The Scottish Politics Thread

[Blackmac]

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.

You said there was no indication that she had done anything wrong. I think most people would think otherwise, that the police having enough reasonable suspicion to arrest someone is certainly at least an indication that they may have done something wrong. Proving guilt in a court is a completely different thing.
That's the last I'll say about it, because as Slick has already pointed out, debating anything with you can be a very frustrating experience.

[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.

I think you rather missed the context there.

Yes and no. To be honest, I just thought it conjured up a comical image of NS being arrested and questioned for 7 hours about watching The Repair Shop without a TV licence.

[Tichtheid]

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.

You said there was no indication that she had done anything wrong. I think most people would think otherwise, that the police having enough reasonable suspicion to arrest someone is certainly at least an indication that they may have done something wrong. Proving guilt in a court is a completely different thing.
That's the last I'll say about it, because as Slick has already pointed out, debating anything with you can be a very frustrating experience.

There is a reason there is a presumption of innocence and guilt has to be proven.

I'm genuinely open to a well argued and persuasive point but I will counter as best I can if I think it's necessary.

The ones condemning Sturgeon before she's been charged have made their points of view on her and the SNP well-known.

[Blackmac]

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.

Yes and no. To be honest, I just thought it conjured up a comical image of NS being arrested and questioned for 7 hours about watching The Repair Shop without a TV licence.

I think that's what I find most amusing about some of the conspiracy nats on social media. It's almost as if they think the police are doing this for shits and giggles and not that all the available evidence and the decision to arrest someone as high profile as the former FM, and the scrutiny that will come with that, has been considered by numerous people in the highest positions in the Crown Office.

[Tichtheid]

I've just wasted the best part of an hour looking for what charges could be brought against the SNP and eventually I came across the wiki page for Operation Branchform which collates very well practically everything I read on other sites.

Incidentally, there was something on there that recalled a topic from a few pages back, there was talk of the SNP losing £1M of Short Money at Westminster, the accounts were filed in time and so that isn't an issue.

Something that turned up which wasn't on the wiki page is that following an FOI request it seems that Police Scotland have spent a sum eerily close to the £600k they are investigating on Operation Branchform. Nothing wrong with that per se, it just piqued my interest because of the similarity in the numbers. That cost will rise of course.

There is no suggestion from anywhere that I can see of personal enrichment or favours or undue influence, from what I've read it's all about whether the money raised was raised under false pretences if it wasn't directly used for a second referendum campaign, at least I think that's it.

The left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and the lack of transparency are signs of an organisation that is not being well run, but is it a criminal offence?

[Blackmac]

I've just wasted the best part of an hour looking for what charges could be brought against the SNP and eventually I came across the wiki page for Operation Branchform which collates very well practically everything I read on other sites.

Incidentally, there was something on there that recalled a topic from a few pages back, there was talk of the SNP losing £1M of Short Money at Westminster, the accounts were filed in time and so that isn't an issue.

Something that turned up which wasn't on the wiki page is that following an FOI request it seems that Police Scotland have spent a sum eerily close to the £600k they are investigating on Operation Branchform. Nothing wrong with that per se, it just piqued my interest because of the similarity in the numbers. That cost will rise of course.

There is no suggestion from anywhere that I can see of personal enrichment or favours or undue influence, from what I've read it's all about whether the money raised was raised under false pretences if it wasn't directly used for a second referendum campaign, at least I think that's it.

The left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and the lack of transparency are signs of an organisation that is not being well run, but is it a criminal offence?

I actually agree with your last part and I said months ago that I am struggling to see the offences, unless they can prove that there was personal gain or the money was raised and they knew all along that it was not going to be used for the stated purposes. Mismanaging finances raised in good faith is not a crime.

[Tichtheid]

I've just wasted the best part of an hour looking for what charges could be brought against the SNP and eventually I came across the wiki page for Operation Branchform which collates very well practically everything I read on other sites.

Incidentally, there was something on there that recalled a topic from a few pages back, there was talk of the SNP losing £1M of Short Money at Westminster, the accounts were filed in time and so that isn't an issue.

Something that turned up which wasn't on the wiki page is that following an FOI request it seems that Police Scotland have spent a sum eerily close to the £600k they are investigating on Operation Branchform. Nothing wrong with that per se, it just piqued my interest because of the similarity in the numbers. That cost will rise of course.

