The Scottish Politics Thread

[tc27]

Janey Goodley in with the folksy sweary voice-over..acceptable satire.

[Tichtheid]

I thought it was quite funny, myself.

[inactionman]

Listening to concerns and changing the legislation on labelling* plus lowering the cost per unit (by 40% in the case of aluminium cans) is rabid backtracking?

I think that comes across as a rather partizan view.

edit I misread rapid as rabid, or did you change it? :-)


*the bar coding is supposed to make the scheme more secure and mitigate against items brought in across the border and into the Scottish market illicitly, so in effect would help the Scottish manufacturers in ensuring they are not put at a disadvantage.

I'm going to have to take a step backwards on this, I have been caught up in social media again and have become a lot less productive in what I want to do.

I get wine through the wine society and they've sent out their annual review, with a specific point made about the recycling scheme and likely costs.

I post this here only as I've just received the annual review today and it's just an interesting observation related to your point about labelling costs rather than any substantive comment, so please don't feel the need to respond if you don't want to revive the discussion.

LEGISLATION
Legislation on alcohol, social and environmental issues is
beginning to have a significant cost and resource impact on
The Society and we expect this to increase.
We are a global business, sourcing wine from more than 26
countries, and we have an increasing array of legislation, risk,
cost and compliance to contend with in every one of them.
In the UK: our packaging compliance fees increased to over
£600,000 last year and are likely to increase again this year;
there are still uncertainties around whether and, if so, how it
will be implemented, but Scotland has said it will introduce
a bottle deposit return scheme which is currently expected
to be introduced in March 2024, and will require us to put
in place specific compliance processes, including separate
labels for bottles provided to members based there; Wales
has announced it will bring in similar requirements, requiring
separate processes and labelling; and, as mentioned above,
there is a new, and significantly more complicated, duty
scheme to come into effect in August which will increase
duty on the majority of our wine.

eta: to give a rough idea of cost, the society reckons to spend £600k on packing compliance fees and that's on a stated sales volume of 1,360,000 cases.

[Tichtheid]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

£600k represents 0.375% of that income

[inactionman]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

I'm not sure on the currency of the report relative to the legislation, as the report is fresh off press but that's of course not to say it wasn't written weeks ago. They're pretty noncommittal on details just noting that there will be costs.

And yep, they shift a lot of wine and some of it at eye-watering prices* so it's a significant turnover.

Worth bearing in mind that admin costs tend to hit smaller businesses harder, as they still need to meet the same legislation on a reduced economy of scale.

I just thought it was a handy line in the sand.

*not what I buy though, it's more their £8-10 range is notably better than anything the supermarkets offer, even to my relatively uncultured palate.

[Slick]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

£600k represents 0.375% of that income

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

[Tichtheid]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

£600k represents 0.375% of that income

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

inactionman gave numbers of 1,360,000 cases. That's nearly 8 million bottles in a six bottle case, double that for a 12 bottle case. Taking the lowest, most conservative numbers (6 bottle case at £2 profit per bottle), they would make16 million quid profit , even if new labelling (which is not a requirement) doubled their costs (using an exaggerated estimate) they would still be making nearly fifteen and half million pounds profit.

[Slick]

Thought the flowers were a lovely touch..... FFS, making us an absolute laughing stock.

[robmatic]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

£600k represents 0.375% of that income

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

inactionman gave numbers of 1,360,000 cases. That's nearly 8 million bottles in a six bottle case, double that for a 12 bottle case. Taking the lowest, most conservative numbers (6 bottle case at £2 profit per bottle), they would make16 million quid profit , even if new labelling (which is not a requirement) doubled their costs (using an exaggerated estimate) they would still be making nearly fifteen and half million pounds profit.

It probably isn't a big deal for companies operating at scale like that.

[Tichtheid]

Thought the flowers were a lovely touch..... FFS, making us an absolute laughing stock.

Personally I don't give a fuck about a group showing support for a colleague who hasn't been found guilty of anything, not even charged. Even if she was charged and found guilty I'd not care about sending flowers to Sturgeon as long as there hasn't been any harm done to any person.

There have been comparisons to previous MSPs who have been suspended or "temporarily resigned the whip". From what I remember one was harassing women, one was harassing a young boy (both 'fessed up) and one was caught up in what looked like dodgy as fuck property deals from which she and her husband were said to have profited handsomely and some desperate people got badly ripped off, allegedly - that charge was thrown out due to lack of evidence several years after the fact but now she is calling for Sturgeon to be suspended.

