|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 11:14
How swept under the carpet?
`A full narrative of the facts will be read out when the case calls again on 2 June.
Murrell will also be subject to a future proceeds of crime action.`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 25 May 11:19
Quote:
wee eck, Mon 25 May 11:14
How swept under the carpet?
`A full narrative of the facts will be read out when the case calls again on 2 June.
Murrell will also be subject to a future proceeds of crime action.`
That`s interesting, didn`t know all the facts will come out....don`t suppose I`ll get my money back though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Mon 25 May 11:21
Funny how the guilty verdict was announced after the Scottish Parliament elections. Wonder why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BouncyPar
Date: Mon 25 May 11:22
Quote:
Jimmy riddell, Mon 25 May 11:21
Funny how the guilty verdict was announced after the Scottish Parliament elections. Wonder why?
It wasn`t a guilty verdict, he pleaded guilty during a pre-trial hearing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Mon 25 May 11:34
I stand corrected but it doesn’t alter the fact the hearing was scheduled for after the elections. Very convenient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 11:46
Do you think Murrell pleading guilty before the election would have changed the results? Do you think his `trial` should have been deliberately scheduled for a date before the elections with a possibility it could have been ongoing during the election campaign if he hadn`t pleaded guilty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 25 May 11:59
If it had been scheduled for before the election that would have been deliberate but for afterwards it wasn`t deliberate?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 14:14
Not sure the insertion of `deliberate` makes much difference. His trial was going to be politically sensitive so it was better to delay it until after the election. Isn`t this what `purdah` is all about? It`s supposed to cover the 6-week period befotre an election? I don`t think governments decide the dates of trials anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Mon 25 May 15:35
Re government and court dates ~ Correct, Wee Eck, they don’t. This was covered before in the previous thread.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
Post Edited (Mon 25 May 15:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Mon 25 May 15:56
‘ I don`t think governments decide the dates of trials anyway.’
That’s very questionable in Scotland. The Law Officers, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General are appointed by the monarch on the nomination of the First Minister and endorsed by the Scottish Parliament.
Both are Ministers in the SNP Government.
Don’t tell me there isn’t any influence.
Since the police investigation has been ongoing for a number of years people forget about it. If a guilty plea had been announced in the run up to the recent elections it would have created the headlines we have today and undoubtedly influenced some voters where they put their X. It’s naive to think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 16:05
From your posts it`s not clear whether you think the `trial` should have been before the election or not!
All that stuff about law officers etc. is set out in the Scotland Act, which was passed by the Westminster government at the time of devolution and has been the case since, not just under SNP governments in Holyrood.
A bigger question for me is `why didn`t the auditors of the SNP accounts pick up the embezzlement`?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 25 May 16:48
Quote:
wee eck, Mon 25 May 16:05
From your posts it`s not clear whether you think the `trial` should have been before the election or not!
All that stuff about law officers etc. is set out in the Scotland Act, which was passed by the Westminster government at the time of devolution and has been the case since, not just under SNP governments in Holyrood.
A bigger question for me is `why didn`t the auditors of the SNP accounts pick up the embezzlement`?
When the membership voted in new auditors in 2020 Murrell refused them access to the accounts. The members voted in local MP Mr Chapman, sorry forgot his first name, he gave them 6 months and eventually resigned failing to get access. Murrell then replaced him with the previous treasurer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