There is no suggestion from anywhere that I can see of personal enrichment or favours or undue influence, from what I've read it's all about whether the money raised was raised under false pretences if it wasn't directly used for a second referendum campaign, at least I think that's it.

The left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and the lack of transparency are signs of an organisation that is not being well run, but is it a criminal offence?

I actually agree with your last part and I said months ago that I am struggling to see the offences, unless they can prove that there was personal gain or the money was raised and they knew all along that it was not going to be used for the stated purposes. Mismanaging finances raised in good faith is not a crime.

It's actually the reverse in one case - Murrell lent the party around a hundred thousand pounds and there is still 60k that hasn't been paid back (It's either 60k outstanding or 40k, there was a 60/40 split and I can't be arsed looking it up again)

[Slick]

I've just wasted the best part of an hour looking for what charges could be brought against the SNP and eventually I came across the wiki page for Operation Branchform which collates very well practically everything I read on other sites.

Incidentally, there was something on there that recalled a topic from a few pages back, there was talk of the SNP losing £1M of Short Money at Westminster, the accounts were filed in time and so that isn't an issue.

Something that turned up which wasn't on the wiki page is that following an FOI request it seems that Police Scotland have spent a sum eerily close to the £600k they are investigating on Operation Branchform. Nothing wrong with that per se, it just piqued my interest because of the similarity in the numbers. That cost will rise of course.

There is no suggestion from anywhere that I can see of personal enrichment or favours or undue influence, from what I've read it's all about whether the money raised was raised under false pretences if it wasn't directly used for a second referendum campaign, at least I think that's it.

The left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and the lack of transparency are signs of an organisation that is not being well run, but is it a criminal offence?

I actually agree with your last part and I said months ago that I am struggling to see the offences, unless they can prove that there was personal gain or the money was raised and they knew all along that it was not going to be used for the stated purposes. Mismanaging finances raised in good faith is not a crime.

Wasn't there suggestions of lots of small personal items also being purchased from the account. As well as the fucking great campervan of course. No idea of course, just what I've picked up.

Edit: Also, with all the fuss over the video of NS telling everyone everything was fine with the finances, isn't there also the suggestion that they are looking at the cash being solicited on false pretences?

Edit2: actually, I see that's been partly covered.

[Tichtheid]

There was supposedly an Amazon account where people were buying stuff. If that has been used for personal items then whoever is buying them would be stealing from the party, I would have thought.

[robmatic]

There was supposedly an Amazon account where people were buying stuff. If that has been used for personal items then whoever is buying them would be stealing from the party, I would have thought.

That seems like exceptionally small beer. Surely that kind of thing shouldn't be attracting police attention?

[Tichtheid]

There was supposedly an Amazon account where people were buying stuff. If that has been used for personal items then whoever is buying them would be stealing from the party, I would have thought.

That seems like exceptionally small beer. Surely that kind of thing shouldn't be attracting police attention?

Well, it's allegedly 1000s of items going back several years, but were people really buying themselves a Nespresso machine or a pair of socks using party funds? (off the top of my head examples)

[Slick]

There was supposedly an Amazon account where people were buying stuff. If that has been used for personal items then whoever is buying them would be stealing from the party, I would have thought.

That seems like exceptionally small beer. Surely that kind of thing shouldn't be attracting police attention?

You would t think so. I guess just proving the fact no one really knows what it’s all about.

[petej]

There was supposedly an Amazon account where people were buying stuff. If that has been used for personal items then whoever is buying them would be stealing from the party, I would have thought.

That seems like exceptionally small beer. Surely that kind of thing shouldn't be attracting police attention?

Does seem pitiful compared to the stuff going on in Westminster. Like 0.00000001% of the impact of the Truss and kamakwazi coke binge while thinking up the economic policies for the country.

The Scottish police must hugely over resourced compared to the met.

[weegie01]

It is not unusual for there to be a blurring between personal and business in organisations dominated by the same small group for a long time. It is pretty clear that has happened in this case. Usually this is small beer and is dealt with by HMRC rather than the police. The bigger question is whether there was conscious fraud on larger items such as the camper van.