This is an interesting point in the SNP's history, if the clamour for Sturgeon's suspension is loud enough to distract from the day to day business of the party and the government, then she will be made to step down until she is either cleared or charged. However that would be a blow to Yousaf and the party, so enemies from without and within will be making as much noise as possible.

The charge, at least what it looks like from out here, is misuse of £600k which was supposedly earmarked for a campaign for another referendum - is that what the SNP have been doing by way of the testing Westminster blocking in the court?

Why did they buy a motorhome? They've already claimed it was to be a "Battle-bus", rightly or wrongly, how do you prove this to be fraud? I'm not a lawyer, but if they say it was bought for that reason, how do you prove otherwise?

[Slick]

Thought the flowers were a lovely touch..... FFS, making us an absolute laughing stock.

Personally I don't give a fuck about a group showing support for a colleague who hasn't been found guilty of anything, not even charged. Even if she was charged and found guilty I'd not care about sending flowers to Sturgeon as long as there hasn't been any harm done to any person.

There have been comparisons to previous MSPs who have been suspended or "temporarily resigned the whip". From what I remember one was harassing women, one was harassing a young boy (both 'fessed up) and one was caught up in what looked like dodgy as fuck property deals from which she and her husband were said to have profited handsomely and some desperate people got badly ripped off, allegedly - that charge was thrown out due to lack of evidence several years after the fact but now she is calling for Sturgeon to be suspended.

This is an interesting point in the SNP's history, if the clamour for Sturgeon's suspension is loud enough to distract from the day to day business of the party and the government, then she will be made to step down until she is either cleared or charged. However that would be a blow to Yousaf and the party, so enemies from without and within will be making as much noise as possible.

The charge, at least what it looks like from out here, is misuse of £600k which was supposedly earmarked for a campaign for another referendum - is that what the SNP have been doing by way of the testing Westminster blocking in the court?

Why did they buy a motorhome? They've already claimed it was to be a "Battle-bus", rightly or wrongly, how do you prove this to be fraud? I'm not a lawyer, but if they say it was bought for that reason, how do you prove otherwise?

I honestly don't give a fuck either way if she is suspended or not, it's all pantomime.

I do find it excruciatingly embarrassing that the Deputy leader comes out and says the party have sent her flowers because she is having a hard time. It's just such small time, unserious, cultish nonsense. They are playing to their base but this stuff goes national and international and it's embarrassing

[Tichtheid]

Thought the flowers were a lovely touch..... FFS, making us an absolute laughing stock.

Personally I don't give a fuck about a group showing support for a colleague who hasn't been found guilty of anything, not even charged. Even if she was charged and found guilty I'd not care about sending flowers to Sturgeon as long as there hasn't been any harm done to any person.

There have been comparisons to previous MSPs who have been suspended or "temporarily resigned the whip". From what I remember one was harassing women, one was harassing a young boy (both 'fessed up) and one was caught up in what looked like dodgy as fuck property deals from which she and her husband were said to have profited handsomely and some desperate people got badly ripped off, allegedly - that charge was thrown out due to lack of evidence several years after the fact but now she is calling for Sturgeon to be suspended.

This is an interesting point in the SNP's history, if the clamour for Sturgeon's suspension is loud enough to distract from the day to day business of the party and the government, then she will be made to step down until she is either cleared or charged. However that would be a blow to Yousaf and the party, so enemies from without and within will be making as much noise as possible.

The charge, at least what it looks like from out here, is misuse of £600k which was supposedly earmarked for a campaign for another referendum - is that what the SNP have been doing by way of the testing Westminster blocking in the court?

Why did they buy a motorhome? They've already claimed it was to be a "Battle-bus", rightly or wrongly, how do you prove this to be fraud? I'm not a lawyer, but if they say it was bought for that reason, how do you prove otherwise?

I honestly don't give a fuck either way if she is suspended or not, it's all pantomime.

I do find it excruciatingly embarrassing that the Deputy leader comes out and says the party have sent her flowers because she is having a hard time. It's just such small time, unserious, cultish nonsense. They are playing to their base but this stuff goes national and international and it's embarrassing

What's that Eleanor Roosevelt quote?

