BFTD Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 Still really hoping there's more to this than the defollicled one buying a mobile home with party funds and leaving it unused on his maw's driveway when the purpose for buying it didn't pan out. It must be the shittest fraud scam of all time; where's the ambition? Hopefully they found a few bodies in the garden, at least. It would be less embarrassing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 30 minutes ago, BFTD said: Still really hoping there's more to this than the defollicled one buying a mobile home with party funds and leaving it unused on his maw's driveway when the purpose for buying it didn't pan out. It must be the shittest fraud scam of all time; where's the ambition? Hopefully they found a few bodies in the garden, at least. It would be less embarrassing. Yeah, if they used it for cooking crystal meth it would at least offer a degree of respectability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 28 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Yeah, if they used it for cooking crystal meth it would at least offer a degree of respectability. Massively preferable. The party could sue to get the money back from all the profit. Unless somehow he managed to be the first drug manufacturer to lose money, which would make him our very own Donald Trump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said: As long as someone is getting the use of it. Otherwise it’s a waste. I’ll take a shot, if it’s still through in Dunfermline. Edited April 19 by Scary Bear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, BFTD said: Still really hoping there's more to this than the defollicled one buying a mobile home with party funds and leaving it unused on his maw's driveway when the purpose for buying it didn't pan out. It must be the shittest fraud scam of all time; where's the ambition? Hopefully they found a few bodies in the garden, at least. It would be less embarrassing. The Peter Tobin tents things was way over the top. If I was in charge of the country, the person responsible would be in bother. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 Likely to take up to 3 years to even get to court apparently, 'if' the Fiscal decides that there is sufficient evidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 4 hours ago, Granny Danger said: If it’s true it’s indefensible. Not just from a moral or legal perspective but from the fact it would be impossible to hide and is therefore the height of stupidity. I’m assuming that contempt of court can only apply to those covered by the appropriate jurisdiction. So, for example, someone who is a resident abroad can say anything they want. No actually - see the example below from 2014. https://hsfnotes.com/asiadisputes/2014/08/22/uk-court-of-appeal-confirms-extra-territorial-reach-of-contempt-proceedings/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 42 minutes ago, Jedi2 said: Likely to take up to 3 years to even get to court apparently, 'if' the Fiscal decides that there is sufficient evidence. I would think it would go to trial. If it didn't there would be accusations of a cover-up etc. If there were a not guilty verdict then another can of worms will be opened - it would be like Salmond Mk2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted April 19 Author Share Posted April 19 2 hours ago, Jedi2 said: Likely to take up to 3 years to even get to court apparently, 'if' the Fiscal decides that there is sufficient evidence. The fiscal will absolutely have been involved in the charging decision. Will no doubt take years to go to court, but it very probably will. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 2 minutes ago, Lex said: The fiscal will absolutely have been involved in the charging decision. Will no doubt take years to go to court, but it very probably will. No they won’t. In Scotland the police make the decision to charge or not, the fiscal decides if it’s sufficient to go to court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: No actually - see the example below from 2014. https://hsfnotes.com/asiadisputes/2014/08/22/uk-court-of-appeal-confirms-extra-territorial-reach-of-contempt-proceedings/ Shit! Has Murrell done the ‘Doorstep claim of innocence’ bit with Nicola by his side? If not, why not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapy FFC Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: No actually - see the example below from 2014. https://hsfnotes.com/asiadisputes/2014/08/22/uk-court-of-appeal-confirms-extra-territorial-reach-of-contempt-proceedings/ I only skim read it, but was that not a case in English courts, a different legal system from us? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 23 minutes ago, Rugster said: No they won’t. In Scotland the police make the decision to charge or not, the fiscal decides if it’s sufficient to go to court. Has the judiciary in Scotland not been taken in house and became a functioning part of the Snp? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 8 hours ago, itzdrk said: Some shout that. Perhaps the only person more catastrophically bald than Murrell. The motor home is Murrell's Akinyemi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: Shit! Has Murrell done the ‘Doorstep claim of innocence’ bit with Nicola by his side? If not, why not? Plausible deniability. I'm sure his resources are his own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Soapy FFC said: I only skim read it, but was that not a case in English courts, a different legal system from us? It is but they do take an English precedent as worth following unless we have a serious divergence in legislation. On this I don’t think we do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Soapy FFC said: I only skim read it, but was that not a case in English courts, a different legal system from us? It's a UK Act with subsections for Scotland and NI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 I have seen this phraseology used regularly but it seems rather clunky and full of subliminal meaning: “The former first minister emerged from the home near Glasgow she shares with Peter Murrell” Why isn’t it her home? Their home? The marital home? But it’s described as the ‘home she shares? Surely all spouses share their home with their significant other? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 3 minutes ago, alta-pete said: I have seen this phraseology used regularly but it seems rather clunky and full of subliminal meaning: “The former first minister emerged from the home near Glasgow she shares with Peter Murrell” Why isn’t it her home? Their home? The marital home? But it’s described as the ‘home she shares? Surely all spouses share their home with their significant other? It's the sort of phrase you use when couples live together but are no longer in a relationship. Make of that what you will. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi2 Posted April 19 Share Posted April 19 Agree that if the Fiscal (eventually) comes back with 'insufficient evidence' to go to court, it would hardly 'go away' and look like a cover up. Presumably 'if' they are preparing charges against other individuals as well, they will make a move on that soon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.