The accounting and adminstration of the SNP would be poor for a corner shop. For example, they received a surprising amount of cash, out of which expenses were then paid. Which is fine as long as there are records, but they are lacking.

The auditors walked away after repeatedly telling them to smarten up. One of the oddest aspects is that the auditors are not sure what their duties and obligations were. The SNP is not a company, but a form of member's club, and a structure basically only used by political parties. There are different rules to companies, charities etc, but as these structures are so rare, they have never been tested and clarified. As it emerged that the SNP were a problem, no audit firm wanted to be left holding the baby when the rules were tested.

There is something wrong in the SNP, but so far no one has come up with a smoking gun that indicates there is an actual serious offence as opposed to a lot of incompetence and low level stuff. There may be, but the absence of proper records is making it hard to prove. But the Police have to investigate until they can show they have looked under every stone or they will be accused of bias / undue influence from the SNP / Scottish Govt.

Whatever you may think of them politically, it turns out that, at the very least, the SNP was badly adminstered by some arrogant numpties who were not nearly as smart as think they are.

[Blackmac]

It is not unusual for there to be a blurring between personal and business in organisations dominated by the same small group for a long time. It is pretty clear that has happened in this case. Usually this is small beer and is dealt with by HMRC rather than the police. The bigger question is whether there was conscious fraud on larger items such as the camper van.

The accounting and adminstration of the SNP would be poor for a corner shop. For example, they received a surprising amount of cash, out of which expenses were then paid. Which is fine as long as there are records, but they are lacking.

The auditors walked away after repeatedly telling them to smarten up. One of the oddest aspects is that the auditors are not sure what their duties and obligations were. The SNP is not a company, but a form of member's club, and a structure basically only used by political parties. There are different rules to companies, charities etc, but as these structures are so rare, they have never been tested and clarified. As it emerged that the SNP were a problem, no audit firm wanted to be left holding the baby when the rules were tested.

There is something wrong in the SNP, but so far no one has come up with a smoking gun that indicates there is an actual serious offence as opposed to a lot of incompetence and low level stuff. There may be, but the absence of proper records is making it hard to prove. But the Police have to investigate until they can show they have looked under every stone or they will be accused of bias / undue influence from the SNP / Scottish Govt.

Whatever you may think of them politically, it turns out that, at the very least, the SNP was badly adminstered by some arrogant numpties who were not nearly as smart as think they are.

The majority of fraud allegations are usually closed off after a quick visit to the person/company complained about. Often they can supply reasonable, verifiable explanations as to what happened to the money and that's the end of it. It seems quite clear here that those involved don't appear to be able to provide that information and have little or no way of explaining or accounting where the £600k went.

[Slick]

It is not unusual for there to be a blurring between personal and business in organisations dominated by the same small group for a long time. It is pretty clear that has happened in this case. Usually this is small beer and is dealt with by HMRC rather than the police. The bigger question is whether there was conscious fraud on larger items such as the camper van.

The accounting and adminstration of the SNP would be poor for a corner shop. For example, they received a surprising amount of cash, out of which expenses were then paid. Which is fine as long as there are records, but they are lacking.

The auditors walked away after repeatedly telling them to smarten up. One of the oddest aspects is that the auditors are not sure what their duties and obligations were. The SNP is not a company, but a form of member's club, and a structure basically only used by political parties. There are different rules to companies, charities etc, but as these structures are so rare, they have never been tested and clarified. As it emerged that the SNP were a problem, no audit firm wanted to be left holding the baby when the rules were tested.

There is something wrong in the SNP, but so far no one has come up with a smoking gun that indicates there is an actual serious offence as opposed to a lot of incompetence and low level stuff. There may be, but the absence of proper records is making it hard to prove. But the Police have to investigate until they can show they have looked under every stone or they will be accused of bias / undue influence from the SNP / Scottish Govt.

Whatever you may think of them politically, it turns out that, at the very least, the SNP was badly adminstered by some arrogant numpties who were not nearly as smart as think they are.

Probably the definitive post on this

[Camroc2]

Any charges yet ?

Or were they expecting Sturgeon to flee ?

[Tichtheid]

Any charges yet ?

Or were they expecting Sturgeon to flee ?

Not yet.

