
