Nicola Sturgeon Arrested, Peter Murrell Charged

[lichtgilphead]

21 minutes ago, virginton said:

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

Agreed. However, instead of pointing out that his statement was pure supposition, I chose to point out that the prosecutor has to prove his case.

What is your problem with that?

It really is a basic principle of Scots Law. Our caution doesn't have the bit about "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.". PACE is not applicable in Scotland.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

So, their defence will go from "can't recall" to "no comment."

That works for me. Clearly not guilty. 

[lichtgilphead]

22 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

So, their defence will go from "can't recall" to "no comment."

That works for me. Clearly not guilty. 

That's not what I said. 

They don't even have to take the witness stand if they choose not to.

Firstly they would have to be charged

Secondly the Crown Office would have to decide to proceed to trial.

Thirdly, the prosecution would have to prove the charges against them.

Guilt is not determined during an interview under caution

[strichener]

6 hours 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. 

I have no idea what this has to do with my post.  My comment was in relation to the public position adopted by Nicola where she stated that she would fully assist the police.  Something that has been heard before on various other investigations swiftly followed by obstruction and amnesia.

Edited December 18, 2023 by strichener

[strichener]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

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

Well I did say "we can only guess" at the very start of the sentence to make that clear.

Edited December 18, 2023 by strichener

[alta-pete]

I note @lichtgilphead seems absent from the Mone thread similarly enthusiastically advocating the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ premise. 

[Wee Bully]

15 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I note @lichtgilphead seems absent from the Mone thread similarly enthusiastically advocating the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ premise. 

Imagine a Rangers fan coming out with Whataboutery!  Who would have guessed it?

[RuMoore]

18 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I note @lichtgilphead seems absent from the Mone thread similarly enthusiastically advocating the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ premise. 

He's a very unserious poster. 

It's almost like someone designed the most dull, moronic and tedious AI system to defend the SNP at all costs. 

[vikingTON]

13 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Agreed. However, instead of pointing out that his statement was pure supposition, I chose to point out that the prosecutor has to prove his case.

What is your problem with that?

Almost the entire thread is a chain of supposition. Yet when somebody quite rightly states that if a defendant who is also a major political figure hangs on the 'prove your case' gambit then they would still look as dodgy as a twelve bob note afterwards, you suddenly raise a 'You don't know what they said!' objection like an actor in an  American legal drama. 

It's purely a wagon-circling exercise and not a convincing one either.

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, alta-pete said:

I note @lichtgilphead seems absent from the Mone thread similarly enthusiastically advocating the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ premise. 

Thats presumably because quite a lot of what the NCA will be investigating has already been "outed" by the Guardian and Dan Niedle among others - the opacity of the PPE Medro ownership, ultimately leading to Doug Barrowman, the fact that both of them initially denied they were involved and have subsequently stated that they lied to protect their children etc.

Neither have Sturgeon/Murrell produced a - hilarious - "its no ma fault big man" video and made a complete shop front of themselves in a BBC interview.

These cases are not that similar, with the obvious exception that there may be some misappropriation of funds, and these are public figures.

At the very least (with a few exceptions) the Police Scotland investigation has remained fairly secure which is more than can be said for the detail of the Mone case.

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, alta-pete said:

I note @lichtgilphead seems absent from the Mone thread similarly enthusiastically advocating the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ premise. 

Apologies. I didn't realise that my input was necessary before we could judge guilt.

Mone is entitled to the presumption of innocence in exactly the same way as any accused in England, subject to the requirement to mention any defence she wishes to run during an interview under caution.

However, unless I've missed it, she's not been invited for that formal police interview yet.

Should she be charged with something, I'll look forward to the prosecution doing their best to prove their case in court, but until that date, the presumption of innocence remains in place.

59 minutes ago, RuMoore said:

He's a very unserious poster. 

It's almost like someone designed the most dull, moronic and tedious AI system to defend the SNP at all costs. 

Hi Stormzy

Unlike you, at least I've never been banned for trolling the site.

However, if you look back, you'll find that I accused the inner cabal of the SNP of perjury during the Salmond criminal trial. How does that fit in with your pathetic attempt to attack me?

