|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Fri 13 Feb 21:50
Surprised that there has been no comment on Murrell being charged with eight counts of embezzlement of SNP funds amounting to £360k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 13 Feb 22:04
I`m not sure if that information should have been made public at this stage. C4 News said tonight the trial would be held at the end of May, ie after the Holyrood elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Fri 13 Feb 22:12
It was reported in the Scottish Sun today that’s why it was reported on BBC Scotland news.
Last post on this story on the forum was nearly a year ago.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Fri 13 Feb 22:14
Now apparently £459k and court appearance due next week postponed to late May after Scottish Parliament elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 13 Feb 22:24
Nobody auditing books, checking expenditure, how many AGM`s?
I think if I rolled up with a camper van/VW golf/Jaguar my wife would be asking where the f*** I got the money from?🤔🙉
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 13 Feb 22:37
Yes, LA, there are a lot of questions to be answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 14 Feb 07:00
Think I read something about the Salmond fix-up yesterday also.....hopefully unlucky Friday 13th for a few folk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 15 Feb 12:25
Nobody saying anything about that this being postponed until after the election? No conspiracy about that being done to benefit the current Scottish government? Some on this very board were saying this was all politically motivated and the big old tent in the garden and the timing of it all was all done to harm the snp when the investigation first began.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 15 Feb 12:35
Who decides when a case is tried in court? I don`t think it`s the Scottish government is it? This case has being going on for years. Couldn`t it have been brought to court much earlier to avoid any clash with the May elections? Conspiracy theories work both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Sun 15 Feb 13:10
Ultimately it’s the decision of the Crown to decide on court dates. It has nothing to do with the Government. They’re two separate entities.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sun 15 Feb 14:33
Has the sudden release and widely broadcast charges (Starmer included) delayed the case?🤔
Or are they still digging up the back garden to find the cars?🤣🤣🤣
Post Edited (Sun 15 Feb 14:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 15 Feb 21:44
Quote:
buffy, Sun 15 Feb 13:10
Ultimately it’s the decision of the Crown to decide on court dates. It has nothing to do with the Government. They’re two separate entities.
Spot the Civil Servant 😉
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Tue 17 Feb 20:44
Being reported that the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, who sits on the Scottish Government tipped off Sweeney a month before Murrell’s charges re the SNP Finances were announced to the public. She was appointed by Sturgeon. The Procurator Fiscal is responsible to the Lord Advocate. The postponement of Murrell’s hearing until after the May elections has a distinct smell of electioneering.
Post Edited (Tue 17 Feb 20:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 17 Feb 21:12
I don`t think many people would notice or care anymore. Sturgeon is an after thought.
Post Edited (Tue 17 Feb 21:13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Tue 17 Feb 21:50
It’s not about Sturgeon. It’s the actions of the current SNP government in a cover up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 17 Feb 21:55
Quote:
Jimmy riddell, Tue 17 Feb 21:50
It’s not about Sturgeon. It’s the actions of the current SNP government in a cover up.
Unfortunately, all the electable parties have scandals. Too many elected officials who have no morals. Our current MP appears to be highly dubious, which I find really disappointing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 20 Feb 13:55
Bain never “tipped off “ Swinney. You are listening to the desperate unionists.
She was duty bound to tell the FM of the official charges ( even though the amounts have been in the public domain for yonks ) . She would have done the same regardless of who and what party the FM was/with. After all the monies in question were SNP funds not public money. There was a KC on good morning Scotland who ripped Findlay’s accusations to shreds and said that Bain has done nothing wrong. As far as I am aware this particular KC has no party affiliation, so his word will do for me as opposed to the frothing utterances of Findlay, Ross and Sarwar etc..
Post Edited (Fri 20 Feb 13:56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 20 Feb 14:17
The other `scandal` that the opposition parties raise about this is that Dorothy Bain`s position as Lord Advocate means that she is head of the Crown Prosecution Service as well as being the Scottish government`s legal adviser, as if this was some fiendish SNP plot. In fact this situation has been the case with all Scottish governments since devolution was introduced in 1999. It has always been considered controversial but any change would require the UK government to amend the Scotland Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 25 May 10:48
Pleads guilty and is now in prison.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Mon 25 May 15:41
He’s been remanded in custody and will be sentenced on 2 June.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: halbe
Date: Mon 25 May 16:01
Swinney didn`t do the crime as he`s telling everyone but he was way too close to the decisions systems, people that allowed this to happen. Surprised he hasn`t already walked - that`s the standard he has held others to...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 16:07
Maybe we should wait and hear the facts in court before jumping to conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Hoolie
Date: Mon 25 May 20:58
He was charged and only pleads guilty to not get anyone else involved..Take the hit and that in investigation done. We will now never know what really happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 21:21
Who needs trials with know-alls like you around?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 25 May 22:45
He`s literally pled guilty.
