A brief thought.
Can anybody explain to me why Alex Salmond reaching out to ping somebody’s hair was charged as sexual assault and unsuccessfully prosecuted in court, but this by an SNP MP:
“It was quite a nice night until towards the end of the evening. I was sitting on a couch in the pub with three or four colleagues, and then Patrick perched himself on the arm of the couch and proceeded to start touching me.
“He was playing with my hair and making comments about how he wished he had hair. He was putting his fingers on the back of my neck, behind my shirt collar, quite forcefully, and you know, at that time when I was 19, I didn’t know how to deal with it.
was not viewed as criminal at all? There are no texts from SNP Chief Executive Peter Murrell to his deputy Sue Ruddick instructing her to put pressure on the Met Police to bring charges against Patrick Grady.
There is a genuine question here. How is a citizen supposed to know what conduct is criminal and what conduct is not, when whether you are charged or not depends so clearly not on what you do, but on who you are?
As Albert Memmi said:
“What is fascism, if not a regime of oppression for the benefit of a few? The entire administrative and political machinery of a colony has no other goal. The human relationships have arisen from the severest exploitation, founded on inequality and contempt, guaranteed by police authoritarianism.”
Until a people realise that independence is decolonization, they will never fully understand their wretchedness.
‘How is a citizen supposed to know what conduct is criminal and what conduct is not?’
Very simple. Just don’t do it in the first place.
Never, under any circumstances, touch another person – even if they are drowning and scream for you to give them a hand. Also, do not look at other people if you can possibly help it, as such looking could be interpreted as harassment and, of course, if a person feels offended or assaulted then they are offended or assaulted.
“Very simple. Just don’t do it in the first place.”
What a stupid answer! Don’t do what in the first place? You haven’t even understood Craig’s simple question!
I think everyone knows nowadays that it’s inappropriate to flirt with someone with whom you have a management role. Don’t stroke people’s hair if they work for you. That’s not political correctness gone mad, it’s just decency.
That said I think the article raises a very valid issue, about choices of enforcement. I’ve seen it myself: enforcers (incl the social media mob) can shame one person and ruin their career, while totally turning a blind eye to another person, on similar issues.
That doesn’t begin to make logical sense. How can you refrain from doing ‘it’ when you don’t have a clear definition of ‘it’? That’s the whole thrust of Craig’s point! It’s ironic given that CM is one himself but that was a grade A baby boomer comment.
I only mention it because I have a theory about this. I think you had it way too easy in general and it’s turned your brains/work ethic to mush. It’s no wonder your parents called you the ‘me’ generation’.. Now you’ve got nothing to do but scrawl incoherently on an iPad with oversized fonts whilst living off the back of a housing shortage created by your own laziness. Pretty shameful. Glad it’s not my legacy anyway
Ps I don’t mean to be prejudicial – I appreciate this only applies to like 80% of you. Cheers
Do what? Do you understand the question?
The hair-ping was shoe-horned into the Salmond sex-pest narrative in the belief that quantity would overcome a lack of quality. Significantly the proceedings against Murray and Assange have been heard without any need for a jury. Had Salmond’s trial proceeded without a jury the court doubtless would have found against him as well.
I think that’s spot on… This, and others were orchestratedly shoe-horned in for that purpose.
The excellent John Smythe investigations blog is not going to let up on this. I am quoting here from a piece about this point published by John this weekend.
“John Smythe:
Private Secretary 1 was also the person that was in the lift when Alex Salmond attempted to ping the hair of Woman D. He was so concerned with this that he actually set up a meeting with the woman and her line manager about this to see if she wished to complain about it. Disappointingly for him the woman said it was not an issue for her. This is what her line manager said under oath. She also admitted she often pinged her hair as well.”
For corroboration and Moorov to work two things are needed: 1 – a crime has to be committed. And 2. The accused person did it.
They worked on 2 … But simple investigations dismissed all of the claims against AS. That is not true of the visible, social actions of this chief whip on that teenager.
Stinks.
