strichener Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 5 hours ago, ICTChris said: I'm sure I've posted this on this thread before but fraud is very difficult to prove and usually takes a lot of investigating, a lot of analysis of documents. In addition, I'm not sure that anyone has ever been charged in Scotland for crimes like this - taking donations for one thing and allegedly using them for others. There are still questions about whether what has happened is even a crime. Obviously add in that the people who are being investigated were highly invovled in the governing party and were the First Minister, it's obviously different to any other case that has ever been prosecuted in Scotland. That isn't the charge though. It is embezzlement is it not. Which would be Murrell using SNP funds (However obtained) for personal use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 18 minutes ago, strichener said: That isn't the charge though. It is embezzlement is it not. Which would be Murrell using SNP funds (However obtained) for personal use. Have the charges actually been confirmed, or is this (informed?) speculation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 23 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: Have the charges actually been confirmed, or is this (informed?) speculation? Quote "Police Scotland has today (Thursday, 23 May, 2024) submitted a standard prosecution report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to a 59-year-old man who was charged on 18 April, 2024, in connection with the embezzlement of funds from the Scottish National Party. Investigations continue and we are unable to comment further." The Crown Office hasn't decided whether to proceed though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 Murrell’s silence is ominous. If he had done nothing wrong I reckon he’d be demanding his day in court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: Murrell’s silence is ominous. If he had done nothing wrong I reckon he’d be demanding his day in court. I imagine that his lawyers have advised him not to say anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 It might come down to whether the camper van was for personal use or included as legitimate party expenses. If it's about if money was illegally diverted from a ring fenced fund for a theoretical future referendum to general party expenses, it would be more challenging to prove wrongdoing I'd have thought, but also more damaging to the SNP as you'd think it would be difficult for Murrel to do without wider party involvement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 6 minutes ago, welshbairn said: It might come down to whether the camper van was for personal use or included as legitimate party expenses. If it's about if money was illegally diverted from a ring fenced fund for a theoretical future referendum to general party expenses, it would be more challenging to prove wrongdoing I'd have thought, but also more damaging to the SNP as you'd think it would be difficult for Murrel to do without wider party involvement. If it is embezzlement, it will have nothing to do with where funds were directed within the SNP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 7 hours ago, Granny Danger said: Then why charge Murrell if they had more investigating to do? Why not complete the investigation then charge him? I question the length of time required. Even if one part of the investigation branches into something else the process is still finite. It reminds me of a public enquiry where it takes ten years to investigate something by which time the anger over the issue does not have the same intensity and the impetus to address the issue is greatly diminished. Perhaps he was being set up as the patsy and further information has now emerged implicating the others. The way it's going with the party it might be five investigations shortly so you cant rush these things 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTQP1867 Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 25 minutes ago, welshbairn said: It might come down to whether the camper van was for personal use or included as legitimate party expenses. If it's about if money was illegally diverted from a ring fenced fund for a theoretical future referendum to general party expenses, it would be more challenging to prove wrongdoing I'd have thought, but also more damaging to the SNP as you'd think it would be difficult for Murrel to do without wider party involvement. If this is all over the f**king camper van than Scotland is completely done as a serious country (well, let's face it it hasn't been since 1707 and isn't even a country either:-( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: Murrell’s silence is ominous. Probably because he's a dodgy chunt, like the rest of the SNP, should get your SNP logo back on your profile. IMO. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugster Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 19 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said: Probably because he's a dodgy chunt, like the rest of the SNP, should get your SNP logo back on your profile. IMO. Thank you. Better an SNP logo than some cock eyed bigot. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 1 hour ago, ICTChris said: I imagine that his lawyers have advised him not to say anything. Yeah if he’s guilty he’s probably best not to say anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 6 minutes ago, Rugster said: Better an SNP logo than some cock eyed bigot. Whatever you say big man. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Yeah if he’s guilty he’s probably best not to say anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 On 09/09/2024 at 16:06, strichener said: That isn't the charge though. It is embezzlement is it not. Which would be Murrell using SNP funds (However obtained) for personal use. That's my understanding as well. The irony is if Murrell had fessed up in the first place regards the use of the fundraising then Police Scotland wouldn't have uncovered the alleged embezzlement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 On 09/09/2024 at 19:30, CTQP1867 said: If this is all over the f**king camper van than Scotland is completely done as a serious country (well, let's face it it hasn't been since 1707 and isn't even a country either:-( This is like saying Partygate was about folk eating cake. It's not about a camper van. It's about money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted Friday at 15:19 Share Posted Friday at 15:19 f**king hell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted Friday at 16:59 Share Posted Friday at 16:59 2 hours ago, SandyCromarty said: I don't think that sort of talk is necessary. If it’s acceptable to accuse people of being peadophiles based on their looks maybe the poster in question can upload a photo of himself and we can all pass judgement. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted Friday at 18:34 Share Posted Friday at 18:34 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: If it’s acceptable to accuse people of being peadophiles based on their looks maybe the poster in question can upload a photo of himself and we can all pass judgement. Doubt if the keyboard warrior would agree, his obvious weak character prefers the anonymity. 1 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.