The only unanswered question will be who else was in on it. There`s no way Sturgeon didn`t know. He was buying cars and getting hundreds of Amazon packages FFS. I suppose what he bought might be of interest.
I`ve never been an SNP member but I`d be absolutely furious about this. It seems Chapman was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 May 23:32
If Nicola Sturgeon knew, why wasn`t she charged? Similarly, the treasurer, Colin Beattie?
If you want details of what he bought there are plenty media reports and some are quite inexpensive items.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 09:14
Quote:
wee eck, Mon 25 May 23:32
If Nicola Sturgeon knew, why wasn`t she charged? Similarly, the treasurer, Colin Beattie?
If you want details of what he bought there are plenty media reports and some are quite inexpensive items.
It’s okay he stole a large sum of money because he bought inexpensive items with it
No his wife who happened to be party leader and first minister at the time definitely didn’t know anything about it
Colin Beattie definitely didn’t know because Sturgeon didn’t know
Nobody knew anything and forgot everything apart from Murrell
SNP doesn’t have a corruption problem.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 09:30
How expensive are your salt and pepper shakers if £2700 is inexpensive?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 09:43
Where did I say the salt and pepper shakers were inexpensive? I was simply pointing out the curious fact that someone who embezzled over £400k spent some of it on random items he could have easily afforded without embezzling from his employer. They`re debating that particular issue on the radio as we speak but let`s just bash the SNP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 10:00
Not you, NMC.
This isn`t about the individual purchases anyway.... this is about an absolute abuse of power.
Folk were bound to realise what was likely going on unless he was telling them he was some sort of investment whizz. I don`t believe that they didn`t have any suspicion or that they weren`t duty bound to flag their suspicion given the position they held.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Tue 26 May 10:17
As I understand it these charges relate to the theft of over £400k from SNP party funds. The ‘missing’ £600k of the supposedly ring-fenced IndyRef2 kitty is a separate issue and still unresolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 10:31
I`ve seen nothing in the reports I`ve read to suggest that is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 10:53
Quote:
ipswichpar, Tue 26 May 10:00
Not you, NMC.
This isn`t about the individual purchases anyway.... this is about an absolute abuse of power.
Folk were bound to realise what was likely going on unless he was telling them he was some sort of investment whizz. I don`t believe that they didn`t have any suspicion or that they weren`t duty bound to flag their suspicion given the position they held.
I largely agree.
In my opinion Sturgeon knew about everything - given their professional and personal relationship she both knew and profited from it.
I was being facetious because I still can’t believe that people seem to think that Sturgeon or any of the other top brass at the SNP knew nothing about it.
And as someone’s pointed out the roughly £400k he’s admitted to isn’t the original £600k that’s missing however some of the £400k may have came from the missing £600k - apparently nobody knows. I don’t think we’ll ever know because they’ve shifting paperwork and numbers to the point it’ll cost to much to find out. However, it does make you wonder if it’s £1million that’s missing… or more 🤷🏻♂️
I’ve got to say though that your point about the abuse of power is actually the bit that sticks in my gullet about it. I was totally on the SNP Indy hype train and they’ve been shown to be crooks since then.
COYP
Post Edited (Tue 26 May 11:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 26 May 10:59
How could she NOT know?
"That`s a nice new motorhome your mum`s got, Pete. That`s lovely."
"Is that the Amazon delivery driver again? He`s never away from this house. I think he fancies you."
"New Jag? Oh, you`ve been putting money aside and the dealer was practically giving them away? Good work!"
"What`s this letter from the bank for an account with the name `Totally not Peter`s embezzled funds`?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 11:13
Do you think the police didn`t raise these issues during their investigation? If her answers were implausible why not charge her?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Tue 26 May 11:19
That’s why he’s now pled guilty so we move onto sentencing. No trial with witnesses questioned under oath etc so no one else gets implicated including Sturgeon and Swinney.
All swept under the carpet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 11:37
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 11:13
Do you think the police didn`t raise these issues during their investigation? If her answers were implausible why not charge her?
Well, I am sure that deals have been done on other cases where the threshold of 50% confidence that the COFPS would need to meet to take the case might mean sort of plea bargain might be more attractive.
I know if my partner was never off Amazon and bought two expensive brand new cars I would be asking where the money came from.
Guess, as you suggest, we will just need to wait and see what kind of evidence is provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 11:44
You are SURE deals have been done? No point debating it then. You can justify any conspiracy with that attitude. Who needs Donald Trump when we`ve got .net?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 11:55
Christ.... you don`t debate anything.....folk agree with you or they are wrong.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the "deal" I was referring to were historical matters not relating to this specific case. It is well known that lawyers often will accept an outcome that isn`t perfect in either direction if it is pragmatic to do so.