In 2016 Grady went on a ten day visit to the States under the State Department’s International Visitors Leadership Program. He was accompanied by fellow Westminster MP Angela Crawley. This is the same infamous trip as Kezia Dugdale, Jenny Gilruth, Liz Lloyd, Ross Thomas et al. While Dugdale and Gilruth are required to record the trip in their Holyrood declaration of interest, Grady and Crawley are members of the British American Parliamentary Group and as such are uniquely (?) and mysteriously exempt from declaring this foreign trip. Were it not for an indiscrete (?) social media post picked up by Wings over Scotland, we wouldn’t even know Grady and Crawley were in the States. Why so secretive? Why don’t Grady’s & Crawley’s constituents need to know about their activities, their “interests”?
Grady returned from this trip in late June 2016, in October he committed his putative sexual assault.
Did the State Department arrange for Grady to “bump into” a young Adonis in their employ during this trip? In John le Carré parlance this would be “coat trailing”.
As an aside, of the seven elected Scottish recipients of the largesse of the State Department’s IVLP only one (Humza Yousaf) is heterosexual.
There may be a number of reasons for the outrageous differential in the treatment of Grady and Alex Salmond, but one thing’s for sure, the State Department has invested time and money in Grady. Grady has protected status.
Quite a basic rule – for anyone.
Don’t touch! Keep your hands to yourself. Drunk, or sober.
It’s as simple as that.
I suggest that if you think this you should avoid travelling to France… Over here I’ve been shouted at for forgetting to kiss someone when we met at a party, I only shook her hand and she took this as an insult. In other countries too physical contact is considered both normal and pretty much obligatory. The COVID period has been quite refreshing, no need to even think of touching, you can safely remain two metres apart and no offence is taken.
It’s all about local custom. I’m currently in the Balkans, everyone expects to kiss everyone else on the cheek at least, including men to men. Many cultures are tactile in their personal relations. Maybe “Brits” need to lighten up?
George, I take it that your advice applies equally to everyone: men and women, young and old.
But I wonder how it can apply to all the women I regularly see taking people by the arm, patting them, even putting an arm around them, or offering unsolicited kisses.
Presumably the thinking is that women are harmless, kindly creatures and when they touch others it is just an expression of human warmth. (Which it certainly can be, and usually is).
But men are assumed to be fundamentally lustful and violent, with their beastly passions just barely under control.
Why is that?
Assuming it was genuine question and not a strawman, because men are responsible for 95% of all rapes and sexual assaults. It’s as simple as that. We can have ‘equality’ incels and other mansplainers always clamor for when the society is truly equal instead of old, sexist and patriarchal forceful submission of women combined with pressure on them to ‘behave’ (read, shut up and do what the male says, otherwise you will be ‘slut shamed’ and shouted down). When society will stop treating both so differently (simplest example – dude who has lots of sex is being called ‘stud’ and ‘player’ while girl doing the exact same thing is being called ‘slut’ and ‘loose’ – guess which terms are positive and which negative?). When the rape won’t be blamed on woman because ‘skirt was too short’ or ‘she was returning home too late’ while excuses are being piled up for actual rapist (with a dose of extra sexism, shaming, and control in abortion bans with nothing even remotely similar existing when it comes to laws concerning male body). Etc, etc.
I wonder why the percentage is so high.. I assume men would get laughed at out of the station when making such a claim. I cant take such a statistic seriously even if you bring up good points. Cultures vary across the world but claiming a 95% stat without batting an eye seems uninformed to me. Your whole comment reeks of a #metoo copypasta topped with virtue signalling. Would you consider if a woman pokes holes in a condom to get pregnant rape? If yes, that statistic flies off the shelf, if no, why not?
“Men are responsible for 95% of all rapes and sexual assaults.”
Is that the stat you’re questioning? I looked it up. Men are responsible for 99% of rapes. Given that the legal definition is “the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman’s vagina with the man’s penis) without consent and accomplished through force” I don’t see why the 95% stat is surprising.
@TS (I assume it stands for The Sand)
How about a non-head in the sand definition? And if you’re just looking for political correctness why aren’t you using the ‘non-birthing person’ term? You fail to keep up even with your own non-sense. I was hoping to have a conversation and not a internet points contest.
“Men are responsible for 95% of all rapes and sexual assaults.”
“Men are responsible for 99% of rapes.”
