Appeared in court this morning .
BBC News - Alex Salmond charged with attempted rape
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46984747
BBC News - Alex Salmond charged with attempted rape
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46984747
That breach of the peace at the end makes it sound like it was all in one night. Is there anything on whats supposed to have happened? Is this historical, new, over a period of time to one or multiple people?Mr Salmond was accused of two charges of attempted rape, nine of sexual assault, two of indecent assault and one breach of the peace.
Clearly he's innocent until proven otherwise. Discussion about his case is perfectly normal as is any other.Until he has been convicted or aquitted I think it best that we keep any personal thoughts to ourselves.
The guy deserves a fair trial.
Why wouldn't he get a fair trial?Until he has been convicted or aquitted I think it best that we keep any personal thoughts to ourselves.
The guy deserves a fair trial.
Because of the risk of trial by media.Why wouldn't he get a fair trial?
I'm not overly surprised.I was genuinely shocked by this.
Bit much that, why have they done such a thing.ALEX Salmond has accused Nicola Sturgeon of “rewriting history” after his time as First Minister was mysteriously left off the SNP website.
The “history” section of the party’s internet pages appears to have been changed on January 15.
It tells of the formation of the first SNP government in 2007 — but Mr Salmond isn’t mentioned as its leader.
An article on the 2014 independence referendum also fails to mention him.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...d-nicola-sturgeon-snp-website-first-minister/
Really? Put yourself in a woman's shoes and maybe reassess?Some nasty accusations in that list, though I do find the classification of touching of arms and legs as sexual assaults to be a bit much.
Disagree and as I tell my daughter, her body is hers and no one has a right to share it that she doesn’t want to. She decides that.Legs for sure. Arms - there are natural gestures involving those, and so would depend on context. Clearly in this case they were suggestive and unwarranted.
Sure but if someone pats her on the forearm is it sexual assault?Disagree and as I tell my daughter, her body is hers and no one has a right to share it that she doesn’t want to. She decides that.
Let's face it. A touch on the arm by an (alleged) sex offender would mean much more than just a natural gesture.Legs for sure. Arms - there are natural gestures involving those, and so would depend on context. Clearly in this case they were suggestive and unwarranted.
If they've covered it up it won't help.What kind of impact will this have on the SNP do we think? Bad timing for all it seems.
Wait. What?!Obviously counting a leg or arm touch over clothes as sexual assault is nonsense, unwanted or not, but clearly there's a pattern there of perhaps someone getting gropey and forcing himself on women when he's been drinking. It's the attempted rape charges that are where the focus will be. The rest is presumably just to help paint a pattern of behaviour to a jury. His reputation is destroyed whatever the outcome, he always was the perfect stereotype of a sleazeball.
No one's being dismissive of the sexual assault. A pat on the forearm or a person's leg when they're seated seems a stretch. We don't know the context or the nature of the touching but that these two charges are included among the list of other, significant and serious acts almost makes a mockery of the rest of them. They don't need to be included.Really? Put yourself in a woman's shoes and maybe reassess?
Do you know the definition of simple assault?
It's a shocking attitude and you're wrong. You don't even know what happened so you're arguments are pointless. If a woman has reported it and the police had enough to charge then I doubt it's just a pat on the leg or arm.No one's being dismissive of the sexual assault. A pat on the forearm or a person's leg when they're seated seems a stretch. We don't know the context or the nature of the touching but that these two charges are included among the list of other, significant and serious acts almost makes a mockery of the rest of them. They don't need to be included.
I'm not familiar with Scottish law but generally people don't need laws to protect them from simple touching. That's normal human behaviour. People can self police it if it's unwanted. Making it legally questionable to interact physically with someone is messing us up as a society.
No, I said the context was important to know. From where we sit, their inclusion seems pointless. It looks like overkill from the crown and those charges will probably be dismissed. You're reading what we're saying about two specific charges and thinking the viewpoint applies to all of them. You are wrong.It's a shocking attitude and you're wrong. You don't even know what happened so you're arguments are pointless. If a woman has reported it and the police had enough to charge then I doubt it's just a pat on the leg or arm.
'self police'? that's just a ridiculous thing to say.
1) You have no idea what happened so why you're willfully choosing to imagine it as being as mild as "a pat on the forearm or a person's leg when they're seated", I have no idea. Especially in the context of all the other charges.No one's being dismissive of the sexual assault. A pat on the forearm or a person's leg when they're seated seems a stretch. We don't know the context or the nature of the touching but that these two charges are included among the list of other, significant and serious acts almost makes a mockery of the rest of them. They don't need to be included.
I'm not familiar with Scottish law but generally people don't need laws to protect them from simple touching. That's normal human behaviour. People can self police it if it's unwanted. Making it legally questionable to interact physically with someone is messing us up as a society.
Sure, that's why I've repeatedly said the context is important. Context is important for two of the points you're arguing here. I'd like to know when touching someone on the arm or leg constitutes sexual assault. The charges listed above do a good job of clarifying where all of his other actions constitute sexual assault (i.e. "placing his arm around her, making sexual remarks to her and attempting to kiss her") but the arms and legs ones do not. Some of the reactions here are as if I'm claiming these are false accusations, which is wholly erroneous.1) You have no idea what happened so why you're willfully choosing to imagine it as being as mild as "a pat on the forearm or a person's leg when they're seated", I have no idea. Especially in the context of all the other charges.
2) If you're saying that something that can get you a sexual assault charge isn't sexual assault then by definition you're being dismissive of the sexual assault.
3) Prosecuting a lesser form of sexual assault makes a mockery of more serious sexual assault in the same way that prosecuting minor theft makes a mockery of major theft. In other words, it doesn't.
4) The blanket notion that women can self-police unwanted physical contact or don't need laws protecting them from such is stupid beyond belief.