As I say, and as you say, best waiting until the facts are out. But often if something on my shoe smells like dog **** and looks like dog ****, it is normally dog ****. And this specific case looks and smells a bit strange to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 12:22
Maybe it`s my professional training that has persuaded me that it`s best to know the full facts before speculating but social media doesn`t encourage that attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 12:39
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 12:22
Maybe it`s my professional training that has persuaded me that it`s best to know the full facts before speculating but social media doesn`t encourage that attitude.
What professional training is that? I mean if you’re going to cite your expertise you should at least let us know what it is
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 13:21
40 years as a CA looking after all sizes of organisations. What`s yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 15:06
40 years of accounting and you honestly believe that she didn’t know anything 🤣🤣
He hid it at his mums…
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 15:18
I see you didn`t answer my question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Tue 26 May 17:48
He only asked so he could have a pop at you, Wee Eck.
Stating the law and the outcome of court decisions doesn’t seem to please a few folk ~ instead they turn it around and decide that you’re looking at it all wrong. Go figure.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 18:13
It`s the way social media works, buffy. We saw it during Covid. Everybody`s an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 26 May 18:23
The major red flag regarding Nicola Sturgeon wasn’t that she was his wife and should have known what he bought. (They both earned a very good salary), but that she had to sign off on the accounts as FM.
Dougie Chapman and others raised concerns and stepped down as treasurer because they weren’t allowed proper scrutiny of the accounts.
The missing ring fenced Indy fund on top of that and Murrell was clearly shifty for many years before any Campervan etc came to light.
When Sturgeon became First Minister, the clear thing to do was to appoint a new chief executor to avoid speculation about having her husband in the role.
I think we know now he would have been caught years ago if he resigned and that’s where I think Nicola Sturgeon is culpable in all of this.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 18:33
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 18:13
It`s the way social media works, buffy. We saw it during Covid. Everybody`s an expert.
I certainly know enough that the governance model should never have been allowed, many challenged it, and those that challenged it were shut down.
The other eck would have been raising a dram if he had still been around, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 18:36
Quote:
buffy, Tue 26 May 17:48
He only asked so he could have a pop at you, Wee Eck.
Stating the law and the outcome of court decisions doesn’t seem to please a few folk ~ instead they turn it around and decide that you’re looking at it all wrong. Go figure.
Well, the law and court decisions certainly aren`t always 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 26 May 18:59
And no way was he on the amount of money that would support an 80k motor and 125k motor home.
He wasn`t that high an earner in the grand scheme of things. Most of the time 70k-80k.
So it seems weird Sturgeon couldn`t simply work out that post tax earnings couldn`t support those purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 26 May 19:01
To be fair it`s a piddling wee amount of money to generate such prolonged police investigation and ongoing media interest, I know folk that`s swindled 20 times that amount and it never hit the headlines.
The unionist media are loving it though, if this had been the Tory party it would have made the front pages for a day or two and then forgotten about. We`ve got a UK Government all bought and paid for by Israel, a Monarch that takes bin bags full of £2.6 million in cash from Qatari chaps, Farage taking the odd 5million of dodgy crypto wealth, billions taken from the public coffers for a COVID track n trace programme, Epstein flying planes into UK Air Force bases, the UK is corrupt to the core
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 19:56
Quote:
buffy, Tue 26 May 17:48
He only asked so he could have a pop at you, Wee Eck.
Stating the law and the outcome of court decisions doesn’t seem to please a few folk ~ instead they turn it around and decide that you’re looking at it all wrong. Go figure.
Eck offered he had the relevant training, I asked what that training is… it’s not exactly controversial 🤷🏻♂️
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 20:00
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 15:18
I see you didn`t answer my question.
I didn’t pipe as the local .net expert.
Let’s be honest Eck, you’re an experienced accountant and a vocal SNP
supporter. You’ll have a rough idea what’s happened and you’ll be feeling absolutely sick about this. More than me cos I’ve been shouting about SNP corruption for nearly on a decade.
I have no doubt she knew, she was taking party zoom calls/meetings saying ‘nothing to see here’ before anyone realised £600k was missing.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 20:01
And you still haven`t told us what your area of expertise is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 20:06
Based on what I`ve read on here the last couple of days, it`s not just the SNP executive and Nicola Sturgeon who are corrupt, it`s also Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal`s Office. I even read a suggestion that the media, bastions of the Union, were complicit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 20:08
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 20:01
And you still haven`t told us what your area of expertise is.
What does your expertise have to do with SNP corruption?