Haven’t you forgotten something?
“When the rape won’t be blamed on woman because ‘skirt was too short’ or ‘she was returning home too late’…”
Are you sure you’re living in the same century as the rest of us? Seriously, when – as precisely as you can date it – did you last see a woman being blamed for a rape because ‘her skirt was too short’ or she was ‘returning home too late’? And who exactly was doing this blaming?
@George Peel
“Quite a basic rule – for anyone.
Don’t touch! Keep your hands to yourself. Drunk, or sober.
It’s as simple as that.”
Goodness me. Where would my life have taken me if I followed that puritanic nonsense?
I was at a party when aged about 19. There were quite a number of attractive women there in their late teens/early twenties. On the way back from visiting the toilet I passed by the open kitchen door. One of the women was at the far end making cups of coffee. She was a work colleague and we had a friendly relationship in the office.
She had her back to me, and something in my head said “Go for it”, so I walked up to her, put my hands on her shoulders, turned her round a little and gave her a kiss as best I could…..
Later this year we will celebrate our 47th wedding anniversary.
Is George Peel trolling, or is he from some other planet?
I married relatively late in life, and along the way had intimate relationships with a few women. Obviously, at some point in each case, physical contact was made. I don’t recollect ever asking “permission”. The normal thing to do is to observe the other person’s body language, or to start with something slight and observe the reaction. How did George Peel start a relationship? Or has he/she/etc never had one?
There are big questions of a similar ilk south of the border.
For example, ask yourself why neither the Tories nor the political commentariat are remotely interested in probing Jeffrey Epstein’s friendship with Peter Mandelson, even though they know the latter is puppeting Keir Starmer.
Likewise, consider why these same people were all so enraged when it was pointed out that Starmer had allowed the heinous paedophile and friend of the powerful Jimmy Savile to escape justice.
My very thought yesterday.
“Can anybody explain to me why Alex Salmond reaching out to ping somebody’s hair was charged as sexual assault and unsuccessfully prosecuted in court, but…. [Grady’s fingering the hair and neck of a 19 year old] …,was not viewed as criminal at all? “
———
Wonderful rhetorical question.
Simple, short answer:
Grady is a slavish Sturgeonite not seen, even in the wildest fantasies of his boss, as any kind of threat to her position.
It’s not complicated. Getting touched-up by your boss is entirely inappropriate.
Lord Byron – exactly, I would have thought most decent guys would know that and act accordingly in the presence of the opposite sex. It is breaking all the boundaries of a work relationship and it is also intimidation of a far younger person.
As the Melian Dialogue instructs us, questions of right come into question only between equals in power. The owners of the US government do not believe that they have any equals in power, so they do not have to trouble with legal or moral niceties. They take what they want, and kill anyone who tries to get in their way (along with anyone else who is unfortunate enough to be in the general vicinity).
The Russians have tried for several decades to negotiate with the Americans and their serfs, and have now exhausted all such possibilities. Next time Mr Murray proposes negotiations, I suggest that he explains how one negotiates with people whose fingers are always crossed behind their backs, and who always break their solemn word – spoken or written – the moment they feel it is to their advantage to do so. The Russians have for some time called the Washington clique “not agreement-capable”, which is a polite way of saying that they are hardened, habitual liars, and nothing they say can be believed or trusted. The same, naturally, applies to their European, Canadian, Australian and other lickspittles.
Since the Russians have convinced themselves that there is no future in negotiations, which NATO exploits to continue creeping advances and treachery, they have confronted the main proposition of the Melian Dialogue: the strong do what they will. The Russians are stronger, in terms of military power, than anyone in the world, and although extremely reluctant to exploit that strength, they have finally realised that there is no longer any alternative.
So they are carefully, painstakingly processing Ukraine in order to accomplish their goals of de-Nazification and de-militarisation, while causing as few civilian casulaties and infrastructure damage as possible. They can do very little to stop the Kiev clique, on orders from Washington and London, killing as many Ukrainian civilians as they can in order to blame it on Russia – which now seems to be their main, if not only, policy.
