|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 25 May 17:19
Who’d have thought that having a husband and wife as chief executive and party leader could lead to problems? Well, pretty much everyone.
It was obvious that the “ring-fenced” money wasn’t ring-fenced. it had been spent on other things.
Now it appears that those things included luxury goods and expensive vehicles. Did no-one notice? Did no-one query the figures? Or were they told to keep quiet and not rock the boat? Don’t ask questions of the glorious leaders.
Who prepared the accounts? Who signed them off? And how come the auditors didn’t notice anything was amiss? Who were they – Johnston Carmichael? Is that why they quit? I think Douglas Chapman (and others) resigned over the lack of transparency.
It seems there was a culture of secrecy, mismanagement and financial incompetence at the heart of the party. I think this is the real story, not the imagined chicanery at the scheduling of proceedings. Nicola Sturgeon in particular has questions to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 17:42
Peresumably she gave answers to the police which satisfied them there was no case against her. I`m curious to know how Murrell managed to enjoy the fruits of his crime without apparently arousing suspicion in those around him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 25 May 18:28
Nicola Sturgeon had two roles here.
One, as spouse of the CEO.
Two, as party leader.
(She has a third, as First Minister of Scotland, but I don`t think that is particularly relevant here).
Her personal life is none of my business - it is entirely possible that she tried to maintain clear boundaries between her private and professional lives and thus never said "mmm - these salt and pepper shakers are lovely, how much were they?". It does seems unlikely that such a separation could be perfectly maintained, though no matter her best endeavours.
It is possible that for a couple rolling in money such expensive purchases did not attract suspicion.
I imagine that without a lot of hard evidence that it would be concluded that it was unlikely that a prosecution would be successful. So the criminal investigations against Sturgeon and Beattie would be dropped.
However, the questions that remain refer to the governance of the party. These are not a matter of criminality but of competence. There have been obvious failings. This could be seen as an internal matter (although lots of members have lost out) but there are implications for the Government, given the overlap in personnel.
Now, I`m not particularly experienced in matters of fraud or embezzlement but I could well believe that there is a "surely not" moment:
"Where`s the money gone? Surely not...not Peter. Wouldn`t Nicola have said something?". Is that how they get away with it? Dissent has always been discouraged - that helps if you want to silence awkward questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 18:31
According to the BBC he had been on the take for more than 12 years so the auditors had plenty time to catch him before they resigned.but apparently he had taken great care to disguise what he was doing from the SNP`s auditors, officials and elected representatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 25 May 18:40
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Mon 25 May 17:19
Who’d have thought that having a husband and wife as chief executive and party leader could lead to problems? Well, pretty much everyone.
It was obvious that the “ring-fenced” money wasn’t ring-fenced. it had been spent on other things.
Now it appears that those things included luxury goods and expensive vehicles. Did no-one notice? Did no-one query the figures? Or were they told to keep quiet and not rock the boat? Don’t ask questions of the glorious leaders.
Who prepared the accounts? Who signed them off? And how come the auditors didn’t notice anything was amiss? Who were they – Johnston Carmichael? Is that why they quit? I think Douglas Chapman (and others) resigned over the lack of transparency.
It seems there was a culture of secrecy, mismanagement and financial incompetence at the heart of the party. I think this is the real story, not the imagined chicanery at the scheduling of proceedings. Nicola Sturgeon in particular has questions to answer.
When Alex Salmond stood aside after the referendum he advised both the Murrells that it didn`t look good one the Party Leader and the other Chief Executive, from that point onwards Salmond was stonewalled by them, Murrell because of his pliffering probably couldn`t resign then.
And to think Murrell and a group of senior members some MSPs tried to jail Salmond.....Karma is good..and there`s more to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