COYP
Post Edited (Tue 26 May 20:08)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 20:29
You asked me what my area of expertise was in relation to the subject of this thread. I responded and asked you the same question. You seem reluctant to answer. Do you actually read stuff on here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 20:29
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 20:06
Based on what I`ve read on here the last couple of days, it`s not just the SNP executive and Nicola Sturgeon who are corrupt, it`s also Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal`s Office. I even read a suggestion that the media, bastions of the Union, were complicit!
What a way to take everyone’s own opinions and conflate it into something it’s not.
You didn’t have anything to do with SNP accounts did you?
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 20:50
Your answer gives no clue as to your area of expertise other than deflection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Tue 26 May 21:09
Quote:
red-star-par, Tue 26 May 19:01
To be fair it`s a piddling wee amount of money to generate such prolonged police investigation and ongoing media interest, I know folk that`s swindled 20 times that amount and it never hit the headlines.
The unionist media are loving it though, if this had been the Tory party it would have made the front pages for a day or two and then forgotten about. We`ve got a UK Government all bought and paid for by Israel, a Monarch that takes bin bags full of £2.6 million in cash from Qatari chaps, Farage taking the odd 5million of dodgy crypto wealth, billions taken from the public coffers for a COVID track n trace programme, Epstein flying planes into UK Air Force bases, the UK is corrupt to the core
It will be used for years to come by the unionist media to push folk away from IndyRef2 as classing the entire party as corrupt rather than 2-3 individuals. Meanwhile ignoring all of the above corruption.
HS2 news last week generated about 10 minutes worth of news…..remember the money involved in that is now into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of £££…….but let’s not worry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jimmy riddell
Date: Tue 26 May 21:25
We’re into ‘whataboutery’ now. Stay on point.
Murrell has admitted his guilt, finally. The issue is was anyone else complicit in a cover up?
Post Edited (Tue 26 May 21:27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 21:50
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 20:50
Your answer gives no clue as to your area of expertise other than deflection.
What a pig headed move to try pull that card out because you don’t like the opinions of others.
Im a chartered accountant is not really an argument — it’s an appeal to authority. Your qualification isn’t evidence of what someone in a political leadership role knew or didn’t know.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 21:53
You asked a question and I answered it. It`s that simple. Give it a rest for goodness sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 22:03
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 21:53
You asked a question and I answered it. It`s that simple. Give it a rest for goodness sake.
You might have been an accountant 40 years ago for all I know but you argue like a 6 year old
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Tue 26 May 22:21
Obviously,Nicola did not visit the mother in law very often!😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Tue 26 May 22:31
Quote:
NMCmassive, Tue 26 May 22:03
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 21:53
You asked a question and I answered it. It`s that simple. Give it a rest for goodness sake.
You might have been an accountant 40 years ago for all I know but you argue like a 6 year old
Looks who’s talking. You continually ignore people’s questions and try to justify it by making childish remarks.
Are you sure you’re not a politician? Never answering a straight question but prefer to deflect every time. In fact, you read more like a bully. Putting your own issues on to others shoulders by attacking them.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
Post Edited (Tue 26 May 22:34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 26 May 22:53
Quote:
buffy, Tue 26 May 22:31
Quote:
NMCmassive, Tue 26 May 22:03
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 26 May 21:53
You asked a question and I answered it. It`s that simple. Give it a rest for goodness sake.
You might have been an accountant 40 years ago for all I know but you argue like a 6 year old
Looks who’s talking. You continually ignore people’s questions and try to justify it by making childish remarks.
Are you sure you’re not a politician? Never answering a straight question but prefer to deflect every time. In fact, you read more like a bully. Putting your own issues on to others shoulders by attacking them.
You do realise I ignored his what’s your expertise questions because I thought it was pig headed? Like I’ve already said 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t know what other questions I’ve ignored?
Perhaps if you pose them again, I’ll answer it…
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 27 May 10:53
It seems this thread has won out in the battle of the competing posts, although it has gone a little off-piste (not that that is necessarily a problem).
Apparently this all started when Sean Clerkin complained about the ring-fenced money going missing. That it had done so was clear from the published accounts. It was also clear that the SNP had spent six figures on a motor vehicle. Why has never been made clear. Questionable, and odd, but not necessarily illegal.
I would guess that a cursory police investigation revealed some loose threads, which, when tugged, revealed more and more shenanigans had taken place. This is partly why this all took so long.
It may also go to show that perhaps the police are more adept at identifying fraudulent practice than amateurs, although one wonders what the auditors were doing. Sure, presumably they weren’t going to question why £100k was spent on a motor-home, just that it had been and that it was receipted and accounted for properly. The “why” was down to the executive officers and it does seem that any queries were discouraged and information was not forthcoming – clear evidence of potential malpractice, I would have thought.
