Guilt by association is all the rage, but it's a slippery slope

My latest Scotsman column, published in today's paper (17th Feb '26).

There are so many witch-hunts going on just now, it’s hard to keep up, and guilt by association is the new mood. Anyone who was even in the outer orbit of Jeffrey Epstein is being cast out.

King Charles is discovering that he is his brother’s keeper after all, while supporters of Lord Peter Mandelson continue to wonder how it was that he did not change his spots.

Guilt by association is now ascendant. You don’t have to have done anything dodgy yourself, just be linked to someone who has.

But what is the criterion for such shaming? Is it OK to be associated with someone who, for instance, has failed to pay the appropriate tax when buying a second home? Or is social expulsion only reserved for sexual crimes? How do crimes of violence rate?

Does it make a difference if the victim is male or female, and if so why? Where is the line, and who draws it? The online mob perhaps, or the tabloid press. Guilt by association is a slippery slope, and we should beware sliding down it.

And what does it say about the nature of friendship, the most powerful and constant of human relationships? Are we all expected to be the fair-weather variety only, to cut and run in times of trouble?

I was thinking about this when reading about the case of Lord Matthew Doyle and MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, both labelled as paedophile apologists and stripped of their party’s whip for refusing to abandon their friend, ex-councillor Sean Morton.

Morton was convicted of possession of indecent images of children, a horrific crime for which he was rightly punished. But that does not mean that Doyle and Duncan Glancy should have cut and run.

Surely they are right not to abandon their friend. Is the essence of true friendship not about staying the course through thick and thin? And who better to have the difficult conversations, confront abhorrent behaviour and deliver tough messages than a true friend?

Doyle and Duncan-Glancy stand a far better chance of challenging and correcting Morton’s behaviour than our criminal justice system. Is there to be no redemption for Morton, no rehabilitation? Is he to be punished and banished as in medieval times? If so, what does that say about us?

In writing this, I must admit to having baggage in this area. Some years ago a childhood friend of mine died suddenly and prematurely. As a teenager, he had been convicted of a serious crime and, after a long prison sentence, had rebuilt his life and his family.

As his funeral approached, a tabloid newspaper carried the story that I, a former senior police officer, was intending to attend the ceremony, implying that this was improper because of his conviction nearly 50 years before.

I had known the man all my life so not attending his funeral was unthinkable, but on being asked to speak at the service, I declined, not wanting to provide further distraction.

I regret that decision now. I wish I had spoken , perhaps about the nature of true friendship – in fair weather, and in foul.