Well your post which says "in Scotland", why make that distinction if it isn't necessary?
Crowd control? Overkill/waste of Police time? searching for something. WMD perhaps? seems a lot for a financial investigation
They’re looking for the ‘Naughty Nicola’ painting - pervs! 🤣
I'm not sure what the Police are hoping to find given that Peter Murrell has known for so long that the investigation was ongoing. He has surely had more than sufficient time to destroy any evidence in his possession of possible financial irregularities.
Its all the bodies that "she knows where they are buried"Â Might be a few skeletons as well
Good point TJ. When's the last time anyone saw Liz Lloyd or Leslie Evans? 😉
He has surely had more than sufficient time to destroy any evidence in his possession of possible financial irregularities.
Reading this Sky News report there appears to be an astonishing level of commitment by the police to unearth any tiny piece of evidence:
Recent developments in the world of Scottish politics lead me to issue the usual reminder: contempt of court protections are triggered, in Scotland, once an arrest is made. Please take care.
— Roddy Dunlop KC Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
Ooh, well, I stand corrected on that one, and defer to Big Roddy.
gordimhor
Free Member@Poly I think the issue here is that the SNP member of the committee voted to reduce her suspension in order to avoid a by-election which they might not win.
Yep, but equally it was a conservative motion that they backed, are we going to also assume that the only reason that the tory could have tabled that motion was to protect the SNP, despite them having long since kicked her out? Or do we have to go off into byzantine plots about this somehow being a pre-emptive protection of Boris Johnson?
@Northwind I reckon the SNP were motivated at a base level by damage limitation. Can't see the Tories motivation being much different.
Damage limitation was definitely part of why they moved so fast and hard against her, shitcanned her immediately and publically called for her to step down etc. And of course it was also good politics since they could hold that up as the counterexample to the Tories. But at this point she's still hanging around like a bad smell, having her gone will be good for the party even if Labour take the seat. The unionist press always link everything she does to the SNP, that won't stop til she's gone.
It's a lose lose situation for the SNP unless they were to win any by election with an increased majority. I am an optimist but I can't see that happening.
Also a motor home seized from outside a relative's house.
I find it very hard to believe that Sturgeon was involved in personal enrichment / corruption. I think the police are just turning over every stone they can to appear thorough
On a related note - D.Ross calls for anti SNP tactical voting - as the Labour scottish branch did a few years ago. Two cheeks of the same arse?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65224008
In the grauniad have been a couple of articles stating what great opportunity this is for labour - so far so good. But then all they describe that labour should do is militant unionism ie fighting with the tories for the unionist vote - and a basic failure to realise that even bad loses at either holyrood or the GE in terms of losing a dozen or more seats will still leave the SNP as the biggest party. Indeed at Holyrood if labour make 20 gains from the SNP then SNP arestill the biggest party and labour cannot govern without a coalition with the tories.
I find it very hard to believe that Sturgeon was involved in personal enrichment / corruption.
Why?
I think the police are just turning over every stone they can to appear thorough
It is totally possible that Police Scotland are being wildly aggressive and abusing their statutory powers. Apparently Scotland is a place where police officers can asphyxiate a man on the street, and "dishonest" prison officers can be responsible for an "entirely preventable" death, but no-one is ever called to account. So who's to say the cops aren't running amok.
But the idea of a 92 year old owning a 100k motorhome is bloody fishy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-50365383
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-prison-officers-granted-lifelong-29433850
Why? Because that is not how I read her character.
I think the cops are bending over to make sure they are not seen as doing the SNP any favours
I assume there's a suspicion of money laundering?
Gawd only knows. One would assume the ownership of the camper is suspicious but it would be a really weird way to hide / launder money!
Is it true that seizure of assets requires a court order? If so then a judge must have thought it suspicious enough to grant one.
I have to say, this is in "car crash" land now. I really don't know what to expect next. Do we get further down the rabbit hole or will it all be a "big mistake"?
I don't think it always needs a court order to seize a vehicle as evidence.
its effing weird all this
My bet? It all comes out as various minor breaches of electoral law leading to a fine for the SNP and thats it. IIRC the tories had a similar one
this being the SNP of course the unionist press are all over it. 🙂
It would be a wild abuse of powers to seize a suspect's mother's property just because the police didn't want to be perceived as doing political favours. It's possible of course...
ownership of the camper is suspicious but it would be a really weird way to hide / launder money!
Registering property in the name of a relative is a common way of dealing with the proceeds of crime and obscuring its origin.
Aye - and a stupid one that does not work.
Do we know the camper was registered in the mum's name and not just parked there but registered in another name? Perhaps Mr or Mrs Murrel just didn't want a camper van they weren't using parked outside their house?