There seem to be at least three camps -

1. Charges? Who needs charges? She's guilty as fuck, throw away the key.
2. You'll never take her, or me, alive.
3. Let's await the outcome of any trial.

There may be more camps.

[Camroc2]

Any charges yet ?

Or were they expecting Sturgeon to flee ?

Not yet.

There seem to be at least three camps -

1. Charges? Who needs charges? She's guilty as fuck, throw away the key.
2. You'll never take her, or me, alive.
3. Let's await the outcome of any trial.

There may be more camps.

Are the Scottish Police not playing with fire - I'm pretty sure Sturgeon would have attended for interview without having her collar felt ?

Why the 'perp walk' equivalent ?

[Blackmac]

Any charges yet ?

Or were they expecting Sturgeon to flee ?

Not yet.

There seem to be at least three camps -

1. Charges? Who needs charges? She's guilty as fuck, throw away the key.
2. You'll never take her, or me, alive.
3. Let's await the outcome of any trial.

There may be more camps.

Are the Scottish Police not playing with fire - I'm pretty sure Sturgeon would have attended for interview without having her collar felt ?

Why the 'perp walk' equivalent ?

You can't. If suspected of a crime she must be formally arrested before she can be legally questioned.
I'm not aware of the circumstances of her arrest but I would imagine she would have been pre warned of what was going on.

[Plim]

Not yet.

There seem to be at least three camps -

1. Charges? Who needs charges? She's guilty as fuck, throw away the key.
2. You'll never take her, or me, alive.
3. Let's await the outcome of any trial.

There may be more camps.

Are the Scottish Police not playing with fire - I'm pretty sure Sturgeon would have attended for interview without having her collar felt ?

Why the 'perp walk' equivalent ?

You can't. If suspected of a crime she must be formally arrested before she can be legally questioned.
I'm not aware of the circumstances of her arrest but I would imagine she would have been pre warned of what was going on.

Can you not be questioned if you voluntarily attend for interview? If you do attend voluntarily, does that make a difference to interview under caution? I.e. is the voluntary interview basis different to the arrested interview basis?

Sorry. Dim questions. But though a lawyer, I’m not police interview-accredited.

[Blackmac]

Are the Scottish Police not playing with fire - I'm pretty sure Sturgeon would have attended for interview without having her collar felt ?

Why the 'perp walk' equivalent ?

You can't. If suspected of a crime she must be formally arrested before she can be legally questioned.
I'm not aware of the circumstances of her arrest but I would imagine she would have been pre warned of what was going on.

Can you not be questioned if you voluntarily attend for interview? If you do attend voluntarily, does that make a difference to interview under caution? I.e. is the voluntary interview basis different to the arrested interview basis?

Sorry. Dim questions. But though a lawyer, I’m not police interview-accredited.

You used to be able to do that. But that was prior to our questioning procedures and laws being overhauled in 2016. Because our process of detention and questioning was so restrictive we used to have to work the system a bit and to be honest probably abused the hell out of the voluntary attendance process. The lawyers of bang to right murderers were always slightly pissed off to find that their client had voluntarily attended for questioning.....
Nowadays there is a strict system that prior to any questioning a suspect must be arrested so that they can receive all the rights of an suspect/arrested person. It works both ways though as the new system allows police more time and opportunities for questioning and charging.
I think this is where the Scottish public struggle as they were used to a system where a person was detained for questioning, but an arrested person was always charged.
Essentially even if a person agrees to attend for questioning they still have to be arrested.

[Tichtheid]

You can't. If suspected of a crime she must be formally arrested before she can be legally questioned.
I'm not aware of the circumstances of her arrest but I would imagine she would have been pre warned of what was going on.

Can you not be questioned if you voluntarily attend for interview? If you do attend voluntarily, does that make a difference to interview under caution? I.e. is the voluntary interview basis different to the arrested interview basis?

Sorry. Dim questions. But though a lawyer, I’m not police interview-accredited.

You used to be able to do that. But that was prior to our questioning procedures and laws being overhauled in 2016. Because our process of detention and questioning was so restrictive we used to have to work the system a bit and to be honest probably abused the hell out of the voluntary attendance process. The lawyers of bang to right murderers were always slightly pissed off to find that their client had voluntarily attended for questioning.....
Nowadays there is a strict system that prior to any questioning a suspect must be arrested so that they can receive all the rights of an suspect/arrested person. It works both ways though as the new system allows police more time and opportunities for questioning and charging.
I think this is where the Scottish public struggle as they were used to a system where a person was detained for questioning, but an arrested person was always charged.
Essentially even if a person agrees to attend for questioning they still have to be arrested.