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

I don't think you need to be excruciatingly embarrassed by someone being sent flowers, or cringe at the idea, it really isn't a big deal, move on. I doubt I'll read about the flowers on the front page of The New York Times


edit, for interest's sake, I looked up The Scotsman, The Herald, The Guardian, The Telegraph and the Times - I can't see anything about Sturgeon being sent flowers on the front pages of those websites.

[inactionman]

Thought the flowers were a lovely touch..... FFS, making us an absolute laughing stock.

Personally I don't give a fuck about a group showing support for a colleague who hasn't been found guilty of anything, not even charged. Even if she was charged and found guilty I'd not care about sending flowers to Sturgeon as long as there hasn't been any harm done to any person.

There have been comparisons to previous MSPs who have been suspended or "temporarily resigned the whip". From what I remember one was harassing women, one was harassing a young boy (both 'fessed up) and one was caught up in what looked like dodgy as fuck property deals from which she and her husband were said to have profited handsomely and some desperate people got badly ripped off, allegedly - that charge was thrown out due to lack of evidence several years after the fact but now she is calling for Sturgeon to be suspended.

This is an interesting point in the SNP's history, if the clamour for Sturgeon's suspension is loud enough to distract from the day to day business of the party and the government, then she will be made to step down until she is either cleared or charged. However that would be a blow to Yousaf and the party, so enemies from without and within will be making as much noise as possible.

The charge, at least what it looks like from out here, is misuse of £600k which was supposedly earmarked for a campaign for another referendum - is that what the SNP have been doing by way of the testing Westminster blocking in the court?

Why did they buy a motorhome? They've already claimed it was to be a "Battle-bus", rightly or wrongly, how do you prove this to be fraud? I'm not a lawyer, but if they say it was bought for that reason, how do you prove otherwise?

I'll admit I find it hard to work out where that particular offence is, if the donations were intended to support another referendum then I'd argue (more precisely, I'd acknowledge with wearied sigh) that most of what the SNP get up to is driving for that particular goal. I can only assume there were some very specific terms and conditions associated with the donations.

On the motorhome question, I run my own small business and my accountant makes very clear that anything I buy - and claim all the tax reliefs for - must be for specific, defined business use. If I bought a company car and left it with my parents, I'd expect some pointed questions to be asked and I'd be expected to answer them - in the case of the SNP, to be brutally frank, it is becoming apparent that quick, clear and acceptable answers were not immediately forthcoming and this is not good.

[Tichtheid]

I'll admit I find it hard to work out where that particular offence is, if the donations were intended to support another referendum then I'd argue (more precisely, I'd acknowledge with wearied sigh) that most of what the SNP get up to is driving for that particular goal. I can only assume there were some very specific terms and conditions associated with the donations.

On the motorhome question, I run my own small business and my accountant makes very clear that anything I buy - and claim all the tax reliefs for - must be for specific, defined business use. If I bought a company car and left it with my parents, I'd expect some pointed questions to be asked and I'd be expected to answer them - in the case of the SNP, to be brutally frank, it is becoming apparent that quick, clear and acceptable answers were not immediately forthcoming and this is not good.

I think the motor home looks dodgy as hell, but like I say, if they state it was bought as a Battle bus to further the cause of a referendum and independence, how can it be proven otherwise?

Unless there are texts or emails saying "We'll have a great craic on holiday in this", it's going to be a difficult case to prove.

[inactionman]

I'll admit I find it hard to work out where that particular offence is, if the donations were intended to support another referendum then I'd argue (more precisely, I'd acknowledge with wearied sigh) that most of what the SNP get up to is driving for that particular goal. I can only assume there were some very specific terms and conditions associated with the donations.

On the motorhome question, I run my own small business and my accountant makes very clear that anything I buy - and claim all the tax reliefs for - must be for specific, defined business use. If I bought a company car and left it with my parents, I'd expect some pointed questions to be asked and I'd be expected to answer them - in the case of the SNP, to be brutally frank, it is becoming apparent that quick, clear and acceptable answers were not immediately forthcoming and this is not good.

I think the motor home looks dodgy as hell, but like I say, if they state it was bought as a Battle bus to further the cause of a referendum and independence, how can it be proven otherwise?

Unless there are texts or emails saying "We'll have a great craic on holiday in this", it's going to be a difficult case to prove.

It was made clear to me I would need to justify the equipment I bought, if I was challenged on it . I'm amazed they've struggled to do that. From memory, didn't matey-boy, the finance director not actually know about it?