I haven't read the whole thread, so if I've misunderstood forgive me. But if a vehicle is on the curtlidge of a property in Scotland, then it can be searched under a warrant give to search that property. It becomes dodgy if the vehicle is half on the pavement, half on the property, etc...
That's a desperately unfunny cartoon.
If its not physically on the property then a separate warrant for the vehicle will be required.
Did drac draw that?
It’s not Jimmy Krankee so no.
I would expect that its primary purpose was to be insulting rather than funny.
To the average reader of guido fawkes I think it will be extremely funny.
I don't know much about scottish politics, but the camper van thing seems to be a bit sensational at best, from my laymans point of view.
I mean yes there could be some missapropriation of money, tax dodging... I suspect there must be if it's been seized by the police.
Not to make light of it but that's small fry compared to the conservatives cash for honours, dodgy PPE contracts and the list goes on.
Not that I'm making light of it, politcians should be squeaky clean, but they all seem to be at it, labour, cons and SNP.
Maybe vote Lib dem next time, at least they don't have a track record of ripping off the tax payer.
hat’s a desperately unfunny cartoon.
Its also clearly and deliberately racist. But anti scots racism is tolerated on here. dunno why
If its not physically on the property then a separate warrant for the vehicle will be required.
There is searching tbe vehicle and seizing it. It isn't clear if the seizure is just for the purposes of a search, or if it is being seized as potential proceeds of crime. AFAIK sarching vehicles tends to go hand in hand with searching properties. Seizing it as an asset would be a diffetent kettle of fish.
Its also clearly and deliberately racist.
Insulting, relevant, in poor taste, funny, stereotypical, probably depending on your view point. Racist, no not really, no more so than a cartoon lampooning someone from Yorkshire or Cornwall for example, based on perceived stereotypical traits and history of those areas.
Same as taking the piss out of Irish people. 'I've got an Irish granny so I'm allowed' Everyone's got a Scottish granny as well, it seems.
Don't think I've spent any significant amount of time anywhere in England without some **** deciding there's nothing funnier than repeatedly saying, 'Go on, Say Curly Wurly. There's literally nothing funnier than a Scottish person saying Curly Wurly, ha ha ha!' or, 'We don't have any heroin, is a lager ok?', or some other absolute gem of high wit.
Racism? No, don't think so.
Complete shower of ****s? Definitely.
Negative stereotyping based on supposed national characteristics are racist. That cartoon is clearly racist. Its been removed now tho so that is good.
Imagine if it had been Yousaf dressed in ****stani traditional dress? Or a black person in a loin cloth?
Negative stereotyping based on supposed national characteristics are racist.
Nations do not define race.
Bigotry and prejudice is not necessarily racism. Maybe not an important distinction but the term racism gets bandied about too much imo.
According to the equality and human rights commission predjudice based on nationality can be racism
Its clearly racist.
In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination
Hopefully those Scots clutching their pearls at the tedious Krankie jokes are equally upset at Scots' collective failure to admit to their part in the genocide of indigenous peoples around the world.
Or, you know, at the risk of being repetitive, the total failure of anyone to be held to account when an African man is asphyxiated by Scottish police officers in the street.
https://thescottishaustralian.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/scots-and-indigenous-australians/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sheku_Bayoh
In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality
I'm not talking about the Equality Act but if you want to talk about it the fact that it "can" mean your nationality, because certain nationalities are very racially homogeneous, is totally irrelevant in the context of Scots.
You yourself have completely undermined the claim that Scots are a race by giving the example of the Scottish nationalist leader wearing "****stani traditional dress", apparently that would be required for it to be racist.
The problem with using the term racism where it isn't appropriate is that most normal people dismiss it as nonsense. Which then actually makes it much harder to highlight real racism.
If you feel that there is bigotry and prejudice shown against Scots then just use those terms, there is absolutely no need to call it racism.
That definition contains a bewildering range of social constructions making it very difficult to employ with any accuracy unless we take the position that 'race' means anything you want it to mean.
If it is bigotry and prejudice based on nationality which this is then its racism by all common definitions.
Sorry dude - I understand your concern about folk calling racism where it isn't but you do not get to tell the people of Scotland that negative stereotyping based on being scottish is not racism.
I think Uncle Jezza doth protest too much. We all know that he favours riding without a helmet, but he's always been vague about his reasons why.
Well I feel its now my duty to reveal the truth. Its because that on his recent European tour he felt the need to proclaim his nationality in the way that he best saw fit... through his headwear!
He never went anywhere without it...
[img] 
[/img]
LOLz!