Aye, I think the "interview under caution" without arrest still can be used in England and Wales, at least that's what it looks like from Googling it just now.

[Blackmac]

Can you not be questioned if you voluntarily attend for interview? If you do attend voluntarily, does that make a difference to interview under caution? I.e. is the voluntary interview basis different to the arrested interview basis?

Sorry. Dim questions. But though a lawyer, I’m not police interview-accredited.

You used to be able to do that. But that was prior to our questioning procedures and laws being overhauled in 2016. Because our process of detention and questioning was so restrictive we used to have to work the system a bit and to be honest probably abused the hell out of the voluntary attendance process. The lawyers of bang to right murderers were always slightly pissed off to find that their client had voluntarily attended for questioning.....
Nowadays there is a strict system that prior to any questioning a suspect must be arrested so that they can receive all the rights of an suspect/arrested person. It works both ways though as the new system allows police more time and opportunities for questioning and charging.
I think this is where the Scottish public struggle as they were used to a system where a person was detained for questioning, but an arrested person was always charged.
Essentially even if a person agrees to attend for questioning they still have to be arrested.

Aye, I think the "interview under caution" without arrest still can be used in England and Wales, at least that's what it looks like from Googling it just now.

It can still be used for minor offences not and in certain exceptions but any cop interviewing the ex FM would rightly want procedures to be watertight.

Scotland basically adopted England's system and they were still hashing out the issues when I retired

[Plim]

Thank you Blackmac. The professional expertise and insight is much appreciated.

[Camroc2]

Thanks for explaining, Blackmac.

[Slick]

Relax everyone, the good times are just around the corner, we got another Independence policy document today from the FM

[Blackmac]

I did chuckle that the incompetent twat who blew £300 million on the DRS, didn't attend the King's Scottish Coronation as she didn't think it was good use of public money.

[Camroc2]

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

With all due respect, you previously stated that Police Scotland have a policy of arresting anyone they want to talk to, rather than inviting them to a Station for a chat.
You can only be arrested if you are suspected of committing a crime, so yes I would suggest that indicates a suspicion of wrongdoing.

[Simian]

I did chuckle that the incompetent twat who blew £300 million on the DRS, didn't attend the King's Scottish Coronation as she didn't think it was good use of public money.

Weird false equivalence

And needless ‘incompetent twat’ comment too. Classy.

[Simian]

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

With all due respect, you previously stated that Police Scotland have a policy of arresting anyone they want to talk to, rather than inviting them to a Station for a chat.
You can only be arrested if you are suspected of committing a crime, so yes I would suggest that indicates a suspicion of wrongdoing.

yup.

[tc27]

Labour look well on the road to recovery in Scotland:





Interesting that Labor are getting lots of second preference votes from SNP voters.

[Blackmac]

I did chuckle that the incompetent twat who blew £300 million on the DRS, didn't attend the King's Scottish Coronation as she didn't think it was good use of public money.

Weird false equivalence

And needless ‘incompetent twat’ comment too. Classy.

Oh fuck, here we go again. You really are too sensitive for this place. And nothing needless about it, Incompetent twat is pretty mild for one of the most useless and dangerous halfwits ever to grace Scottish politics. And that's a low threshold.

[Simian]

I did chuckle that the incompetent twat who blew £300 million on the DRS, didn't attend the King's Scottish Coronation as she didn't think it was good use of public money.

Weird false equivalence

And needless ‘incompetent twat’ comment too. Classy.

Oh fuck, here we go again. You really are too sensitive for this place. And nothing needless about it, Incompetent twat is pretty mild for one of the most useless and dangerous halfwits ever to grace Scottish politics. And that's a low threshold.

you're the one getting all wound up about someone saying you made a dumbass point

[Blackmac]

Weird false equivalence

And needless ‘incompetent twat’ comment too. Classy.