[Tichtheid]

I'll admit I find it hard to work out where that particular offence is, if the donations were intended to support another referendum then I'd argue (more precisely, I'd acknowledge with wearied sigh) that most of what the SNP get up to is driving for that particular goal. I can only assume there were some very specific terms and conditions associated with the donations.

On the motorhome question, I run my own small business and my accountant makes very clear that anything I buy - and claim all the tax reliefs for - must be for specific, defined business use. If I bought a company car and left it with my parents, I'd expect some pointed questions to be asked and I'd be expected to answer them - in the case of the SNP, to be brutally frank, it is becoming apparent that quick, clear and acceptable answers were not immediately forthcoming and this is not good.

I think the motor home looks dodgy as hell, but like I say, if they state it was bought as a Battle bus to further the cause of a referendum and independence, how can it be proven otherwise?

Unless there are texts or emails saying "We'll have a great craic on holiday in this", it's going to be a difficult case to prove.

It was made clear to me I would need to justify the equipment I bought, if I was challenged on it . I'm a bit amazed they've struggled to do that. From memory, didn't matey-boy, the finance director not actually know about it?

This might amuse you, from an article in the Scotsman


(the motorhome brand is) Niesmann+Bischof, whose company slogan is 'breaking all the rules',


edit, from what I can gather the bus was bought during lockdown in 2021 . It has never been insured and sat on Peter Murrell's mother's driveway for two years before being impounded by the police.

A couple of thoughts, one Peter Murrell's mother must live in a safe neighbourhood, two, if it was for personal jollies, surely it would have been used by now? (Sturgeon doesn't have a driving licence iirc)

[inactionman]

I think the motor home looks dodgy as hell, but like I say, if they state it was bought as a Battle bus to further the cause of a referendum and independence, how can it be proven otherwise?

Unless there are texts or emails saying "We'll have a great craic on holiday in this", it's going to be a difficult case to prove.

It was made clear to me I would need to justify the equipment I bought, if I was challenged on it . I'm a bit amazed they've struggled to do that. From memory, didn't matey-boy, the finance director not actually know about it?

This might amuse you, from an article in the Scotsman


(the motorhome brand is) Niesmann+Bischof, whose company slogan is 'breaking all the rules',

I'm of the camp that most fuck-ups are due to incompetence rather than malice, but I'd have thought a whacking great motorhome with such an awesome strapline would be pretty hard to miss.

Where they're running the party and their finances as their own personal fiefdom with no real check and balance (which is what I'm led to believe) or whether they're grafters (which I'm less inclined to believe but can't discount, and expect there's a bit of inflated expenses accounts in evidence) doesn't really matter in terms of accountability. Although obviously one is a greater offence than the other.

[Lobby]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

£600k represents 0.375% of that income

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

inactionman gave numbers of 1,360,000 cases. That's nearly 8 million bottles in a six bottle case, double that for a 12 bottle case. Taking the lowest, most conservative numbers (6 bottle case at £2 profit per bottle), they would make16 million quid profit , even if new labelling (which is not a requirement) doubled their costs (using an exaggerated estimate) they would still be making nearly fifteen and half million pounds profit.

Rather than making various back of a fag packet calculations, you could always look at their published annual accounts for last year. The annual accounts for 2022-3 state their profit after taxation was £1.5m, so you can see why adding another £600k to their costs might be an issue for them.

[Slick]

Personally I don't give a fuck about a group showing support for a colleague who hasn't been found guilty of anything, not even charged. Even if she was charged and found guilty I'd not care about sending flowers to Sturgeon as long as there hasn't been any harm done to any person.

There have been comparisons to previous MSPs who have been suspended or "temporarily resigned the whip". From what I remember one was harassing women, one was harassing a young boy (both 'fessed up) and one was caught up in what looked like dodgy as fuck property deals from which she and her husband were said to have profited handsomely and some desperate people got badly ripped off, allegedly - that charge was thrown out due to lack of evidence several years after the fact but now she is calling for Sturgeon to be suspended.

This is an interesting point in the SNP's history, if the clamour for Sturgeon's suspension is loud enough to distract from the day to day business of the party and the government, then she will be made to step down until she is either cleared or charged. However that would be a blow to Yousaf and the party, so enemies from without and within will be making as much noise as possible.

The charge, at least what it looks like from out here, is misuse of £600k which was supposedly earmarked for a campaign for another referendum - is that what the SNP have been doing by way of the testing Westminster blocking in the court?

