Alex Salmond – and the rule of law (part 2)

This is really just an update to my previous post on this subject.

It seems that the nine women who made accusations against Alex Salmond which led to his criminal trial have now collectively issued a statement (signed “jointly”) which in the words of the Guardian, constitutes a “powerful rebuke to those that allege they conspired together”.

The Guardian acts as their PR machine – naturally. The Guardian has long since staked its financial future on various ideologies and certain target demographics for its advertising revenue. Women’s rights and “metoo” are a key part of this strategy.

“rebuke” of course is supposed to imply that it is wrong to suggest that the accusers conspired together. However; evidence emerged during the trial of a WhatsApp group on which several of the accusers met to discuss the allegations. An SNP official was recorded as opening discussing “sitting on” the allegations until a time “when they were needed” . The unavoidable interpretation is that the allegations were being “sat on” for when they were “needed” for political purposes. At any event the jury – which included a majority of women – chucked out the case. Not least perhaps because of inconsistencies in the evidence of the accusers. In one case a witness swore on oath that an accuser had not been present at the place she said the assault took place.

The Guardian supports these 9 women in their complaint about how people are now “abusing them online” – saying that they conspired to stitch up Salmond.  In fact of course this isn’t happening – they are anonymous and so cannot claim that they are being abused. (And from behind their cover of anonymity they are now accusing a witness of perjury). Meanwhile the Guardian again repeats the dirt they have on Salmond – his barrister admitted in court that Salmond was not always a nice man and a former associate called him “sleazy”.

It is the striking double-standards in play here which people object to. British people are tolerant and have a sense of fair-play. It is probably true that a large majority of people accept that women have the right to incite criminal trials for actions which at the time they occurred some years ago were not widely seen as criminal. But – the trial has been had. The complainers were not, it seems, sufficiently credible to convince a jury. And that is it. It is this ignoring of the legal process – Alex Salmond’s absolute legal right to now restore his reputation – which I think people so widely object to.

Author: justinwyllie

EFL Teacher and Photographer