| Topic: Murrell |
|---|
| 61. Author: Jimmy riddell Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 21:25 We’re into ‘whataboutery’ now. Stay on point. Murrell has admitted his guilt, finally. The issue is was anyone else complicit in a cover up? Post Edited (Tue 26 May 21:27) Reply |
| 62. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 21:50 wee eck, Tue 26 May 20:50 What a pig headed move to try pull that card out because you don’t like the opinions of others. Im a chartered accountant is not really an argument — it’s an appeal to authority. Your qualification isn’t evidence of what someone in a political leadership role knew or didn’t know. COYP Reply |
| 63. Author: wee eck Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 21:53 You asked a question and I answered it. It`s that simple. Give it a rest for goodness sake. Reply |
| 64. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 22:03 wee eck, Tue 26 May 21:53 You might have been an accountant 40 years ago for all I know but you argue like a 6 year old COYP Reply |
| 65. Author: twin par Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 22:21 Obviously,Nicola did not visit the mother in law very often!😂 Reply |
| 66. Author: buffy Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 22:31 NMCmassive, Tue 26 May 22:03 Looks who’s talking. You continually ignore people’s questions and try to justify it by making childish remarks. Are you sure you’re not a politician? Never answering a straight question but prefer to deflect every time. In fact, you read more like a bully. Putting your own issues on to others shoulders by attacking them. ”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019” Post Edited (Tue 26 May 22:34) Reply |
| 67. Author: NMCmassive Date: Tue 26th May 2026. 22:53 buffy, Tue 26 May 22:31 You do realise I ignored his what’s your expertise questions because I thought it was pig headed? Like I’ve already said 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t know what other questions I’ve ignored? Perhaps if you pose them again, I’ll answer it… COYP Reply |
| 68. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 10:53 It seems this thread has won out in the battle of the competing posts, although it has gone a little off-piste (not that that is necessarily a problem). Apparently this all started when Sean Clerkin complained about the ring-fenced money going missing. That it had done so was clear from the published accounts. It was also clear that the SNP had spent six figures on a motor vehicle. Why has never been made clear. Questionable, and odd, but not necessarily illegal. I would guess that a cursory police investigation revealed some loose threads, which, when tugged, revealed more and more shenanigans had taken place. This is partly why this all took so long. It may also go to show that perhaps the police are more adept at identifying fraudulent practice than amateurs, although one wonders what the auditors were doing. Sure, presumably they weren’t going to question why £100k was spent on a motor-home, just that it had been and that it was receipted and accounted for properly. The “why” was down to the executive officers and it does seem that any queries were discouraged and information was not forthcoming – clear evidence of potential malpractice, I would have thought. I’m faintly surprised that Murrell didn’t elect to go to trial – there is an argument that a fair trial might have been impossible, and it is notoriously difficult to get convictions in fraud cases. But the fact that he has pleaded guilty means that a lot of questions will go unasked and little dirty laundry will see the light of day. All very convenient. And people are now lining up to stick the boot in and blame him for everything. Also convenient. Less convenient is the showcase debate on asking for Section 30 powers being completely overshadowed. Is it not common practice to rotate the auditing function amongst different firms every few years? Did this happen? Or is it just the senior partner that changes? Familiarity can speed things up, but complacency can set in. I can imagine that it is possible that if a household is pulling in £220k pa (or whatever) then it might not be obvious if that figure suddenly mysteriously rose to £250k (although I think frauds tend to start off slowly then get more extravagant as the perpetrator gets away with it, and has to cover up more and more tracks). I’m also led to believe that it is possible for a spouse to be completely oblivious to their partner’s dealings. I find this hard to believe of Nicola Sturgeon though. However for party managers not to notice is less excusable. (And the officers who approved the accounts were Murrell, Sturgeon and Beattie - an obvious concentration of risk). And dissent has always been discouraged. Perhaps they needed someone like wee eck to ask awkward questions and not take no for an answer… Reply |
| 69. Author: jake89 Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 11:00 I`m sure everyone knows it`s easier to over spend than to save but you`re talking about extra 30-40k. There`s no kids and they live on a pleasant but pretty average estate. Until recently only one of them could drive. Where did all that extra money go? Reply |
| 70. Author: Tenruh Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 11:22 It`s a truly an odd situation Sturgeon was a control freak and totally micro-managed everything other than the attempt to lock up both Pete and Alex. Apparently when interviewed by the police she sat with her back to them and took a vow of silence...nothing to see here gov... Post Edited (Wed 27 May 11:23) Reply |
| 71. Author: wee eck Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 11:49 My recollection is that, when the purchase of the motor home first came to light it was claimed it was to be converted into some kind of campaign bus and was therefore a legitimate business expense which could be included in the SNP`s accounts. I don`t remember where that came from but examination of the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2021 suggests a motor vehicle costing around £120k was bought. I see the Daily Telegraph has unearthed a witness, around 14 at the time, who says he saw NS at a local supermarket in 2022 telling a fellow-shopper that she had family in Dunfermline. He claims everybody knew about the camper van parked at Mrs Murrell`s house but if you dig deeper into the article it`s reported that the vehicle was parked between her hoiuse and a neighbour`s so that it would not be clear which property it belonged to and it might not even be visible if Mrs M`s house was approached from the front! I`m not aware of any requirement to rotate auditors. Their role in this has always intrigued me but it seems Murrell`s actions were particularly devious. All may be revealed at a hearing next week (separate from the sentencing later in June) when an account of the crime and its detection, approved by the prosecution and defence, will be made public. Ii may give details of Murrell`s plea bargain and why charges were not made against Sturgeon and Beattie. Post Edited (Wed 27 May 11:51) Reply |