53 minutes ago, virginton said:

Almost the entire thread is a chain of supposition. Yet when somebody quite rightly states that if a defendant who is also a major political figure hangs on the 'prove your case' gambit then they would still look as dodgy as a twelve bob note afterwards, you suddenly raise a 'You don't know what they said!' objection like an actor in an  American legal drama. 

It's purely a wagon-circling exercise and not a convincing one either.

Did I miss someone getting charged or prosecuted?

.If the prosecution believed that there'was a case to answer, charges should have been laid. At this moment, police are only at the evidence gathering stage. Any guilt is yet to be determined.

[SandyCromarty]

17 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

@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.

Have a read at the investigation on Wille Macrae's death.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Thats presumably because quite a lot of what the NCA will be investigating has already been "outed" by the Guardian and Dan Niedle among others - the opacity of the PPE Medro ownership, ultimately leading to Doug Barrowman, the fact that both of them initially denied they were involved and have subsequently stated that they lied to protect their children etc.

Neither have Sturgeon/Murrell produced a - hilarious - "its no ma fault big man" video and made a complete shop front of themselves in a BBC interview.

These cases are not that similar, with the obvious exception that there may be some misappropriation of funds, and these are public figures.

At the very least (with a few exceptions) the Police Scotland investigation has remained fairly secure which is more than can be said for the detail of the Mone case.

If Sturgeon and Murrell misappropriated funds, were they public funds ?  There is no such question relating to the Barrowmones.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

Have a read at the investigation on Wille Macrae's death.

I wasn't referring to that. 

[strichener]

10 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

If Sturgeon and Murrell misappropriated funds, were they public funds ?  There is no such question relating to the Barrowmones.

Holy shit, talk about scraping the barrel.  As if one is worse than the other when both are actually the same.  Where do these public funds come from?

[Empty It]

On 19/12/2023 at 23:03, strichener said:

Holy shit, talk about scraping the barrel.  As if one is worse than the other when both are actually the same.  Where do these public funds come from?

I would say stealing £200M+ is worse that stealing £600K to be fair.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Empty It said:

I would say stealing £200M+ is worse that stealing £600K to be fair.

The original post was nothing to do with the amount, rather the source of the money.  I agree £200m is more than £600k but I don't agree that it is worse.  The £600k was raised for a purpose and spent on something else by a political party, one that had been telling anyone that would listen how they were not the same as the other parties and that they were putting Scotland first.  The other was pure greed and enabled by lax controls by the UK government.

[Empty It]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

The original post was nothing to do with the amount, rather the source of the money.  I agree £200m is more than £600k but I don't agree that it is worse.  The £600k was raised for a purpose and spent on something else by a political party, one that had been telling anyone that would listen how they were not the same as the other parties and that they were putting Scotland first.  The other was pure greed and enabled by lax controls by the UK government.

I'm anything but an advocate for the SNP and if they're found guilty Sturgeon and Baldy should be jailed but to say stealing 200M is just as bad as 600K is just ridiculous. 

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Empty It said:

I'm anything but an advocate for the SNP and if they're found guilty Sturgeon and Baldy should be jailed but to say stealing 200M is just as bad as 600K is just ridiculous. 

Neither of the amounts were "stolen".

[HibeeJibee]

SNP could face investigation into loans from Peter Murrell - BBC News

The SNP could face another probe into its finances after taking five years to declare thousands of pounds in loans from its former chief executive.

The Electoral Commission said the party received two loans totalling £15,000 from Peter Murrell in 2018, but did not notify the watchdog until last year. It said it could consider enforcement action.

The Electoral Commission said the SNP reported to it in October that Mr Murrell - who resigned as chief executive in April last year following a row about membership figures - had made two loan payments to the party in 2018. The commission said these loans should have been reported the year they were made.

Prior to this year, when the thresholds were raised, parties were obliged to report donations higher than £7,500. Smaller donations from a single donor which exceed the reporting threshold when taken together also needed to be reported.

Each loan was for £7,500. One was paid back within two days, while the other was paid back within two weeks.