| Topic: Murrell |
|---|
| 21. Author: halbe Date: Mon 25th May 2026. 16:01 Swinney didn`t do the crime as he`s telling everyone but he was way too close to the decisions systems, people that allowed this to happen. Surprised he hasn`t already walked - that`s the standard he has held others to... Reply |
| 22. Author: wee eck Date: Mon 25th May 2026. 16:07 Maybe we should wait and hear the facts in court before jumping to conclusions. Reply |
| 23. Author: Hoolie Date: Mon 25th May 2026. 20:58 He was charged and only pleads guilty to not get anyone else involved..Take the hit and that in investigation done. We will now never know what really happened. Reply |
| 24. Author: wee eck Date: Mon 25th May 2026. 21:21 Who needs trials with know-alls like you around? Reply |
| 25. Author: jake89 Date: Mon 25th May 2026. 22:45 He`s literally pled guilty. The only unanswered question will be who else was in on it. There`s no way Sturgeon didn`t know. He was buying cars and getting hundreds of Amazon packages FFS. I suppose what he bought might be of interest. I`ve never been an SNP member but I`d be absolutely furious about this. It seems Chapman was right. Reply |
| 26. Author: wee eck Date: Mon 25th May 2026. 23:32 If Nicola Sturgeon knew, why wasn`t she charged? Similarly, the treasurer, Colin Beattie? If you want details of what he bought there are plenty media reports and some are quite inexpensive items. Reply |
| 27. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 09:14 wee eck, Mon 25 May 23:32 It’s okay he stole a large sum of money because he bought inexpensive items with it No his wife who happened to be party leader and first minister at the time definitely didn’t know anything about it Colin Beattie definitely didn’t know because Sturgeon didn’t know Nobody knew anything and forgot everything apart from Murrell SNP doesn’t have a corruption problem. COYP Reply |
| 28. Author: ipswichpar Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 09:30 How expensive are your salt and pepper shakers if £2700 is inexpensive?!?! Reply |
| 29. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 09:43 Where did I say the salt and pepper shakers were inexpensive? I was simply pointing out the curious fact that someone who embezzled over £400k spent some of it on random items he could have easily afforded without embezzling from his employer. They`re debating that particular issue on the radio as we speak but let`s just bash the SNP. Reply |
| 30. Author: ipswichpar Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 10:00 Not you, NMC. This isn`t about the individual purchases anyway.... this is about an absolute abuse of power. Folk were bound to realise what was likely going on unless he was telling them he was some sort of investment whizz. I don`t believe that they didn`t have any suspicion or that they weren`t duty bound to flag their suspicion given the position they held. Reply |
| 31. Author: Jimmy riddell Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 10:17 As I understand it these charges relate to the theft of over £400k from SNP party funds. The ‘missing’ £600k of the supposedly ring-fenced IndyRef2 kitty is a separate issue and still unresolved. Reply |
| 32. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 10:31 I`ve seen nothing in the reports I`ve read to suggest that is the case. Reply |
| 33. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 10:53 ipswichpar, Tue 26 May 10:00 I largely agree. In my opinion Sturgeon knew about everything - given their professional and personal relationship she both knew and profited from it. I was being facetious because I still can’t believe that people seem to think that Sturgeon or any of the other top brass at the SNP knew nothing about it. And as someone’s pointed out the roughly £400k he’s admitted to isn’t the original £600k that’s missing however some of the £400k may have came from the missing £600k - apparently nobody knows. I don’t think we’ll ever know because they’ve shifting paperwork and numbers to the point it’ll cost to much to find out. However, it does make you wonder if it’s £1million that’s missing… or more 🤷🏻♂️ I’ve got to say though that your point about the abuse of power is actually the bit that sticks in my gullet about it. I was totally on the SNP Indy hype train and they’ve been shown to be crooks since then. COYP Post Edited (Tue 26 May 11:10) Reply |
| 34. Author: jake89 Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 10:59 How could she NOT know? "That`s a nice new motorhome your mum`s got, Pete. That`s lovely." "Is that the Amazon delivery driver again? He`s never away from this house. I think he fancies you." "New Jag? Oh, you`ve been putting money aside and the dealer was practically giving them away? Good work!" "What`s this letter from the bank for an account with the name `Totally not Peter`s embezzled funds`?" Reply |
| 35. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 11:13 Do you think the police didn`t raise these issues during their investigation? If her answers were implausible why not charge her? Reply |
| 36. Author: Jimmy riddell Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 11:19 That’s why he’s now pled guilty so we move onto sentencing. No trial with witnesses questioned under oath etc so no one else gets implicated including Sturgeon and Swinney. All swept under the carpet. Reply |
| 37. Author: ipswichpar Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 11:37 wee eck, Tue 26 May 11:13 Well, I am sure that deals have been done on other cases where the threshold of 50% confidence that the COFPS would need to meet to take the case might mean sort of plea bargain might be more attractive. I know if my partner was never off Amazon and bought two expensive brand new cars I would be asking where the money came from. Guess, as you suggest, we will just need to wait and see what kind of evidence is provided. Reply |
| 38. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 11:44 You are SURE deals have been done? No point debating it then. You can justify any conspiracy with that attitude. Who needs Donald Trump when we`ve got .net? Reply |
| 39. Author: ipswichpar Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 11:55 Christ.... you don`t debate anything.....folk agree with you or they are wrong. For the avoidance of any doubt, the "deal" I was referring to were historical matters not relating to this specific case. It is well known that lawyers often will accept an outcome that isn`t perfect in either direction if it is pragmatic to do so. As I say, and as you say, best waiting until the facts are out. But often if something on my shoe smells like dog **** and looks like dog ****, it is normally dog ****. And this specific case looks and smells a bit strange to me. Reply |
| 40. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 12:22 Maybe it`s my professional training that has persuaded me that it`s best to know the full facts before speculating but social media doesn`t encourage that attitude. Reply |