Nicola Sturgeon Arrested, Peter Murrell Charged

[MazzyStar]

7 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

Well, they did assassinate Willie MacRae, so it’s not outwith the bounds of possibility. 

[SandyCromarty]

The cost of the police investigation so far has been revealed as over £1 million, £1,084.000 of public money investigating £600,000 of SNP membership funds yet over a year nothing has been resolved but that public cost keeps rising.

[orfc]

3 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

The cost of the police investigation so far has been revealed as over £1 million, £1,084.000 of public money investigating £600,000 of SNP membership funds yet over a year nothing has been resolved but that public cost keeps rising.

So as well as *cough* 'losing' 600K of their own supporters ringfenced donations, they've cost a million quid of taxpayers money which could have been avoided by simply pointing to where that 600K is sitting that they totally haven't misused? 

If there really was "nothing to see here" the investigation would have been do e and dusted in a day 

[SandyCromarty]

25 minutes ago, orfc said:

So as well as *cough* 'losing' 600K of their own supporters ringfenced donations, they've cost a million quid of taxpayers money which could have been avoided by simply pointing to where that 600K is sitting that they totally haven't misused? 

If there really was "nothing to see here" the investigation would have been do e and dusted in a day 

And after a year absolutely no result, the SNP haven't spent over £1 million on the investigation but somehow that cost will be outsourced from the SG budget.

As I've said before £600,000 is not hard to trace when you consider the expertise the police fraud units have at their disposal when tracing drug laundering money, so why a year and nothing disclosed.

It's more than obvious that the unionists tories have instigated this witchhunt so the spiralling police costs lie with them, mind you £1million will be small change to them when you  consider they have lost £11 BILLION to fraud.

Edited December 18, 2023 by SandyCromarty

[orfc]

4 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

And after a year absolutely no result, the SNP haven't spent over £1 million on the investigation but somehow that cost will be outsourced from the SG budget.

As I've said before £600,000 is not hard to trace when you consider the expertise the police fraud units have at their disposal when tracing drug laundering money, so why a year and nothing disclosed.

It's more than obvious that the unionists tories have instigated this witchhunt so the spiralling police costs lie with them, mind you £1million will be small change to them when you  consider they have lost £11 BILLION to fraud.

I thought it was SIR STUART WINGS who wouldn't let the issue lie?

And now you're claiming the SNP constructed Police Scotland are in the Tories pocket? Arf.

 

As you say it should be easy to trace, but we don't know how well the tracks have been hidden...

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

And after a year absolutely no result

Its more like 2-2.5 years, Murrell was under investigation well before the tents went up in their garden.

[Trogdor]

Sandy right now... having established the web of lies leading to this tory instigated witchhunt.

Spoiler

Absolutely nothing to do with this catastrophically bald fraud.

[strichener]

5 hours ago, orfc said:

So as well as *cough* 'losing' 600K of their own supporters ringfenced donations, they've cost a million quid of taxpayers money which could have been avoided by simply pointing to where that 600K is sitting that they totally haven't misused? 

If there really was "nothing to see here" the investigation would have been do e and dusted in a day 

We can only guess at how many times that those arrested and interviewed couldn't recall events and thus increased the work for Police Scotland.

[lichtgilphead]

15 minutes ago, strichener said:

We can only guess at how many times that those arrested and interviewed couldn't recall events and thus increased the work for Police Scotland.

Of course, it has to be remembered that the prosecutor has to prove guilt in a criminal trial. It's not up to the defence to prove innocence. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 million Great British pounds to investigate this is a good laugh. An elite Serious Fraud Squad containing PC McCabe and @Inanimate Carbon Rod would have cracked this case within a week imo.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

1 minute ago, Chris Partlow said:

1 million Great British pounds to investigate this is a good laugh. An elite Serious Fraud Squad containing PC McCabe and @Inanimate Carbon Rod would have cracked this case within a week imo.

Please dont put me in the same bracket as him. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Please dont put me in the same bracket as him. 

You're the only 2 coppers I know on here. If there's anyone else, McCabe can go back to foot patrol and I'll bump you up to head the investigation.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

9 minutes ago, Chris Partlow said:

You're the only 2 coppers I know on here. If there's anyone else, McCabe can go back to foot patrol and I'll bump you up to head the investigation.

Id probably rather be ‘single crewed’. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

@SandyCromarty - sad to see you going down the conspiracy rabbit hole.

The sad truth is that financial investigations do take a long time (and money) to carry out - 5 or more years is not unheard of.  And the investigation is not just about the £600k but wider SNP finances - no surprise it's taking as long as it is.

My biggest issue with the investigation is the way details of a supposedly secure police investigation keep leaking to the press - in particular the Record.  I wish that Police Scotland were left to get on with their job instead of the endless speculation and innuendo.

Thaf all being said, if you are going to go down the conspiracy route it may well be better aimed at the paucity of investigation into the crooks who profited from the UK government through a variety of wheezes during Covid.

Edited December 18, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[orfc]

55 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Of course, it has to be remembered that the prosecutor has to prove guilt in a criminal trial. It's not up to the defence to prove innocence. 

Yeh but if you were accused of something that was easy to disprove, you'd do that wouldn't you?

 

Police: "Ye have been accused of murdering John Puddleduck"

You: "But he's not dead"

John Puddleduck: "Hi, officer, I'm alive"

 

Police: "Ye have been accused of spending 600K that you shouldn't have"

You: "But I didn't "

Bank Manager/Auditor: "Here's an account with over 600k in officer"

[lichtgilphead]

10 minutes ago, orfc said:

Yeh but if you were accused of something that was easy to disprove, you'd do that wouldn't you?

 

Police: "Ye have been accused of murdering John Puddleduck"

You: "But he's not dead"

John Puddleduck: "Hi, officer, I'm alive"

 

Police: "Ye have been accused of spending 600K that you shouldn't have"

You: "But I didn't "

Bank Manager/Auditor: "Here's an account with over 600k in officer"

Are you suggesting that you know what was said under caution by the various arrested parties? Without that information, your suppositions are worth f*ck all.

[vikingTON]

56 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Are you suggesting that you know what was said under caution by the various arrested parties? Without that information, your suppositions are worth f*ck all.

You had no such issue responding to strichener's post about what was said under caution, back when you thought that you had a decisive retort. 

 

[vikingTON]

Best shutting down the entire website now btw if suppositions without direct ITK evidence are 'worth f**k all'. 

[lichtgilphead]

14 minutes ago, virginton said:

You had no such issue responding to strichener's post about what was said under caution, back when you thought that you had a decisive retort. 

 

????

With regard to Stichener, I simply pointed out that in every case that goes to trial, the prosecution have to prove their case. Suspects are perfectly at liberty to "no comment" every question if they wish as i's not up to the defence to prove innocence. I have no idea what was said at interview, and didn't claim that I did.

With regard to Orfc, I pointed out that his second statement is pure supposition.

 

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

With regard to Orfc, I pointed out that his second statement is pure supposition.

 

Strichener's statement was also 'pure supposition' and yet you didn't throw your toys out of the pram about that.