Why did they buy a motorhome? They've already claimed it was to be a "Battle-bus", rightly or wrongly, how do you prove this to be fraud? I'm not a lawyer, but if they say it was bought for that reason, how do you prove otherwise?

I honestly don't give a fuck either way if she is suspended or not, it's all pantomime.

I do find it excruciatingly embarrassing that the Deputy leader comes out and says the party have sent her flowers because she is having a hard time. It's just such small time, unserious, cultish nonsense. They are playing to their base but this stuff goes national and international and it's embarrassing

What's that Eleanor Roosevelt quote?

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

I don't think you need to be excruciatingly embarrassed by someone being sent flowers, or cringe at the idea, it really isn't a big deal, move on. I doubt I'll read about the flowers on the front page of The New York Times


edit, for interest's sake, I looked up The Scotsman, The Herald, The Guardian, The Telegraph and the Times - I can't see anything about Sturgeon being sent flowers on the front pages of those websites.

[inactionman]

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

inactionman gave numbers of 1,360,000 cases. That's nearly 8 million bottles in a six bottle case, double that for a 12 bottle case. Taking the lowest, most conservative numbers (6 bottle case at £2 profit per bottle), they would make16 million quid profit , even if new labelling (which is not a requirement) doubled their costs (using an exaggerated estimate) they would still be making nearly fifteen and half million pounds profit.

Rather than making various back of a fag packet calculations, you could always look at their published annual accounts for last year. The annual accounts for 2022-3 state their profit after taxation was £1.5m, so you can see why adding another £600k to their costs might be an issue for them.

Ta for digging out.

To be fair, they're a not for profit co-operative, so I'd expect headline profits to be minimal as they're simply to keep a cash reserve than pay a dividend so they reinvest excesses or price to meet a required profit level. If the admin costs go up, it'll probably mean initiatives such as IT improvements get cut back a bit, or the price of my wine goes up a few pence.

£600k isn't chump change for any business, although I recognise not all of that is due to the Scottish scheme, however adding more regulations governed in different ways will just add to this. I only introduced this example, to provide a feel for what administration of legislative requirements actually cost. All businesses will have such costs, so it will add up.

[Tichtheid]

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

inactionman gave numbers of 1,360,000 cases. That's nearly 8 million bottles in a six bottle case, double that for a 12 bottle case. Taking the lowest, most conservative numbers (6 bottle case at £2 profit per bottle), they would make16 million quid profit , even if new labelling (which is not a requirement) doubled their costs (using an exaggerated estimate) they would still be making nearly fifteen and half million pounds profit.

Rather than making various back of a fag packet calculations, you could always look at their published annual accounts for last year. The annual accounts for 2022-3 state their profit after taxation was £1.5m, so you can see why adding another £600k to their costs might be an issue for them.

I used figures provided by, or estimated by others on this thread.

Rather than using back of a fag packet calculations you could find out exactly what increased costs are projected with the legislation as it stands - I used £600k as double their current costs.


Their accounts show a profit for 22/23 at £1.56M, the year before it was £7.75M
https://www.thewinesociety.com/49cbec/g ... 022-23.pdf

[Glaston]

The only thing I’d say very quickly is that they may have printed that before the legislation was changed to not require barcoding or different labels.

Also, the first return from Google suggests the The Wine Society has a gross annual income of a hundred and sixty million pounds, as per their 2022 review

£600k represents 0.375% of that income

Yeah, but they will be making about £2 - £2.50 on a £10 bottle of wine

inactionman gave numbers of 1,360,000 cases. That's nearly 8 million bottles in a six bottle case, double that for a 12 bottle case. Taking the lowest, most conservative numbers (6 bottle case at £2 profit per bottle), they would make16 million quid profit , even if new labelling (which is not a requirement) doubled their costs (using an exaggerated estimate) they would still be making nearly fifteen and half million pounds profit.

2020 Profits after tax were 7.5 million
2021 Profits after tax were 7.7 million

Edit
damn beaten to it

[Tichtheid]

I honestly don't give a fuck either way if she is suspended or not, it's all pantomime.

I do find it excruciatingly embarrassing that the Deputy leader comes out and says the party have sent her flowers because she is having a hard time. It's just such small time, unserious, cultish nonsense. They are playing to their base but this stuff goes national and international and it's embarrassing

What's that Eleanor Roosevelt quote?