I’m faintly surprised that Murrell didn’t elect to go to trial – there is an argument that a fair trial might have been impossible, and it is notoriously difficult to get convictions in fraud cases. But the fact that he has pleaded guilty means that a lot of questions will go unasked and little dirty laundry will see the light of day. All very convenient. And people are now lining up to stick the boot in and blame him for everything. Also convenient. Less convenient is the showcase debate on asking for Section 30 powers being completely overshadowed.
Is it not common practice to rotate the auditing function amongst different firms every few years? Did this happen? Or is it just the senior partner that changes? Familiarity can speed things up, but complacency can set in.
I can imagine that it is possible that if a household is pulling in £220k pa (or whatever) then it might not be obvious if that figure suddenly mysteriously rose to £250k (although I think frauds tend to start off slowly then get more extravagant as the perpetrator gets away with it, and has to cover up more and more tracks). I’m also led to believe that it is possible for a spouse to be completely oblivious to their partner’s dealings. I find this hard to believe of Nicola Sturgeon though.
However for party managers not to notice is less excusable. (And the officers who approved the accounts were Murrell, Sturgeon and Beattie - an obvious concentration of risk). And dissent has always been discouraged. Perhaps they needed someone like wee eck to ask awkward questions and not take no for an answer…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 27 May 11:00
I`m sure everyone knows it`s easier to over spend than to save but you`re talking about extra 30-40k. There`s no kids and they live on a pleasant but pretty average estate. Until recently only one of them could drive. Where did all that extra money go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 27 May 11:22
It`s a truly an odd situation Sturgeon was a control freak and totally micro-managed everything other than the attempt to lock up both Pete and Alex.
Apparently when interviewed by the police she sat with her back to them and took a vow of silence...nothing to see here gov...
Post Edited (Wed 27 May 11:23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 27 May 11:49
My recollection is that, when the purchase of the motor home first came to light it was claimed it was to be converted into some kind of campaign bus and was therefore a legitimate business expense which could be included in the SNP`s accounts. I don`t remember where that came from but examination of the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 suggests a motor vehicle costing around £120k was bought.
I see the Daily Telegraph has unearthed a witness, around 14 at the time, who says he saw NS at a local supermarket in 2022 telling a fellow-shopper that she had family in Dunfermline. He claims everybody knew about the camper van parked at Mrs Murrell`s house but if you dig deeper into the article it`s reported that the vehicle was parked between her hoiuse and a neighbour`s so that it would not be clear which property it belonged to and it might not even be visible if Mrs M`s house was approached from the front!
I`m not aware of any requirement to rotate auditors. Their role in this has always intrigued me but it seems Murrell`s actions were particularly devious. All may be revealed at a hearing next week (separate from the sentencing later in June) when an account of the crime and its detection, approved by the prosecution and defence, will be made public. Ii may give details of Murrell`s plea bargain and why charges were not made against Sturgeon and Beattie.
Post Edited (Wed 27 May 11:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 27 May 16:51
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 27 May 11:22
It`s a truly an odd situation Sturgeon was a control freak and totally micro-managed everything other than the attempt to lock up both Pete and Alex.
Apparently when interviewed by the police she sat with her back to them and took a vow of silence...nothing to see here gov...
I agree. Whether the likes of the camper was a legitimate purchase or not, there`s no way she could miss it. The houses are all bungalows so you can`t exactly hide it! "This is weird. It says here we bought something from ultimatecampers.com for £120k. Oh, we got it for campaigning? Is it like that one your mum got last week?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 27 May 16:53
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 27 May 11:49
My recollection is that, when the purchase of the motor home first came to light it was claimed it was to be converted into some kind of campaign bus and was therefore a legitimate business expense which could be included in the SNP`s accounts. I don`t remember where that came from but examination of the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 suggests a motor vehicle costing around £120k was bought.
I see the Daily Telegraph has unearthed a witness, around 14 at the time, who says he saw NS at a local supermarket in 2022 telling a fellow-shopper that she had family in Dunfermline. He claims everybody knew about the camper van parked at Mrs Murrell`s house but if you dig deeper into the article it`s reported that the vehicle was parked between her hoiuse and a neighbour`s so that it would not be clear which property it belonged to and it might not even be visible if Mrs M`s house was approached from the front!
I`m not aware of any requirement to rotate auditors. Their role in this has always intrigued me but it seems Murrell`s actions were particularly devious. All may be revealed at a hearing next week (separate from the sentencing later in June) when an account of the crime and its detection, approved by the prosecution and defence, will be made public. Ii may give details of Murrell`s plea bargain and why charges were not made against Sturgeon and Beattie.
I heard she was scoffing a scotch egg outside Halbeath ASDA where she confessed to the lad that the campervan was a mobile love shack and that her and Peter were headed Glencoe in it that night and she`d stacked the fridge with stuffed crust pizzas from the ASDA pizza counter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 27 May 17:17
Presumably when you typed that, jake, you thought it was helluva funny.
