Friday, August 31, 2018

On the subject of faith, wealth, and personal choice

It's with great trepidation that I even think of writing a little more about the current Alex Salmond story, because no matter what I say, some unionist journalist will doubtless interpret it as a sign that I am taking a side in their fictitious "SNP civil war".  But a few general points that I feel need to be made -

1) It's deeply offensive to suggest that people who have donated to Alex Salmond's crowdfunder have done something wrong by not donating to Women's Aid instead.  That portrays the issue as a zero-sum conflict between the perpetrators and the victims of violence against women, and is self-evidently inconsistent with the principle that Mr Salmond is innocent until proven guilty.  There is obviously a division of opinion within the SNP on the wisdom of Mr Salmond's legal challenge, but the fact is that at the moment he is challenging the complaints process he has been subject to, and therefore any funds raised will not be used for his defence against the complaints themselves.  As has been pointed out multiple times, any deficiencies the judicial review may identify in the complaints process (for example the very obvious lack of confidentiality) could well have negatively affected both Mr Salmond and the complainants, so contributors to the fundraiser are perfectly entitled to say that they are acting in the best interests of both sides.  Not that people have to justify what they choose to spend their own money on, of course.  Every penny ever spent by anyone could always be challenged by a third party as not going to the most worthy cause.  Labour membership fees could perhaps be more usefully spent on expanding access to clean water in Africa, for example.  Rather than playing that moronic game, it's probably best to let people choose to support the causes they personally feel most strongly about.  If someone like Danielle Rowley feels that Women's Aid is an underfunded cause, by all means she should start donating a bigger portion of her own salary to that charity.

2) The people who are saying that Mr Salmond is an independently wealthy man and therefore has no need to run a fundraiser don't appear to have a clue what they are talking about.  Do they know: a) the current state of his bank balance, and b) how much the legal challenge will cost?  If not, they should have the courtesy to allow a fellow citizen to get on with funding legitimate access to the legal system by any legitimate means.  (Oh, and memo to Suzanne Moore: Mr Salmond does not have income from a "Kremlin-backed TV show".  His own production company makes a TV show which is screened on an Ofcom-licensed station that happens to be funded by the Russian state - an important distinction.)

3) There has been a lot of sneering commentary about how the widespread backing for Mr Salmond is "faith-based".  And yes, some of the people who have contributed to the crowdfunder do have fairly wild, unproven theories about the sexual harassment complaints being a dirty tricks operation by the British state (theories that Mr Salmond is not responsible for and does not need to assume responsibility for).  But how is that any different from the faith-based convictions held by Mr Salmond's critics that the complaints would never have been made unless they were probably true?  The reality is that only the people present when the alleged incidents were supposed to have taken place know the truth of what did or didn't happen.  Anyone else passing comment on the facts at this stage (other than to say "I don't know") is guilty of faith-based assumptions.  It would be better for us all to keep an entirely open mind on what any investigation will uncover - and to adhere to the principle that until then, Mr Salmond is entitled to a presumption of innocence, just as anyone else would be in the same situation.

*  *  *

33 comments:

  1. I agree with you that people should be given the presumption of innocence, but sadly in any case with allegations of this nature some people are always going to make a presumption of guilt or innocence and some are going to take things to far in arguing why they feel the person is guilty or innocent.

    The only issue I have with the crowd funding is that some seem to think they are donating to help 'prove his innocence'. Of course the Court of Session will be making no rulings or guilt or innocence, just if the investigate process was fair and lawful, which is a completely different matter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I donated to the Alex Salmond crowdfunder, and I understand exactly what the case is about. It says this on the site in large letters at the top.

    Help support the costs of Alex Salmond's Judicial Review in the Court of Session.

    I also am a member of SNP and donate to election campaigns as well as being an activist.

    I am female. I have no inclination whatsoever to donate to Women's Aid. That is my choice and my right to make it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love it, rich man being funded by the plebs and the rich man will always be rich. What about funding Scottish food banks ya knob. You will be laughed at for the rest of your life ya fuckin idiot.

      Delete
    2. I've already given ma knob to tha Scottish foodbanks they said it should feed the needy for years to come but I'm a bit sore down below.

      Delete
    3. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  3. Av jist funded Ecks next bookies line. Three cross tannner doubles a treble and an accumulator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
    2. Up yor farter with a tarry brush. Jocko tit.

      Delete
  4. Indeed, I do have 'faith' that I have always observed Mr Salmond to be, if not always a likable man, always an honourable one. Until it is proven to me otherwise, I will continue to assume that has not changed. Someone else may consider that faith based. I consider it using my own experience to form an opinion. Being neither judge nor jury, I am under no obligation to avoid doing so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tomlin, that is the best piece of shit you have uttered, I am impressed. The complainants should have no anonymity as they are adults.

      Delete
    2. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  5. Thanks, James. Your post is a good analysis. The opposition parties are attempting to seed a self-fulfilling prophesy by proposing that the SNP has "descended into civil war". In doing so, they risk looking stupid - provided the SNP handles the case wisely.
    I of course hope that AS can be proven unequivocally innocent. But NS is right to make clear that he is getting no privileges. Anything less, and any eventual judgement in his favour would always be contestable. It now remains to be seen how robust and fair the new internal procedures on sexual harassment cases in fact are. Introducing effective mechanisms that adequately protect the rights of both potential victims and the accused is easier said than done, and it may well be that they need further improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only way that he could be proved to be innocent would be if the women making their state sponsored complaint could be proved not to have been in Bute house on the days that their lies claim. Unfortunately since this was organised by the english civil service with full access to his official diaries and schedules that isn't going to be the case.

