Jump to content

Nicola Sturgeon Arrested, Peter Murrell Charged


Lex

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

All of which makes it the ideal response to questioning if you actually were guilty of the thing you are being questioned about.

As I said, it's up to the police to prove their case. Most semi-competent defence solicitors will advise their clients to "No comment" whether they are guilty or not.

7 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

Do you think the SNP leaders would let her give a no comment statement to the police, if it ever comes to that? Honestly?

The "SNP leaders" have absolutely f*ck all to do with how someone replies to questioning under caution.

Are you suggesting that Police Scotland are stupid enough to release details of an interview under caution before someone is charged or appears in court? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be quite something if the person who was First Minister of our country until a few weeks ago, a member of the Privy Council, the person who nominated the Lord Advocate, gave a “no comment” interview to the police like she’s in a episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody, nicked for stealing a quad bike.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It would be quite something if the person who was First Minister of our country until a few weeks ago, a member of the Privy Council, the person who nominated the Lord Advocate, gave a “no comment” interview to the police like she’s in a episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody, nicked for stealing a quad bike.

 

Mental.  It is however her goto response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It would be quite something if the person who was First Minister of our country until a few weeks ago, a member of the Privy Council, the person who nominated the Lord Advocate, gave a “no comment” interview to the police like she’s in a episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody, nicked for stealing a quad bike.

 

I think it is bonkers that anyone would think it would be an acceptable defence and make her look less guilty of anything. If anything it would make it look even more suspicious  Each to their own though, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It would be quite something if the person who was First Minister of our country until a few weeks ago, a member of the Privy Council, the person who nominated the Lord Advocate, gave a “no comment” interview to the police like she’s in a episode of 24 Hours In Police Custody, nicked for stealing a quad bike.

 

Why? Does she have different rights to other accused persons?

The only way that you will find out what she said under caution (if she is ever interviewed) will be if she is charged with something and appears in court. At that time, the Crown will most likely introduce a transcript of her interview.

This is why we have reporting restrictions in advance of any trial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

Police Scotland doing a good impression of not knowing what the f**k they are doing here......

Could you imagine if after all this it was found that there was no wrongdoings and Police Scotland made a total arse of it and it transpires they were way over the top for political reasons?

As it happens, I do think there is something there, many things, but would be quite something if there wasn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Theyellowbox said:

Could you imagine if after all this it was found that there was no wrongdoings and Police Scotland made a total arse of it and it transpires they were way over the top for political reasons?

As it happens, I do think there is something there, many things, but would be quite something if there wasn't. 

What I am struggling with here is - they have had 2 years to investigate, put it all together with the Crown Office, they then "spring into action" and arrest Murrell - who is then released pending further enqs. Same happens with Beattie.

I kinda thought that when PM was arrested, they had the bones of the evidence and case to charge him................but that hasnt happened, and almost 2 weeks have elapsed.

I sincerely hope they havent fucked it up, as it will be the most unsatisfactory of all outcomes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billy Jean King said:

Gerry must know more than the rest of us given we have no idea what's actually being investigated still.

Most of the dafties in the media are ensuring that - even if charged - Murrell et al will wander off into the sunset scot free because of the kind of nonsense Glen Campbell has been spunking out for 2 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Why? Does she have different rights to other accused persons?

The only way that you will find out what she said under caution (if she is ever interviewed) will be if she is charged with something and appears in court. At that time, the Crown will most likely introduce a transcript of her interview.

This is why we have reporting restrictions in advance of any trial. 

American context but I guess the same (or broad strokes) applies here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...