It seems likely that Ukraine will cease to exist as a separate nation. Russia will take what territory it needs to give it adequate protection against a sneak attack by NATO – which, remember, is always on the cards, 24/365, especially during sports meetings and international conferences when civilised people would observe a truce. If the Americans and Europeans don’t like that, tough. They can go and do the other thing.
Cynicus wrote:
“Can anybody explain to me why Alex Salmond reaching out to ping somebody’s hair was charged as sexual assault and unsuccessfully prosecuted in court, but…. [Grady’s fingering the hair and neck of a 19 year old] …,was not viewed as criminal at all? “
—
Wonderful rhetorical question.
Simple, short answer:
Grady is a slavish Sturgeonite not seen, even in the wildest fantasies of his boss, as any kind of threat to her position.
————————–
A fair observation by Cynicus. That is true – but there is another elephant in this room: Grady, like so many of those in Sturgeon’s elect – is gay – and a self-admitted sex pest.
There is now a clear, undoubted bias against heterosexuals – particulatly heterosexual men, and particularly older heterosexual men, in the Sturgeosphere. (Man-Hating is the driving force in Sturgeon’s publicly funded so-called Rape Crisis Scotland).
There is widespread knowledge in Scotland as to why this is the case – particularly around a notorious event at the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh a couple of years back – and the purchase of a house in Gleneagles.
But we are all legally constrained from making any further public comment on the details of these matters.
It’s almost as if old, white men were responsible for most rapes, sexual assaults, unwanted advances, and other vile stuff. Especially these in positions of power. The more so the more power they have (see Musk, Wenstein, Epstein, etc, etc, just for examples you can’t pretend you never heard about). “”Bias””? It’s funny way of calling having some actual truth and power on victim side for once. It’s only “”bias”” if you’re mentally stuck in 1940s.
While Craig undoubtedly has a point in Alex being a victim of set up, using the case to bash millions of women who are real victims and pretending it disproves them all is just vile. Alas, victims, any victims, having any amount of influence and strength they never had before always meets with rabid attacks and denials the old ways were in any way flawed with no reflection whatsoever – say, women now, gays and lesbians two decades ago, anyone not white five decades ago – funny that, giving victims a bit more playing field is somehow always “”bias”” and “”hate”” against whoever was oppressor until now. Which, funnily enough, is old white straight conservative males in almost all cases. But nooo, it must be dem wimminz and n-word fault, eh, not the perpetrators?
“While Craig undoubtedly has a point in Alex being a victim of set up, using the case to bash millions of women who are real victims and pretending it disproves them all is just vile…”
What in raving hell are you on about? Not a single person anywhere in the original article or on the discussion thread has made a single observation that could remotely be interpreted as “using the case to bash millions of women who are real victims”
You’re like a deranged person standing on his own in the middle of an empty room screeching at imaginary people.
davidwferguson, if you can’t see the wisdom in Mr V’s words maybe you should read through his post again? Slowly maybe?
It was obvious to me that that post would annoy ‘some’ on here….
In the vast majority of rape cases the woman is not lying. The jury saw through the lies in this mock trial and laughed it out of court. Can you not see how that makes the women who are not lying look?
“In the vast majority of rape cases the woman is not lying.”
You can’t possibly know that. Nobody knows.
There are cases, mostly in the USA, in which a man has spent many years in prison after being convicted of rape, and eventually has been proved to be innocent.
In today’s world, any woman can destroy the reputation and career of any man she knows and doesn’t like by falsely accusing him of rape. At no risk to herself. That’s if he’s lucky, and is acquitted – if he’s unlucky, maybe because the jury consists of people like you, he spends 10+ years in prison.
A citizen should have been taught from an early age that somebody else’s space is their space, and you must not trespass in that space unless it is clearly consented to.
I also had the advantage with my upbringing of knowing that a smack in the mouth was an appropriate response to such a trespass.
It has nothing to do with “what conduct is criminal and what conduct is not” (for ignorance of the law is no excuse) but knowing what is and is not permissible…_
So no kissing or shaking hands, or even putting arm round shoulder as the previous President of the EU liked to do. Personally this doesn’t bother me but for many they would find it hard to live with. And as for the last remark you would be doing a lot of mouth smacking if you ever decided to travel abroad 🙂 You’d end up in clink yourself pretty quickly.