| 72. Author: jake89 Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 16:51 Tenruh, Wed 27 May 11:22 I agree. Whether the likes of the camper was a legitimate purchase or not, there`s no way she could miss it. The houses are all bungalows so you can`t exactly hide it! "This is weird. It says here we bought something from ultimatecampers.com for £120k. Oh, we got it for campaigning? Is it like that one your mum got last week?" Reply |
| 73. Author: jake89 Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 16:53 wee eck, Wed 27 May 11:49 I heard she was scoffing a scotch egg outside Halbeath ASDA where she confessed to the lad that the campervan was a mobile love shack and that her and Peter were headed Glencoe in it that night and she`d stacked the fridge with stuffed crust pizzas from the ASDA pizza counter. Reply |
| 74. Author: wee eck Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 17:17 Presumably when you typed that, jake, you thought it was helluva funny. I`m sure a responsible newspaper like the Telegraph would double-check its sources before publishing. Does anyone on here actually know where Mrs M lives and remembers seeing the situation of the said camper van? Reply |
| 75. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 17:39 Where did all that extra money go? Well, yes, I’ve commented on this before (here and elsewhere, to almost universal indifference it must be said). A few years ago there was a mania for politicians publishing tax returns (I was never clear as to what end). So we learned that BoJo was extremely wealthy and paid loads in tax, Rishi Sunak was extremely wealthy and paid loads in tax, and other party leaders had more modest tax arrangements. With Nicola, the media focus was (wrongly, IMO) on the tax paid on her pension, which seemed entirely consistent with one on a high salary with generous pension benefits whose value would breach the annual allowance and would therefore incur a tax charge, payable by the pension scheme with a consequent adjustment to her pension in due course. What was odd in my view was that she had very little taxable investment income which raised the question – what was she doing with her cash? She had no children, no time for expensive hobbies, no posh car, no big house. One would expected to have invested her excess money in a portfolio of investments, prudently managed, but there was no trace of this. Now there are any number of possible explanations – she kept her money under the mattress, she put her money in investments with no immediate return, she secretly gave her money to charity, she lost it all at the dogs, I’m completely barking up the wrong tree. None of my business (at least, until she chose to publish the figures), but it looked odd. Of course, this is the opposite issue to the Peter Murrell case, which is lots of evidence of spending, less of income. But I think it does illustrate the point – the numbers may add up on the surface, but are they the right numbers? There’s a “smell test” that should prompt questions – and I would have thought that people like the fraud squad, auditors and investigative journalists (of which there are very few) would develop a nose for this sort of thing. One reason this case is fascinating is the contrast between Peter Murrell’s public image (such as it was) and the revelations, whereas there are other people, if it were alleged of whom that they had taken £5m from a crypto-billionaire you wouldn’t be at all surprised. This may be one reason he got away with it for so long. Of course, this is just speculation, but then that’s one purpose of the internet – to pose questions that you want to see answered. Reply |
| 76. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 17:59 With regard to the motor-home - I`ve no idea where it was kept. It does seem to have gone through the accounts, and I believe there was indeed a suggestion that it was to be used for campaigning in the immediate post-CoVid world. Odd, perhaps a little naughty if this were the "referendum money" but not obviously fraudulent. Again, PM could have argued that he was CEO of a major organisation and needed a flash motor to cut about in - he wouldn`t want to look like Ed Miliband being shuttled about in a Fiat Uno or whatever. I`m not so sure he needed the pencil sharpener though. The affair is confused by PM having lent the party large sums of money. I assume that there was a cash-flow issue (it`s always cash-flow) - presumably spending commitments were made (there are always elections) and membership income and donations dried up and he had spare cash that could tide the party over. This would blur what was his and what was the party`s. But does the fraud not predate the loan? Reply |
| 77. Author: NMCmassive Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 18:12 wee eck, Wed 27 May 17:17 I thought it was funny enough to be fair. Yes I know where they live and to quote my daughter “that’s some size of caravan” Not even joking COYP Reply |
| 78. Author: jake89 Date: Wed 27th May 2026. 18:34 wee eck, Wed 27 May 17:17 Tongue in cheek, wee Eck. The Telegraph article is hilariously written. Taking the word of some random lad from years ago where he remembers exactly what she was buying. It`s like a tale being told by Isa from Still Game. Murrell`s mum`s exact address hasn`t been revealed (nor should it be) but anyone who knows that street will also know you can`t hide a campervan there! It`s all bungalows with no side walls or spaces round the back to conceal a giant white blob. You can probably spot it on Apple or Google maps. Reply |
| 79. Author: jake89 Date: Fri 29th May 2026. 11:28 It`s now been revealed you CAN spot the camper on satellite maps. Knowing the street well, anyone claiming to have NOT spotted it probably wants their eyes tested. Did NS actually say she wasn`t aware of it though? I feel for Murrell`s mum who will no doubt have unwanted attention being given to her house. Reply |
| 80. Author: The One Who Knocks Date: Fri 29th May 2026. 18:58 Maybe Buffy can clarify but I heard someone on the radio earlier discussing this case and they said that the court case was originally scheduled for February but was then put back? And although my eyes were open They just might as well be closed Reply |