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

I don't think you need to be excruciatingly embarrassed by someone being sent flowers, or cringe at the idea, it really isn't a big deal, move on. I doubt I'll read about the flowers on the front page of The New York Times


edit, for interest's sake, I looked up The Scotsman, The Herald, The Guardian, The Telegraph and the Times - I can't see anything about Sturgeon being sent flowers on the front pages of those websites.

I missed this post at the time, soz.


Focusing on the flowers in the headline of that tweet was the editorial decision of STV News, the actual story in that interview was whether or not Sturgeon is going to be suspended.

My looking up those newspapers was to see if they were reporting on the flowers as you said this story was going out nationally and internationally.

[Slick]

What's that Eleanor Roosevelt quote?

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"

I don't think you need to be excruciatingly embarrassed by someone being sent flowers, or cringe at the idea, it really isn't a big deal, move on. I doubt I'll read about the flowers on the front page of The New York Times


edit, for interest's sake, I looked up The Scotsman, The Herald, The Guardian, The Telegraph and the Times - I can't see anything about Sturgeon being sent flowers on the front pages of those websites.

I missed this post at the time, soz.


Focusing on the flowers in the headline of that tweet was the editorial decision of STV News, the actual story in that interview was whether or not Sturgeon is going to be suspended.

My looking up those newspapers was to see if they were reporting on the flowers as you said this story was going out nationally and internationally.

I’m really struggling to get your point here. Whatever the editorial choice, it’s going out internationally with a headline about the flowers and it’s the first thing he talks about. It doesn’t have to be front page news in the NYT for it to be embarrassing, very odd statement.

All those papers mention it somewhere, some more prominently than others, but I wasn’t expecting it to be front page news in the Telegraph.

Fair enough if you think it’s normal for the Deputy Leader to be talking about sending flowers out of sympathy to someone who has been arrested. I don’t.

[Tichtheid]

I’m really struggling to get your point here.

It's quite a simple point, with everything that is going on in the world, in Europe, in the UK and in Scotland, a group sending flowers to a colleague is small potatoes, it's not worth the effort you've put into getting worked up and embarrassed.


This

Fair enough if you think it’s normal for the Deputy Leader to be talking about sending flowers out of sympathy to someone who has been arrested. I don’t.

suggests fish foodie was close when he said you're presuming her guilt.

[Slick]

I’m really struggling to get your point here.

It's quite a simple point, with everything that is going on in the world, in Europe, in the UK and in Scotland, a group sending flowers to a colleague is small potatoes, it's not worth the effort you've put into getting worked up and embarrassed.


This

Fair enough if you think it’s normal for the Deputy Leader to be talking about sending flowers out of sympathy to someone who has been arrested. I don’t.

suggests fish foodie was close when he said you're presuming her guilt.

Eh? All I’ve said is that she has been arrested, absolutely nothing about her guilt. Like everyone else, I’ve absolutely no idea what she is specifically being questioned about.

You are very frustrating

[Tichtheid]

I’m really struggling to get your point here.

It's quite a simple point, with everything that is going on in the world, in Europe, in the UK and in Scotland, a group sending flowers to a colleague is small potatoes, it's not worth the effort you've put into getting worked up and embarrassed.


This

Fair enough if you think it’s normal for the Deputy Leader to be talking about sending flowers out of sympathy to someone who has been arrested. I don’t.

suggests fish foodie was close when he said you're presuming her guilt.

Eh? All I’ve said is that she has been arrested, absolutely nothing about her guilt. Like everyone else, I’ve absolutely no idea what she is specifically being questioned about.

You are very frustrating

Well let me ask you this.

If you had a work colleague who'd had a terrible time over the weekend, would it be so terrible to send them flowers or any other gift, just to let them know you are thinking about them?

If it is being arrested that bothers you, let's suppose you have no doubt about their innocence, are they not worthy of your compassion just because they have been taken into custody and questioned?

If you have an open mind about innocence or guilt in this case, why get so worked up about it?

Suppose they did do something wrong, what is the entry level crime for ditching them and saying, "Hell mend them"?

[Slick]

Fuck me

[Tichtheid]

Fuck me

There's the planet rugby answer yet again.

[Slick]

Fuck me

There's the planet rugby answer yet again.

Well it does feel like speaking to Bimbo on downers sometimes

[Tichtheid]

Fuck me

There's the planet rugby answer yet again.

