|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sun 23 Jun 12:28
No, not Patrick Harvie having a strop…it’s the mastermind behind the pochling of stamps intended for parliamentary business to send out electioneering leaflets etc.
Swinney grilled about it this morning. Looked like he had swallowed his toothbrush.
Stealing members donations, iPad expenses fiddle, now this …tut tut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Jun 12:38
Hmmm it could be nothing at all and the parliamentary investigation will decide one way or another. However if they find that public money has been used in an inappropriate manner to bolster SNP electioneering then Swinney will be in a bit of bother after assuring us it didn`t happen despite WhatsApp messages from his own office being more than a little bit incriminating.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 23 Jun 13:12
I thought the SNP had a policy of destroying WhatsApp messages - or was that a different story?
It`s embarrassing that the most powerful devolved government in the world has a scandal about the possible fiddling of stamps while its Westminster masters were betting on the date of an election of their choosing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Jun 13:39
It is embarrassing that the party in control of the most powerful devolved government in the world had to fiddle a few thousand pounds worth of stamps from the public kitty to fund their election campaign. Allegedly at this stage of course.
Post Edited (Sun 23 Jun 13:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 23 Jun 13:49
`The Gambling Commission is investigating “many” other individuals who bet on the July election, ITV News’ political editor, Robert Peston, said.
The Gambling Commission has informed Nick Mason, the Tories’ chief data officer, that he is part of its inquiry into bets on the timing of the election, the Sunday Times reported. The Conservative party confirmed that Mason had taken a leave of absence.
Mason is the fourth confirmed Conservative figure to be facing an investigation in a growing gambling scandal that has engulfed the party during the election campaign.`
This is far more serious in my book- politicians taking advantage of privileged information to further their own financial interests. Why does the Conservative Party in particular attract so many of these self-seeking chancers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Jun 14:12
If someone started a thread about that greedy, corrupt behaviour I would comment further and even more negatively than I just had. However this is a thread about potentially public funds being inappropriately used by a political party to help them secure positions of power. Now Wee Eck can you comment on that without referring to scandalous behaviour by others?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 23 Jun 14:35
If you check the `General Election` thread you`ll find I was first to draw attention to the stamp scandal. For some reason Parboiled decided to start a separate thread.
Of course I don`t condone the possible misuse of public funds but I think it`s fairly insignificant compared to recent scandals. I`m always amazed at the lack of judgement shown by those implicated in these affairs which raises questions about their suitability for public life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sun 23 Jun 15:18
Perhaps using up the "old" stamps before the new barcode ones came in?🤔😲🤭
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 23 Jun 15:38
To what extent is the information “privileged”? It seems like potentially a grey area.
The gambling industry thrives on punters trying to “get an edge” over the bookmaker – be it studying form or inside tips from the stable.
To make up an example – suppose you knew (but the bookies didn’t) that a team’s first choice goalkeeper was injured and that an untried kid would be between the sticks on match day – you’d have an edge and might be tempted to have a punt on the opposition.
It seems to depend on how you acquired this information, or whether it was “in the public domain”. The keeper telling you would seem to be insider trading, but suppose you saw him in a stookie, or saw the third choice turning up at the ground with his kit-bag, or heard that his folks were planning on attending the game when they normally didn’t? Where do you draw the line?
Clearly the campaign manager for the Conservative Party would be expected to be told the date in advance, but what of others putting two and two together? Rumours were abounding at Westminster and I’m sure loads of people would have had a punt on the election date when they heard there was to be a prime ministerial announcement that day. No doubt the bookies will have been monitoring activity and have checked their records to see who seemed to have known extra early.
What is interesting is Sunak’s attitude to suspending some people (but not others) and promising to boot people out of the party (when he seems happy to tolerate more egregious behaviour, although this would seem consistent with the actions of a man who has consistently got his thumb on the pulse of public opinion and seems pretty woeful at the art of politics.
On stamp gate, the evidence as presented by the Times (was it?) seems pretty damning – if you are asking if you are going to get caught suggests there may be doubt about the legality or morality of the proposed course of action which would rule out ignorance as an excuse. Swinney’s comments seem in marked contrast to being unable to comment on ongoing investigations, and to suspending party members pending an inquiry.
(It was reported that the messages were subject to some auto-deletion function – which is certainly consistent with the SNP’s attitude to transparency and record keeping.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sun 23 Jun 15:58
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Sun 23 Jun 15:38
To what extent is the information “privileged”? It seems like potentially a grey area.
The gambling industry thrives on punters trying to “get an edge” over the bookmaker – be it studying form or inside tips from the stable.
To make up an example – suppose you knew (but the bookies didn’t) that a team’s first choice goalkeeper was injured and that an untried kid would be between the sticks on match day – you’d have an edge and might be tempted to have a punt on the opposition.
It seems to depend on how you acquired this information, or whether it was “in the public domain”. The keeper telling you would seem to be insider trading, but suppose you saw him in a stookie, or saw the third choice turning up at the ground with his kit-bag, or heard that his folks were planning on attending the game when they normally didn’t? Where do you draw the line?