      There isn't ever going to be a court case. There is no evidence. Just smears and lies from our enemies. Amplified by the useful idiots in the feminist branch of the nazi party.

      I couldn't case less about the feelings of the women who are involved in this case. If they are lying (which they are) they they deserve to be treated as traitor. If they are telling the truth then they, as grown women are entirely responsible for their actions. Choosing to go into a drunk man's bedroom and then lie on the bed while he gropes you. How exactly is he then a criminal unless he's got a gun to your head? Consent is consent and the actions described in the Rectum describe consensual behaviour between two adults.

      Sadly feminist doctrine insists that if a woman changes her mind after the event then the previous consent no longer exists. see every shrieking harridan commenting on this case for proof.

      Delete
    2. You need to get a girlfriend, mate

      Delete
    3. You need to get your fud plugging. Ponce boy.

      Delete
  6. A useful contribution, sir.

    The salacious nature of the current stooshie, is simply grist for a tabloid media mill. Such is the state of reportage on these islands, to borrow a phrase. The current target is a major political figure who inspires adoration among many of his compatriots, while being loathed, in equal measure, by his opponents. The talking heads will milk it for all that its worth. It has ever been thus. Complaining about it is pointless, and a waste of everyone's time and effort. Speculation and opinion is being passed off as fact. The entire farce is nothing more than a distraction from the real crisis gripping these lands.

    As a Scot, I believe my native land is currently presented with a clear and present danger to its future happiness and prosperity. Westminster, under the current Tory regime and its backers, has made clear its intentions to roll back what little self autonomy it has ceded to our people these last few years, after 300 years of almost absolute rule.


    If we allow those who oppose our independence to set the "news" agenda, we are just allowing ourselves to be bought off with dirty laundry. Are we really that shallow?

    Don't rise to their bating. All they have is hot air. The fact that they equate the fate of our national aspiration with the fate of a private citizen and media personality, only shows the level of their desperation and stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we keep explaining this it is simply playing the Unionist's game. All the angst and hand wringing from Unionist commentators is cynical politicking, nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Powell. Your whiff smells fowl

      Delete
    2. Quick!, 'Roundup' him, with that lethal Earth destroying pesticide.

      Delete
  8. What a frackin arse, that Alex Bell is. He said [8.10am] this morning on Radio Scotland, that the Scottish Independence folk are implicated in sexual impropriety because of association with Alex Salmond. He also said, that Alex Salmond was a chancer.

    What about yourself, you frackin half-wit Alex Bell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eventually some of these idiots are going to find themselves in court defending against charges of defamation and Alex Bell is high on that list.

      Delete
    2. He did do that but was immediately challenged. He backed away like he had just opened a box of angry cobras and said that was not what he meant. I think he knew the moment he said it he had jumped about 20 yards over the line. He did give an insight into what he was trying to do though. However, his animosity towards Salmond is well documented.

      I though Collier was on the ball when he said the SNP civil war at conference would look like a Quakers meeting compared to the civil wars raging in Labour and the Tories.

      The civil war thing seems to have actually bonded SNP members. The craic has been excellent.

      Delete
    3. Hand and Shrimp.
      Wrist a bit limp.

      Delete
    4. Blimey. Yor mentally ill.

      Delete
  9. Well, one thing is certain: rabid British nationalists now hate the independence movement,and its supporters, more than ever before.

    They have thrown everything at Yessers - politicians and ordinary supporters - but can't instigate the civil war they are desperate for. What's left for them to do? There only answer is more hatred and more lies, yet unfortunately, for these rabid britnats that is, the more extreme their anti-indy proclamations the more the peope of Scotland condemn them for being the britnat nutters they most definitely are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate is not the correct word. We Unionists only feel sorry for fascists WHO CLAIM THEY WANT INDEPENDENCE but want to sell Scotland out to the EU FASCISTS. Up yer kilt and lederhosen nat si boy.

      Delete
    2. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
    3. Here Fritz PuggelflascherSeptember 5, 2018 at 9:53 PM

      Dan Building. Vacant fool.

      Delete
  10. You lot of creme puff nat sis need to get a villa. Or try visiting a batcave for a change. But not nicklerless dungeons one. Whiffy nat si batcave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  11. The policy of the Union press is to oppose independence, despise the SNP, and vilify its leadership. This in turn will be used to denigrate the supporters of independence. Its a pattern. The rush to judgement of Alex Salmond was a foregone conclusion. The guilt or innocence of Alex Salmond is now irrelevant. The smearing is in full bloom.

    If you donated to his fund, your a sex pest. If you didn't, your a faction in the SNP civil war. This is clearly the strategy that it will employ from now until their doomsday.

    Take a deep breath folks. You are all going to be called paedophiles, sex pests and any other sexual deviance the trolls can think up.

    Character assassination is all they have. See it for what it is. Don't get angry, get even. Bare down. Our independence was never going to be a cake walk. The British establishment will pull out all the hatchets before we're done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't need character assassination. We have our service men and women and our security forces

      Delete