I`m sure a responsible newspaper like the Telegraph would double-check its sources before publishing. Does anyone on here actually know where Mrs M lives and remembers seeing the situation of the said camper van?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 27 May 17:39
Where did all that extra money go?
Well, yes, I’ve commented on this before (here and elsewhere, to almost universal indifference it must be said).
A few years ago there was a mania for politicians publishing tax returns (I was never clear as to what end).
So we learned that BoJo was extremely wealthy and paid loads in tax, Rishi Sunak was extremely wealthy and paid loads in tax, and other party leaders had more modest tax arrangements.
With Nicola, the media focus was (wrongly, IMO) on the tax paid on her pension, which seemed entirely consistent with one on a high salary with generous pension benefits whose value would breach the annual allowance and would therefore incur a tax charge, payable by the pension scheme with a consequent adjustment to her pension in due course.
What was odd in my view was that she had very little taxable investment income which raised the question – what was she doing with her cash?
She had no children, no time for expensive hobbies, no posh car, no big house. One would expected to have invested her excess money in a portfolio of investments, prudently managed, but there was no trace of this.
Now there are any number of possible explanations – she kept her money under the mattress, she put her money in investments with no immediate return, she secretly gave her money to charity, she lost it all at the dogs, I’m completely barking up the wrong tree. None of my business (at least, until she chose to publish the figures), but it looked odd.
Of course, this is the opposite issue to the Peter Murrell case, which is lots of evidence of spending, less of income. But I think it does illustrate the point – the numbers may add up on the surface, but are they the right numbers? There’s a “smell test” that should prompt questions – and I would have thought that people like the fraud squad, auditors and investigative journalists (of which there are very few) would develop a nose for this sort of thing.
One reason this case is fascinating is the contrast between Peter Murrell’s public image (such as it was) and the revelations, whereas there are other people, if it were alleged of whom that they had taken £5m from a crypto-billionaire you wouldn’t be at all surprised. This may be one reason he got away with it for so long. Of course, this is just speculation, but then that’s one purpose of the internet – to pose questions that you want to see answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 27 May 17:59
With regard to the motor-home - I`ve no idea where it was kept. It does seem to have gone through the accounts, and I believe there was indeed a suggestion that it was to be used for campaigning in the immediate post-CoVid world. Odd, perhaps a little naughty if this were the "referendum money" but not obviously fraudulent.
Again, PM could have argued that he was CEO of a major organisation and needed a flash motor to cut about in - he wouldn`t want to look like Ed Miliband being shuttled about in a Fiat Uno or whatever. I`m not so sure he needed the pencil sharpener though.
The affair is confused by PM having lent the party large sums of money. I assume that there was a cash-flow issue (it`s always cash-flow) - presumably spending commitments were made (there are always elections) and membership income and donations dried up and he had spare cash that could tide the party over. This would blur what was his and what was the party`s. But does the fraud not predate the loan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Wed 27 May 18:12
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 27 May 17:17
Presumably when you typed that, jake, you thought it was helluva funny.
I`m sure a responsible newspaper like the Telegraph would double-check its sources before publishing. Does anyone on here actually know where Mrs M lives and remembers seeing the situation of the said camper van?
I thought it was funny enough to be fair.
Yes I know where they live and to quote my daughter “that’s some size of caravan”
Not even joking
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 27 May 18:34
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 27 May 17:17
Presumably when you typed that, jake, you thought it was helluva funny.
I`m sure a responsible newspaper like the Telegraph would double-check its sources before publishing. Does anyone on here actually know where Mrs M lives and remembers seeing the situation of the said camper van?
Tongue in cheek, wee Eck. The Telegraph article is hilariously written. Taking the word of some random lad from years ago where he remembers exactly what she was buying. It`s like a tale being told by Isa from Still Game.
Murrell`s mum`s exact address hasn`t been revealed (nor should it be) but anyone who knows that street will also know you can`t hide a campervan there! It`s all bungalows with no side walls or spaces round the back to conceal a giant white blob. You can probably spot it on Apple or Google maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 29 May 11:28
It`s now been revealed you CAN spot the camper on satellite maps. Knowing the street well, anyone claiming to have NOT spotted it probably wants their eyes tested.