Oh fuck, here we go again. You really are too sensitive for this place. And nothing needless about it, Incompetent twat is pretty mild for one of the most useless and dangerous halfwits ever to grace Scottish politics. And that's a low threshold.

you're the one getting all wound up about someone saying you made a dumbass point

I'm pretty certain that you are the one that got wound up mate. As I said you seem to be incredibly sensitive.
I don't think it's a false equivalence to suggest that a politician that has blown such a vast amount of public money on a failed scheme, with potentially another £400 million in damages due to the drinks and hospitality industry, has any right to talk about what does and doesn't represent good value for public money.

[Simian]

Oh fuck, here we go again. You really are too sensitive for this place. And nothing needless about it, Incompetent twat is pretty mild for one of the most useless and dangerous halfwits ever to grace Scottish politics. And that's a low threshold.

you're the one getting all wound up about someone saying you made a dumbass point

I'm pretty certain that you are the one that got wound up mate. As I said you seem to be incredibly sensitive.
I don't think it's a false equivalence to suggest that a politician that has blown such a vast amount of public money on a failed scheme, with potentially another £400 million in damages due to the drinks and hospitality industry, has any right to talk about what does and doesn't represent good value for public money.

[Blackmac]

Looks like the Glasgow football team aren't going to roll over to Susan Aitken and Glasgow City Council over David Goodwillie. Their statement in response is an absolute stunner.
Begs the question, will Aitken insist that the council withdraw facilities, housing etc from all those that are actually convicted sex offenders and on the sex offenders register.

[Big D]

Looks like the Glasgow football team aren't going to roll over to Susan Aitken and Glasgow City Council over David Goodwillie. Their statement in response is an absolute stunner.
Begs the question, will Aitken insist that the council withdraw facilities, housing etc from all those that are actually convicted sex offenders and on the sex offenders register.

Well over 1000 sex offenders in Glasgow, one of the cities biggest football clubs has a proven track record of a paedophile ring, the leading party in GCC is a party that has lessened prison sentences for rapists under 25 to rehabilitate them and GCC have chosen this case to score points on when DW was under 25 when he was found to "probably" have raped the girl.

Goodwillie has been proven to "probably" be a rapist. I am not keen to see him employed in a football club but GCC have made a howling mess of this. There is zero chance the football club hasn't taken legal advice on this.

Using "probably" as there is a difference between civil and law court.

[Blackmac]

Looks like the Glasgow football team aren't going to roll over to Susan Aitken and Glasgow City Council over David Goodwillie. Their statement in response is an absolute stunner.
Begs the question, will Aitken insist that the council withdraw facilities, housing etc from all those that are actually convicted sex offenders and on the sex offenders register.

Well over 1000 sex offenders in Glasgow, one of the cities biggest football clubs has a proven track record of a paedophile ring, the leading party in GCC is a party that has lessened prison sentences for rapists under 25 to rehabilitate them and GCC have chosen this case to score points on when DW was under 25 when he was found to "probably" have raped the girl.

Goodwillie has been proven to "probably" be a rapist. I am not keen to see him employed in a football club but GCC have made a howling mess of this. There is zero chance the football club hasn't taken legal advice on this.

Using "probably" as there is a difference between civil and law court.

The club's statement is spot on and really put the council in a corner. These pricks love a pile on without a care in the world for the welfare of the person on the receiving end.

[Slick]

Looks like the Glasgow football team aren't going to roll over to Susan Aitken and Glasgow City Council over David Goodwillie. Their statement in response is an absolute stunner.
Begs the question, will Aitken insist that the council withdraw facilities, housing etc from all those that are actually convicted sex offenders and on the sex offenders register.

Well over 1000 sex offenders in Glasgow, one of the cities biggest football clubs has a proven track record of a paedophile ring, the leading party in GCC is a party that has lessened prison sentences for rapists under 25 to rehabilitate them and GCC have chosen this case to score points on when DW was under 25 when he was found to "probably" have raped the girl.

Goodwillie has been proven to "probably" be a rapist. I am not keen to see him employed in a football club but GCC have made a howling mess of this. There is zero chance the football club hasn't taken legal advice on this.

Using "probably" as there is a difference between civil and law court.

The club's statement is spot on and really put the council in a corner. These pricks love a pile on without a care in the world for the welfare of the person on the receiving end.

Have you got a link to the statement?