– “A citizen should have been taught from an early age that somebody else’s space is their space, and you must not trespass in that space unless it is clearly consented to.”
But instead we had the example of, for instance, Bruce Forsyth on the Generation Game.
A smack in the mouth is not an appropriate response to such a trespass, Digger – it is assault & battery and may even constitute actual bodily harm. An appropriate response would be to ask the person if they would mind standing further away. So, if they’re still alive, I would recommend informing your parents/guardians of this. Thanks to the decline of traditional chivalry, there are also plenty of people in Britain who if you gave them a slap would be giving you back a punch, whether you were a man, woman, non-binary person, whatever. I may be wrong but I suspect you’re one of these people who’ve never even seen ultraviolence up close, let alone been the victim/survivor of it.
please don’t cross the Channel
It’s pretty shocking here, how many people think it’s totally acceptable to go pinging someones hair or touching someones hair and neck without express permission. It may not be a criminal offence to do this but if you have to consider that probability before pinging someones hair or touching someones hair and neck, then you very obviously know it’s the wrong thing to do and therefore, shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
– “It’s pretty shocking here, how many people think it’s totally acceptable to go pinging someones hair or touching someones hair and neck without express permission.”
You seem to be imagining this. Try taking a few deep breaths and then reading preceding comments again.
I’m imagining nothing but you can imagine this: In the moments before pinging someones hair or touching someones hair and neck without express permission, the ‘perpetrator’ has to ask themselves “Is this conduct criminal or not?” That was the original dilemma posed by Mr. Murray.
If you have to ask yourself that question before acting then clearly, you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
No imagination needed.
You didn’t try the few deep breaths, did you?
I find your Gravatar offensive. The elbow on the knee pose; it implies an open gait, which along with the direct look into the eyes seems aggressive and potentially sexually suggestive. I gave no express permission for behaviour like that.
Not all poor behaviour is indictable by the state, and rightly so. Relations between human beings should not be the subject of permanent state scrutiny.
You are saying that nobody should ever exhibit poor behaviour. That is an extremely banal thing to say. It is ignoring my question as to consistency by the state in defining behaviour as criminal. There is a difference between criminal behaviour and poor behaviour, just as there is a difference between pinging someone’s hair and forcibly stroking someone’s neck. That it is the pinging which is deemed potentially criminal and not the forcible stroking would surprise most people.
On the wider question, I am personally about as un-touchy feely as you can get. But your position against any non-sexual touching of another person without explicit consent appears to me extreme.
Everyone has and is entitled to their own personal space. At the very least, it’s extremely bad mannered to invade someones personal space unless invited to do so by that person. There’s nothing difficult to understand about that and it’s certainly not an extreme viewpoint. In fact, it should be a common sense approach!
Ignore that bellend “Mist 001” . He got slung off WOS for – IRONY! – making crass remarks about you, Craig. If I remember correctly, along the lines of accusing you of having a *martyr complex* or some such idiocy. Now he’s here actually trying to justify the absurdity of *hair-pinging* being a heinous action. He’s not to be trusted.
One thing that Julian Assange exposes to this very day (and likely for quite some time) is the degree of malfunction of the justice system.
Who really believes these days, that the rule of law equally applies to everyone?
Who believes in the independence of judges? How is it even possible, that legal fees can amount to sums, that only the rich can afford?
To answer the question:
I think the entire judicial system is damaged beyond repair and in urgent need of a “great Reset”.
“Who really believes these days, that the rule of law equally applies to everyone?”
Certainly not those who make the laws, who seem to think it doesn’t apply to them.
‘How is a citizen supposed to know what conduct is criminal and what conduct is not, when whether you are charged or not depends so clearly not on what you do, but on who you are?’
A good question and my answer as a layman – the law should tell them. The law is required to be clear, to be foreseeable, to be predictable. Its interpretation by those vested with the authority is required to be reasonable. To apply it without meeting these requirements is to do so arbitrarily and as such is unlawful.
I also suggest the law is required to be applicable to all and thus differentiation between citizens unlawful. Notwithstanding the latter, the above requirements would be particularly pertinent where interpretation of the law might so differentiate.