Clearly the campaign manager for the Conservative Party would be expected to be told the date in advance, but what of others putting two and two together? Rumours were abounding at Westminster and I’m sure loads of people would have had a punt on the election date when they heard there was to be a prime ministerial announcement that day. No doubt the bookies will have been monitoring activity and have checked their records to see who seemed to have known extra early.
What is interesting is Sunak’s attitude to suspending some people (but not others) and promising to boot people out of the party (when he seems happy to tolerate more egregious behaviour, although this would seem consistent with the actions of a man who has consistently got his thumb on the pulse of public opinion and seems pretty woeful at the art of politics.
On stamp gate, the evidence as presented by the Times (was it?) seems pretty damning – if you are asking if you are going to get caught suggests there may be doubt about the legality or morality of the proposed course of action which would rule out ignorance as an excuse. Swinney’s comments seem in marked contrast to being unable to comment on ongoing investigations, and to suspending party members pending an inquiry.
(It was reported that the messages were subject to some auto-deletion function – which is certainly consistent with the SNP’s attitude to transparency and record keeping.)
Mind when that guy ate a pie on tv so many others could win a bet? Well this is the same. They knew the date in advance and then bet on it and informed others…..to question if thats privilege or not is worrying, as of course it is. Its the betting equivalent of insider trading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Jun 16:13
Aye MT you are stretching a bit with the mental gymnastics there. Suggesting the SNP are caught bang to rights but that the Tories shenanigans are in something of a grey area. C`mon now eh!.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 23 Jun 17:05
TOWK/Dave - perhaps you are privy to information I haven`t seen, but I don`t know who knew what and when with regard to placing the bets.
Are you saying that everything is black and white?
At what point does the information become unprivileged? And is connected information similarly privileged?
I believe the stock-market rules talk about "unpublished price-sensitive information" - couldn`t that be just about anything? It seems like a grey area to me, yet directors and employees are permitted to deal in shares of the companies they direct or work for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Jun 17:30
Just out of interest what is the more egregious behaviour that you think Sunak is tolerating?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sun 23 Jun 17:39
Tories never bothered about the money that Sunak made on the financial crash, nor what Crispin Odey made on the back of Brexit!
See a pattern here?🤔😲💰💰💰💰
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 23 Jun 23:12
Just out of interest what is the more egregious behaviour that you think Sunak is tolerating?
I was thinking of Frank Hester and his donation; also Baroness Mone and her dodgy PPE contracts - he was a bit slow to act there - and Boris Johnson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Mon 24 Jun 00:24
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Sun 23 Jun 17:05
TOWK/Dave - perhaps you are privy to information I haven`t seen, but I don`t know who knew what and when with regard to placing the bets.
Are you saying that everything is black and white?
At what point does the information become unprivileged? And is connected information similarly privileged?
I believe the stock-market rules talk about "unpublished price-sensitive information" - couldn`t that be just about anything? It seems like a grey area to me, yet directors and employees are permitted to deal in shares of the companies they direct or work for.
Its privileged information if you know or can influence the outcome prior to it happening I would say.
Its like spot betting in sport…..telling people to bet on specific outcomes then influencing the outcome yourself is very black and white - its fixing a bet in your favour.
And if they are found guilty of this, they should 100% have the book thrown at them. But they wont because they live the high life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 24 Jun 07:18
Using some stamps = Disgrace
Breaching parliamentary code and law = easy mistake to make.
Cool. Got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 24 Jun 08:43
`Using some stamps` is doing a lot of heavy lifting there isn`t it? It was thousands of pounds worth of stamps allegedly and isn`t it also a breach of parliamentary code?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 24 Jun 08:51
Usual pathetic whitabootery ….
Unless things have changed since my time in public service where it was clearly spelled out and regularly promulgated, misuse or attempted misuse, of public money for expense claims, misuse of property, any fiddles at all would be treated as as a betrayal of trust no matter how trivial and would have serious consequences. As a few colleagues would ruefully look back on after losing their job.
It was never about money or the value of what was nicked!
Post Edited (Mon 24 Jun 08:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 24 Jun 11:31
But there`s no evidence the stamps were misappropriated, plus it`s bloody stamps. What we`re seeing in Westminster is blatant fraud and clear breach of the civil service code, not that it appears many people at Westminster have read it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 24 Jun 16:25
Pretty paltry compared to the embezzlement of the £600,000 Indy fund and £11000 attempted IPad swindle. Still, theft is theft …C’mon Polis Alba , pull yer truncheons oot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 24 Jun 16:30
It`s Holyrood that`s investigating it, not the polis. The maximum allowance for a year is £5k isn`t it? If there has been misuse it`s unlikely to be for the full amount. Let`s hope the polis don`t get involved. It could take up to three years to complete their investigations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 25 Jun 10:08
Police will be busy on the next chapter of the Murrel case, all about timing you know!🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 25 Jun 12:25
Where`s that picture of `the tent`?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 25 Jun 18:13
Now Labour have suspended a candidate who bet AGAINST himself winning the seat for which he is standing! What`s more they are returning a donation of £100k he made to the Labour Party. Is that the price for being nominated as a Parliamentary candidate? It just gets sleazier and sleazier!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 25 Jun 20:24
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 25 Jun 18:13
Now Labour have suspended a candidate who bet AGAINST himself winning the seat for which he is standing! What`s more they are returning a donation of £100k he made to the Labour Party. Is that the price for being nominated as a Parliamentary candidate? It just gets sleazier and sleazier!