Well it does feel like speaking to Bimbo on downers sometimes

You can answer the question any time you like, or throw insults.

Your choice

[Prembore]

Personally I wouldn't be making gestures of support to a colleague arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, but maybe I'm old fashioned. I might check up privately to make sure they're okay, but that's about it.

[Tichtheid]

Personally I wouldn't be making gestures of support to a colleague arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, but maybe I'm old fashioned. I might check up privately to make sure they're okay, but that's about it.

We don't know what the "offence" is since there are no charges. If the offence involved persons being harmed then, yeah, but otherwise that seems like a bit of a fair-weather friend approach - who needs mates who are not prepared to say they are your mates when it hits the fan?
They aren't really mates at all.

[Prembore]

My mates would probably prefer I check up on them personally to make sure they're okay than make a public gesture of support, but then I could be wrong. I don't have any high profile politician mates who have been arrested, after all. But if I did then I"d probably be scrupulous, especially if I were in a position of perceived influence, to to make sure I couldn't be construed as attempting to influence the course of any investigations.

My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed but let me know where the line is drawn for you and I'll see if my moral world view matches up

[Tichtheid]

My mates would probably prefer I check up on them pesonally to make sure they're okay than make a public gesture of support, but then I could be wrong. I don't have any high profile politician mates who have been arrested, after all. My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed but let me know where the line is drawn for you and I'll see if my moral world view matches up

Well this is becoming all very adversarial.

I just think that one should stand up for mates in public and private, unless they don't want you to.

Being arrested is not an indication of any wrong doing in this country, at least not yet.

"My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed"

Watching tv on a laptop that is plugged into a wall socket without a tv licence is a criminal offence, I'm not sure who that hurts

[Blackmac]

My mates would probably prefer I check up on them personally to make sure they're okay than make a public gesture of support, but then I could be wrong. I don't have any high profile politician mates who have been arrested, after all. But if I did then I"d probably be scrupulous, especially if I were in a position of perceived influence, to to make sure I couldn't be construed as attempting to influence the course of any investigations.

My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed but let me know where the line is drawn for you and I'll see if my moral world view matches up

Very well put. That's my main concern. Government figures sending messages of sympathy to people under criminal investigation is ludicrous and demonstrates their complete bias in the situation and undermines the credibility of the police's investigation. They are morons.

[Blackmac]

My mates would probably prefer I check up on them pesonally to make sure they're okay than make a public gesture of support, but then I could be wrong. I don't have any high profile politician mates who have been arrested, after all. My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed but let me know where the line is drawn for you and I'll see if my moral world view matches up

Well this is becoming all very adversarial.

I just think that one should stand up for mates in public and private, unless they don't want you to.

Being arrested is not an indication of any wrong doing in this country, at least not yet.

"My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed"

Watching tv on a laptop that is plugged into a wall socket without a tv licence is a criminal offence, I'm not sure who that hurts

You can only be arrested if you are suspected of committing a crime, so yes I would suggest that indicates a suspicion of wrongdoing.

[Tichtheid]

My mates would probably prefer I check up on them pesonally to make sure they're okay than make a public gesture of support, but then I could be wrong. I don't have any high profile politician mates who have been arrested, after all. My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed but let me know where the line is drawn for you and I'll see if my moral world view matches up

Well this is becoming all very adversarial.

I just think that one should stand up for mates in public and private, unless they don't want you to.

Being arrested is not an indication of any wrong doing in this country, at least not yet.

"My impression is that pretty much every crime involves persons being harmed"

Watching tv on a laptop that is plugged into a wall socket without a tv licence is a criminal offence, I'm not sure who that hurts

You can only be arrested if you are suspected of committing a crime, so yes I would suggest that indicates a suspicion of wrongdoing.

That word wasn't in what I said, so you're answering a different question or point.

As yet she hasn't even been charged let alone found guilty.

When she is found guilty I'll condemn her for any crime that has been committed, until then I'm going to presume innocence.

[Plim]

Watching tv on a laptop that is plugged into a wall socket without a tv licence is a criminal offence, I'm not sure who that hurts

I doubt she’s been lifted for that.

[Tichtheid]

Watching tv on a laptop that is plugged into a wall socket without a tv licence is a criminal offence, I'm not sure who that hurts

I doubt she’s been lifted for that.

I think you rather missed the context there.