Of course, on the basis of the statement quoted in the article and the precedent set by the Alex Salmond trial, Patrick Grady should be considered for criminal prosecution.
‘Patrick Grady should be considered for criminal prosecution’.
Alternatively the authorities should provide a remedy for the injustice perpetrated on Alex Salmond.
If Patrick Grady is a ‘valuable US asset’, why would he not be whisked away to US judicial safety? or is this just for US subjects that have committed crime or murder?
Surely another creepy trial as previously experienced by Alex Salmond c/would exonerate him whilst at the same time sending justice further down the steps of Hades, further eroding what many call democracy.
Agree with Christoph, more tinkering to adjust with a thoroughly discredited judicial bias will merely buy time to do it again. A great reset must happen at all levels, starting with the education of future lawyers.
I don’t dispute the wider aspects of the broken judicial system. My comments are directed at the original questions posed and the law as it stands.
As reported by Ian Lawson, this case seems to be covered up badly by the SNP.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/06/14/what-about-these-sex-allegations-2/
Is there a difference between criminal behaviour and (I don’t know the right legal term) indictable behaviour? I’m thinking specifically of SpyCops and more generally about the immunities bestowed by the British state (under, I guess, royal prerogative).
Some accusations of sexual offences are taken very seriously, especially by politicians, like the 70 MPs and Lords who asked for Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden to answer rape allegations. More privately, a lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service wrote “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!” to the Swedish director of public prosecutions (whose counterpart in the UK at the time was Keir Starmer, who was also the CPS boss).
Must be something about people who host programs on RT, like Salmond and Assange that arouses a lot of suspicion. But Jimmy Savile got a knighthood and was later ignored while Starmer was DPP.
It’s all about ensuring that “public opinion” condemns the “right” people and feels that even if they are treated unjustly, they deserve it. The Guardian worked especially hard (applause to Marina Hyde, John Crace, Suzanne Moore etc) to ensure its readership should not defend Julian Assange. A clear sign they are just a secret “intelligence” services tool.
“How is a citizen supposed to know what conduct is criminal …”
That’s the point: they aren’t. They are supposed to know that if they are annoying they will be (I believe the phrase is) ‘fitted up’.
As in all corrupt systems of justice, it works backwards:
Conduct is optional. If you have protected status: anything goes: bribery, corruption, sexual misdemeanors, even murder…
Yes I agree, especially when it comes to ‘matters of state’. And primary purposes of the law being provision of a veneer of civilised society and control of those without ‘protected status’.
“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards”.
It’s odd that so many commenters are focusing obsessively on the acts and not on the issue that led to Murray’s original post, which is that British law is supposed to be impartial and to apply justice equally in all situations in which circumstances make these situations equivalent to one another. Whatever was appropriate punishment or reward for Alex Salmond for touching someone’s hair should apply even more so to Patrick Grady for touching someone by forcing his fingers into the space between the person’s neck and shirt collar, if that indeed did happen.
At the very least, the SNP should be investigating the incident and interviewing the people involved and any witnesses. Nicola Sturgeon and other SNP leaders should be asking Grady to explain what he did on that occasion and to relinquish any Cabinet or other senior positions while the incident is being investigated. The treatment of Salmond and Grady does not put the SNP in a favourable light.
If Scotland is to be independent, the SNP may be the least likely or worthy party to lead the way to independence if it applies double standards to its individual members. What value does Grady bring to the SNP that Salmond doesn’t?
Jen, there is no such thing as British Law.
Salmond pinging a hair curl was tried under Scots law and if Grady was tried it would be under English law probably as it happened in London. The Grady offence, he admitted it, was in 2016 and the SNP covered it up.
The recent leaked recording of Blackford demonstrates the shocking hypocrisy of the SNP.
At worst Salmond was a bit ‘touchy-feely’ which some women, and men for that matter, find annoying or uncomfortable. But instead of teaching women how to assert themselves and set boundaries, modern feminism has enfeebled women and taught them to run to the media and to the courts when a man does or says something that makes them uncomfortable, no matter how minor the ‘infraction’. My mother and my grandmother and indeed all the women in my family have never had a problem verbally putting frisky blokes in their place. How the learned helplessness that neoliberal feminism promotes is supposed to ’empower’ women is beyond me.