Did NS actually say she wasn`t aware of it though? I feel for Murrell`s mum who will no doubt have unwanted attention being given to her house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 29 May 18:58
Maybe Buffy can clarify but I heard someone on the radio earlier discussing this case and they said that the court case was originally scheduled for February but was then put back?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Mon 1 Jun 09:49
Find it hard to believe,that the mother never questioned sturgeon about the campervan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 1 Jun 11:35
Was it not his mother?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Hoolie
Date: Mon 1 Jun 20:04
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/191p1dKy24/?mibextid=wwXIfr
It was his mums house but she knew…4k pen,80k jaguar but oh no I didn’t notice a massive motorhome parked between you mums house..us mere idiots would be in jail by now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 1 Jun 21:34
Both dodgy and I hope they get their just desserts, but I want to see ALL these dodgy politicians locked up. Murrell/Sturgeon should he just the start. It`s time to clear out Westminster and Holyrood of these dodgy characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Mon 1 Jun 23:45
Quote:
jake89, Mon 1 Jun 21:34
Both dodgy and I hope they get their just desserts, but I want to see ALL these dodgy politicians locked up. Murrell/Sturgeon should he just the start. It`s time to clear out Westminster and Holyrood of these dodgy characters.
I’d happily second that.
UK politicians are not even joke worthy at the minute.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 2 Jun 00:21
What`s the definition of `dodgy` and who decides which ones fit the definition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 2 Jun 00:49
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 2 Jun 00:21
What`s the definition of `dodgy` and who decides which ones fit the definition?
How about we just say all of them… no exceptions
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 05:37
Murrell is due to be sentenced today. I think the proceedings will be streamed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 23 Jun 07:38
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 05:37
Murrell is due to be sentenced today. I think the proceedings will be streamed.
Wouldn`t it be great if they had a blue tent to screen him off as he went from the back door of the court to the van ?
Funny old world he was encouraging liars to stand up in court to get AR jailed and off he pops today.
Natalie McGarry got 2 years for embezzlement, so I`d expect that will be the minimum for him , but I`ll take a punt that he`s got security services connections and he`ll get 3 years for taking the wrap covering for others.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JgQsmcWoJ/
Post Edited (Tue 23 Jun 07:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 09:10
Starting around 9.30 am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 09:53
5 years and 3 months. It would have been 7 years if he hadn`t pleaded guilty, which avoided a long, expensive trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 23 Jun 11:40
That’ll be the sweeping up complete.
Wonder if Nicola will come back or if she thinks she needs more time so she doesn’t have to face more questions 🤷🏻♂️
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 23 Jun 13:24
Michelle Mone and Dido Harding next?
I won`t hold my breath!😡
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Tue 23 Jun 15:35
Quote:
Tenruh, Tue 23 Jun 07:38
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 05:37
Murrell is due to be sentenced today. I think the proceedings will be streamed.
Wouldn`t it be great if they had a blue tent to screen him off as he went from the back door of the court to the van ?
Funny old world he was encouraging liars to stand up in court to get AR jailed and off he pops today.
Natalie McGarry got 2 years for embezzlement, so I`d expect that will be the minimum for him , but I`ll take a punt that he`s got security services connections and he`ll get 3 years for taking the wrap covering for others.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JgQsmcWoJ/
Nobody lied about Alex Salmond though.
His lawyer even said he was a creep but not a criminal.
If I did what he admitted to doing at my work I would be sacked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 16:12
Tenruh`s way out with his prediction of the sentence too. Bang goes another conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 23 Jun 20:46
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Tue 23 Jun 15:35
Quote:
Tenruh, Tue 23 Jun 07:38
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 05:37
Murrell is due to be sentenced today. I think the proceedings will be streamed.
Wouldn`t it be great if they had a blue tent to screen him off as he went from the back door of the court to the van ?
Funny old world he was encouraging liars to stand up in court to get AR jailed and off he pops today.
Natalie McGarry got 2 years for embezzlement, so I`d expect that will be the minimum for him , but I`ll take a punt that he`s got security services connections and he`ll get 3 years for taking the wrap covering for others.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JgQsmcWoJ/
Nobody lied about Alex Salmond though.
His lawyer even said he was a creep but not a criminal.
If I did what he admitted to doing at my work I would be sacked.
The court judgement confirmed the complainants lied. His lawyer confirmed he wasn`t a criminal....suck it up loser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 23 Jun 20:52
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 16:12
Tenruh`s way out with his prediction of the sentence too. Bang goes another conspiracy theory.
Its obviously hard for you to understand what`s been going on....blue tent man was a crook. And he`s part of a group of snakes in the grass who`ve destroyed independence in our lifetimes.
EVER GET THE FEELING YOU`VE BEEN CHEATED?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 21:43
I haven`t been cheated because I haven`t invested in anything. A political party is the last place I`d be donating money to.
From what I`ve seen and read Murrell was acting on his own. Nobody seems to know what his motivation was which means folk come up with their own explanations and are convinced they are right. I watched a documentary on BBC tonight which didn`t really add anything to what we know already but, yet again, no one questioned why the auditors didn`t seem to raise any issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 23 Jun 21:45
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Tue 23 Jun 15:35
Quote:
Tenruh, Tue 23 Jun 07:38
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 05:37
Murrell is due to be sentenced today. I think the proceedings will be streamed.
