Fob, Fob, Fobbing Along
We have received a further reply from the Crown Office.
Alert readers may note that while Wings has repeatedly noted that the misappropriation of the fundraiser money by the SNP could constitute either fraud OR embezzlement (or both), entirely separate to the embezzlement FROM the SNP by Peter Murrell, the Crown Office continues – as its agent John Logue did in a recent BBC interview – to address only the possibility of fraud, which would be by far the more difficult of the two to prove, and to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that no less a personage than the First Minister has already admitted to spending all of the money on a purpose other than that which it was raised for.
The response is therefore plainly unsatisfactory, which we will deal with in our own reply within the next 24 hours, which will again be drafted by counsel. We will of course publish it here once it’s sent, so stay tuned.
I think a Judicial Review might end up being the only way to prove it was fraud if COPFS and their 2 KCs insist it wasn’t. If they have nothing to hide, then let other KCs review it if they dont think the public are smart enough to think it was.
It seems to me that if it wasn’t fraud then it was definitely embezzlement of the ‘ringfenced” fund by the former and Current First Minister and Treasurers/ Peter Murrell and the NEC of the SNP as they all took and spent money which didnt belong to the SNP?
I know a Civil case in the courts has also been discussed and donors should be insisting on recovering the money?
Unbelievable! A completely insulting reply that ignores the blatant fact that a crime has been committed and the person or persons responsible must be brought to justice.
There should be a case of the public being able to charge these fake patrons of justice with negligence, corruption or incompetence.
I ain’t no legal eagle but fund raising for one ring fenced campaign and using the money for other purposes if fraud and fraud is a crime.
This involves many innocent people whose hard earned cash has been stolen.
Should this crime be ignored can I launch a fund raiser mental health and spend the funds on luxury holidays as they make me happy?
I think the problem will be this:
If you say ‘The purpose for which the money was raised was to fund an independence campaign at some unknown date in the future’, the reply will be that spending on such a campaign _now_ is not really a different purpose, particularly given that Westminster is never going to agree again to spend ‘UK-taxpayers money’ on a referendum.
And if you say ‘In reality the purpose for which the money was raised was to pay back the Weirs’, that fact would be hard to prove unless somebody had said such a thing in the hearing of witnesses.
“If you say ‘The purpose for which the money was raised was to fund an independence campaign at some unknown date in the future’, the reply will be that spending on such a campaign _now_ is not really a different purpose, particularly given that Westminster is never going to agree again to spend ‘UK-taxpayers money’ on a referendum.”
Then in law what you have to do is give the money back.
I’m paraphrasing here:
“We know exactly what’s gone on and we don’t want to pursue it because….. ALL Hail Saint Nicoliar. Now would you please just feck-off with your insistence and your persistence, or we’ll arrange to have the elephant step on your internet connection!”
Thank you, Rev.
At least you’ve got the facts at your fingertips and it’s a straightforward matter so you don’t need to waste much time batting this back.
I note no name for the COPFS signatory. How rude/cowardly.
I see you have had another anonymous communication. Unless of course there really is a Mr Enquiry Point.
Oh, so they uncovered evidence of embezzlement then. Well that’s interesting.
Certainly I’ve read the sentence a couple of times and I’m struggling with any alternative interpretation.
“That investigation did not uncover sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime, other than the crime of embezzlement”
‘The only crime we could find sufficient evidence for, was embezzlement. Nothing else, of all the crimes which exist, embezzlement was the only one we found sufficient evidence for’
Am I interpreting that incorrectly, is it a reading comprehension fail?
It may just be an oversight that the sentence did not include the word ‘potential’ or similar caveat – potential evidence, potential crime because it currently (again, to me) reads that evidence of an actual crime of embezzlement was found, not a mibbes aye, mibbes no, but a de-facto crime.
So I must assume prosecution for the crime they found was ‘not in the public interest’ or ‘we are aware of the crime, but we can’t work out who did it, it must have been a big boy who ran away’ or somesuch handwaving