Ironically it’s usually the most privileged and powerful women in society who for some reason can’t assert themselves and tell a man to remove his hand from their knee but instead cry victim and mount very public character assassinations. It trivializes actual sexual assault and rape and makes a mockery of feminism’s supposed ideals. There is also no doubt in my mind that these accusations are at times strategically deployed in order to damage or get rid of a political rival or someone the accuser personally dislikes.
Our entire society is rotten to the core and if we don’t collectively change course away from the hyper-individualist me me me and might makes right mentality it will only continue degenerating.
There is a genuine question here.
No, there isn’t, because we all know the answer.
Seriously embarrass the Rulers, and some charges will be trumped up against you.
The UK describing itself as “a democracy with the rule of law” is a very sick joke.
Your question seems facetious! The citizenry are not supposed simply to know, or to be able to work out for themselves, what is or is not criminal! Have you tried to count how many pieces of legislation are currently on the statute books, and thus available for use to prosecute anyone, if so desired by the dictators? It has been impossible to know what is or is not criminal for a long time now, that’s why lawyers are so highly paid I suppose. I guess that your question is aimed at those poor benighted suckers who still retain the indoctrinated belief that our rulers are somehow obliged to behave fairly, or honestly, or indeed with any kind of good intent, when as you well know, they are in fact selfish greedy lying thieving murderous and hypocritical scum. Still, good luck with your continuing efforts to bring a degree of sanity to the proceedings! Thank you for all your writings.
‘I guess that your question is aimed at those poor benighted suckers who still retain the indoctrinated belief that our rulers are somehow obliged to behave fairly, or honestly, or indeed with any kind of good intent, when as you well know, they are in fact selfish greedy lying thieving murderous and hypocritical scum. Still, good luck with your continuing efforts to bring a degree of sanity to the proceedings!’
The power rests ultimately with the people but yes, effort’s required to try to bring our rulers to book. I reckon CM does more than his bit but it doesn’t sound like you could be relied upon to back any of the ‘poor benighted suckers’.
Clearly, a man touching a woman’s hair uninvited is inappropriate whoever does it. The fact that some people get away with it because of who they are – does not make the hair touching right – it merely reflects who has power and who does not. My advice to guys is simple: Don’t touch a woman’s hair uninvited because it is inappropriate. Full stop.
“Don’t touch a woman’s hair uninvited because it is inappropriate. Full stop…”
I genuinely can’t work out how this kind of interaction is supposed to function. I’m not allowed to touch your hair uninvited. So I have to wait till I’m invited. But how do you know I want to touch your hair? Do you simply go round proffering invitations to men to touch your hair without knowing whether they want to touch your hair, or indeed whether they might find your invitation offensive? Why is it any less offensive for you to invite a man to touch your hair when he doesn’t want to, than for a man to try to touch your hair when you don’t want him to?
Why do you want to touch a woman’s hair unless you are in a relationship with her? Believe me, Women generally don’t go asking men to touch their hair. I can promise I have NEVER asked a man to touch my hair, apart from my husband when I asked if a bird had pooped in it! It’s not rocket science. If you touched my hair without asking me I would assume you were a first class creep and you would get a piece of my mind. If you don’t want women to assume you are a creep then don’t touch their hair uninvited. I really can’t work out if you genuinely don’t get it or whether you are being obtuse.
Maria, I agree with your sentiments in general. However, perhaps you are not familiar with the witnesses at the trial who said it was a very common occurrence in the office that colleagues pinged the woman’s ringlets and no offence was taken by the women and she as far as I am aware did not report any other man or woman to the police for pinging her hair or report it internally in the Scottish Government. It was not seen as a sexual or intimidating gesture the witnesses said.
Are we to believe that this woman working at a reasonable level in Scottish Government could not tell her colleagues to stop pinging her ringlets if it so bothered her and it was only a sexual assault when Salmond did it.
Thanks for the comment Cubby. I think the two points that I made still stand. I also think it is important to keep the two points separate when thinking about this.
