NPR

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:59 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:45 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:32 pm


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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:03 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:00 pm 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:06 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 1:59 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:45 pm

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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:11 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:03 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 2:00 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:23 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:50 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:23 pm 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:50 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:23 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:17 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:07 pm 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?

robmatic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:17 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:07 pm 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?

robmatic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:17 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:07 pm 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?

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:25 pm 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.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:25 pm 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.

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:53 pm Any charges yet ?

Or were they expecting Sturgeon to flee ?

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:02 pm

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:53 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:46 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:02 pm

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:53 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:14 pm

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:46 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 10:02 pm

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 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:56 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:14 pm

Camroc2 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:46 pm

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 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:44 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:56 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:14 pm

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 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:49 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:44 pm

Plim wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 2:56 pm

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 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:45 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:32 pm

Prembore wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:23 pm 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:53 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:45 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 10:32 pm


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 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:14 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:17 pm 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.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:06 pm

Simian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:14 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 7:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 2:12 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:06 pm

Simian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 05, 2023 10:14 pm

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 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 2:58 pm

Simian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 2:12 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:06 pm

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 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:28 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 6:39 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:28 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 7:51 pm

Big D wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 6:39 pm

Blackmac wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:28 pm 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.