That`s outrageous. I assume he wasn`t intending to put much effort into his campaign! Looks like he has won his bet though.
Donations to politicians needs to be stamped out. They should be making decisions based on what is right for their constituents, the nation, first and foremost. They shouldn`t be there to represent those who give large donations. The amount of Tory and Labour candidates who have accepted Israeli money means that they effectively control UK foreign policy, that can`t be the correct way to run a government
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 25 Jun 20:38
Alister Jack is now saying he won over £2,000 betting on the date of the election but he didn`t place the bets in May when Sunak announced the date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 25 Jun 21:27
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 25 Jun 20:38
Alister Jack is now saying he won over £2,000 betting on the date of the election but he didn`t place the bets in May when Sunak announced the date.
What a dirty, grubby, slimy weasel of a man (a true Tory). He must have had an earlier tip off
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 25 Jun 21:55
Even if he`s done nothing illegal you would have thought a Cabinet Minister might take the view that it would be best not betting on anything political where it might be construed you had inside information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 26 Jun 06:55
Jack`s now saying he only won £100. He was joking about having won £2,000. It`s obviously just a bit of a laugh to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Wed 26 Jun 11:07
Parliament really does attract some absolute Vermin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 26 Jun 13:27
Alex Cole-Hamilton now revealing he put in bets too. I honestly despair at how poor our politicians are but not exactly unexpected with AC-H as he`s got some track record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 29 Jul 11:51
Did the Scottish Parliament ever conclude their enquiry into the alleged misuse of stamps by the SNP? It`s over a month since this was announced. Do the admin staff get the same holidays as the MSPs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 29 Jul 12:33
Old news. The election has passed now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 29 Jul 12:46
I doubt if that stopped the inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Mon 29 Jul 15:08
Just like the investigation into Sturgeon/Murrell has gone very quiet now…….no doubt case will be dropped in the next 6 months…..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 29 Jul 15:27
The rumours were the case had already been dropped...unless they want to drag it out until 2026 because it`s becoming evident Labour will have a tough time if recent events are anything to go by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 29 Jul 15:37
Which case? The stamp inquiry is an internal parliamentary matter and the investigation into SNP finances is in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal`s Office now. I don`t see how either could be dropped without public accountability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 31 Jul 17:18
Here`s the answer then -
A Holyrood probe has found “no evidence” the SNP misused stamps bought with public money to aid its general election campaign, PA Media reports. PA says:
Officials launched an inquiry last month after WhatsApp messages among senior staff working for SNP MSPs appeared to suggest stamps paid for by expenses were being used in the party’s push ahead of the July 4 poll.
The investigation by the Scottish parliamentary corporate body (SPCB) – the cross-party group of MSPs tasked with running the parliament – spoke to the staff involved and their MSP bosses, and said all of whom “complied fully with the investigation”.
Today officials said there was no evidence to suggest stamps had been misused and they had received assurances from the MSPs to that effect.
A spokesman for the Scottish parliament said: “Following a thorough investigation, officials have found no evidence that stamps were used inappropriately. Therefore, no further action is required. Ahead of the next session the SPCB will carry out a review of stamp purchasing, as part of its sessional review of the members’ expenses scheme, to ensure the current approach is the most suitable.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 31 Jul 18:22
I wonder if these findings will get as much publicity as the original allegations? I suspect not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Wed 31 Jul 18:48
I think everyone can see what is going on here. False allegations fill newspaper columns and main stream media airtime during an election campaign. Now it`s shown that there is no case to answer, there will be a footnote hidden away in the papers. The story has served it`s job. Dirty tricks by the UK establishment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 31 Jul 21:29
The average person is easily swayed. Some of it is obvious like this but a lot of it is just drip fed over time. It doesn`t need to be true, but just have enough truth in there that people believe it.
I guarantee you the likes of Mhairi Black have stepped back because there`s dirt on her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 31 Jul 21:54
This investigation was the result of an `anonymous complaint`. So anybody can generate a bit of bad publicity without being accountable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 1 Aug 11:47
From what I can see only the Herald (and the National of course!) have put the outcome of this enquiry on their front page. The rest have been fairly reticent apparently, a bit like those on here who were happy to put the boot in when the allegations first emerged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 1 Aug 13:00
I must admit I was one of the first to lay into them on here but if an independent investigation has cleared them then fair enough. Not that it swayed my vote as I still voted snp. It was actually the number two story on the BBC Scotland website yesterday Wee Eck.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 17 Sep 15:42
So Stephen Flynn faced a 4 month investigation into 28p of stationary used, and Starmer`s wife gets £70K of clothes from a donor, no problem?
Makes Matheson`s ipad use a bit of a distraction!🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