Wouldn`t it be great if they had a blue tent to screen him off as he went from the back door of the court to the van ?
Funny old world he was encouraging liars to stand up in court to get AR jailed and off he pops today.
Natalie McGarry got 2 years for embezzlement, so I`d expect that will be the minimum for him , but I`ll take a punt that he`s got security services connections and he`ll get 3 years for taking the wrap covering for others.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JgQsmcWoJ/
Nobody lied about Alex Salmond though.
His lawyer even said he was a creep but not a criminal.
If I did what he admitted to doing at my work I would be sacked.
1 was removed by the prosecution at the start of the trial after her story fell apart before it began.
12 not guilty’s
1 not proven
The SNP governmental investigations were found to be unlawful, procedurally unfair and tainted by bias
There was the inconsistencies in evidence that included deleted and withheld messages, withheld documents and involvement of political staff in civil service matters.
If he was creepy, he was creepy and that was on him but the if there was a case against him the SNP made an ar53 of it or there was no case against him and they tried their level best to manufacture one.
Either way, the SNP weren’t exactly truthful.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 23 Jun 21:50
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 21:43
I haven`t been cheated because I haven`t invested in anything. A political party is the last place I`d be donating money to.
From what I`ve seen and read Murrell was acting on his own. Nobody seems to know what his motivation was which means folk come up with their own explanations and are convinced they are right. I watched a documentary on BBC tonight which didn`t really add anything to what we know already but, yet again, no one questioned why the auditors didn`t seem to raise any issues.
I agree that there is no evidence and the BBC may well avoid asking the questions but it kind of hard to look through the timeline of events and the people involved and believe that he was some lone wolf acting completely on his own, especially as there aren’t certain questions being asked.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 22:17
We don`t know what questions the police asked but why would they hold back? He was also questioned by whoever prepared the social work report for the judge before sentencing and they could not explain his motivation. As I said, unfortunately this leaves it open to folk to come up with their own theories.
The BBC spoke to a guy who had known Murrell and Swinney for years and he was amazed at what he had done. He has the means to repay the amount embezzled so it doesn`t seem the motivation was purely financial. As the judge said, many of the high value items bought illegally were never used. Maybe Murrell`s saving his story up for a blockbuster!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 23 Jun 22:24
It’s raising more questions. I don’t think anyone connected to that set of SNP hierarchy can be trusted-including Swinney.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 23 Jun 22:41
Is that your `gut feeling` or is there any substance to it? That`s the sort of stuff that gets said on social media and folk believe it. When it comes to politics few people are truly neutral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Wed 24 Jun 08:45
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 23 Jun 22:41
Is that your `gut feeling` or is there any substance to it? That`s the sort of stuff that gets said on social media and folk believe it. When it comes to politics few people are truly neutral.
It’s my opinion and I base on a growing list of controversies including but not exclusive to times when SNP Governments have been found to delete messages, withhold documentation and had political staff involved in and/or tried to influence civil service matters.
It’s not been made up, it’s all been documented - you can easily find it for yourself.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 24 Jun 10:25
I think that`s just the stuff of government and not exclusive to the SNP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Wed 24 Jun 12:23
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 24 Jun 10:25
I think that`s just the stuff of government and not exclusive to the SNP.
Do you ever question whether it’s a political party or an ideology?
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 24 Jun 12:57
Don`t all political parties favour a particular ideology?
Conservative/Reform - right wing/free enterprise. Labour - left wing(ish)/more state control. Lib Dem - somewhere in between right and left. SNP - independence?
You`d think a political party shouldn`t really have to campaign for independence as all nations should be allowed to look after their own affairs but that doesn`t work in the UK - a `nation` comprising four `nations` but dominated by one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Wed 24 Jun 14:41
Politics are influenced by ideology but there’s a big difference between being influenced by an ideology and using politics to achieve an ideology.
Being for independence is a perfectly legitimate position as is supporting trade unions or having a preference for limited government and being skeptic of state intervention. Doesn’t mean in any position you would let the government run unchecked or allow them to grab as much power as possible and dismiss it as what governments do.
I’m sure you’ve said about holding ourselves to a higher standard in Holyrood compared to Westminster?
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 24 Jun 14:53
`Run unchecked`? They`ve got Westminster sticking their noses in when it suits them and a very hostile media that criticise their every move. We also have elections every 5 years with a voting system designed to minimise the chance of one party gaining control. It`s the very opposite of `unchecked`!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dandy Warhol
Date: Wed 24 Jun 22:20
Every single one of the parties are filthy, it`s a filthy game.
I don`t wanna go down like disco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
