HAVING given careful consideration to adding unnecessarily to the oxygen of publicity of the anti-Alex Salmond tendency, I decided the letter in today’s paper by the anonymous accusers of the former First Minister shouldn’t pass without comment.
I find myself conflicted despite being entirely in agreement with the underlying sentiments of the argument: “a strong and indisputable message that such behaviours should not be tolerated by any person in any position in any circumstances”; “be brave, be loud, be heard”. Why then was it not clear that their respective remedies lay in their own hands?
"Inappropriate" behaviour needs to be stamped on in the moment and the social sanction, namely a verbal warning followed by a sharp slap across the face or a forceful blow to the genitals of the assailant be it in a lift, rear seat of a ministerial limo or the bedroom of Bute House is the only appropriate response.
It is no defence that they were not prepared to take such action in fear of losing their positions. Further details of persistent unacceptable behaviour, if such was the case, could emerge in any subsequent employment tribunal case for unfair dismissal.
I’d expect nothing less from my daughter, granddaughter or any of the women in my life.
It is beyond my credibility that determined, career-focussed, assertive women – how could they be otherwise in the dark rooms of political manoeuvring? – now peddle their case in the court of public opinion when the same case was comprehensively defeated in a court of law?
A majority jury of their peers and gender were unpersuaded of their case. This was based on the evidence put before the court and specifically excluded references to last year’s court proceedings which resulted in Alex Salmond being awarded £512,000 in costs on an “agent and client” basis, a technical legal term for a punitive award used by the courts when the losing party to litigation has been causing the other unnecessary expense.
This was an expense to the Scottish taxpayer and even an editorial in The Times of January 19 last year called for the scalp of Scotland’s most senior civil servant following her handling of the case which collapsed because of “her failure in her duty of care not just to the women but also to Mr Salmond".
Others will investigate and debate conspiracy theories. Be loud, be brave, be heard, certainly but remember that action in the moment will secure better results against sexual predation.
Iain Bruce
Nairn
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article