First, don’t touch a woman’s hair uninvited. In the Context of this office pinging of the woman’s hair was consensual, the intentions were lighthearted and was a common occurrence. Given it was common, we can therefore interpret that touching of her hair in this manner was invited. On the other hand, a man who strokes a woman’s hair without permission is just weird and it’s a really odd and creepy thing to do. Therefore, don’t touch a woman’s hair uninvited.
The second point is that although there is a clear case of what is right and wrong, some people get away with uninvited hair touching because of who they are. This inequaility before the law is not new; white people get away with behaviour that black people don’t, the rich get away with behaviour that poor people don’t and those with friends in power get away with behaviour that those without those friends in power don’t. Obviously, this is wrong and rotten and it’s the job of decent people to challenge this.
I haven’t particularly commented on the Salmond case because Craig’s question was more of a general one. However, from what I do know there does appear to have been some sort of skulduggery for political gain – which failed. However, I do think it is important to keep those two points above separate otherwise it is all to easy to fall into the trap of misogyny. I would suspect that those bringing charges against Salmond knew this and it was thus a ploy to weaken Salmond’s defence. It’s a rotten world and therefore it’s important to keep certain things in mind 1) don’t touch a woman’s hair uninvited and 2) there is no equality in the application of the law.
Maria, as I said in my original post I agree with your comments in general.
You’re ignoring davidwferguson’s point. Presumably, at the very least, your future husband and you made physical contact at some time before he became your husband. How could this happen if (1) he’s not supposed to touch you uninvited , and (2) you never invite a man to touch you?
You actually want me to go through the whole process of getting to know each other, the subtle body language, the conversations we had that suggested that we were a match and that we might end up in the sack? You are, quite frankly, being ridiculous! There is world of difference between that gradual build up, shared affection etc and the uninvited touching of hair and neck stroking by a work colleague as discussed in Craig’s original post. In the case of my husband it was ‘invited’ (by both of us equally) by a whole range of subtle signals. I think that perhaps, rather sadly, you don’t understand this type of subtle signaling and are looking for a clear cut invitation out of the blue of ‘would you like to touch my hair/leg/arm/insert appropriate body part?’ I have never said that to a man and never will – I have never had a conversation with a woman who has told me this either. I think you are looking for the wrong signals that indicate ‘invitation’. Quite frankly, I find it astonishing and farcical that we are even having this conversation.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsMoments/status/1538479391096950784
insane moments in british politics on Twitter: “Jimi Hendrix ruffles Jeremy Thorpe’s hair (1967) https://t.co/Ax2dpgwEAm”
Does not compute … Does not compute …
The real question is whether you want the State and the Courts to have total power over you.
The road we are travelling down by those who set things in motion, was not motivated by the protection of women, gays, employees or anyone, it was part of a bigger plan to control your thoughts, deeds and actions.
Despite that,
In the UK we we are more and more a multi-cultural society. each sub-culture behaves in a different way. Some people are touchy-feely. Some are chauvanist, boss-powerful. Some are private, reticent and even masked. What gives anyone the right to impose their standards down at a personal level on someone else. The witnesses should decide, and have the objectivity to read the situation.
Personally I don’t initiate physical contact with anyone ( other than my wife !) Its a mine field of potential problems. Especially in the work place. Some companies implement a no touch rule to avoid these types of problems.
How to define criminal rather than bad behaviour – I would say that if you touch someone and they ask you to stop and you don’t then its criminal. That doesn’t solve the problem of abuse of power, fear of losing a job or promotion if you say no or complain.
Id hate to be a young person today especially a young male as I don’t think they really know how they are expected to behave. It was maybe different for my generation, I was raised to believe that a woman was to be protected at all times, obviously that’s a very outdated view today and I’m not sure females would welcome that attitude.
The issue of possible criminality isn’t the only criteria used in deciding how to behave. Some people have, for example, respect for the privacy and integrity of other people.
The world where it’s ok for a man to touch a woman without her consent doesn’t exist.
What is wrong with men that they think they can sit next to a teenager and start fondling her? Only an amoral, entitled, sleazy nutcase would think it’s ok to do that because they don’t know if it’s a criminal offence or not.