The Interesting Words Round
Posted on
June 05, 2026 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
We received two emails today, just a few minutes apart. There are a couple of notable things about them. The first came from Claire Somebody at the Crown Office.
The second one, even more thrillingly, came from Service Advisor 1989847 at Police Scotland, which we assume is some sort of advanced crime-fighting robot.
In one of those emails, readers, is a three-word phrase that raised our eyebrows just about right off our heads. Before we chat any more, see if it jumps out at you too.
At this time
Wrong.
Have been advised… presumably by the Crown Office….
Scotland’s morphed intae 1970s East Germany.
“No further action”
No big surprise…
Wrong.
Specialist reporting agency?
Wrong, although that one is also quite interesting.
Another reporting agency
Wrong, although that one is also quite interesting.
Hmm. ‘It is for the police to investigate allegations of criminal conduct.’ As for who advises the police not to bother… my guess is COPFS. Do I win a coconut?
Sufficient evidence exists
Wrong.
Have been advised
You win the prize!
Yes 😉
I bet no further investigation is required because the party already declared the funds spend on general party business back when the investigation started. So no new evidence, just new to the public.
When I asked for my £100 scot.ref back in 19th March 2023 it took them a couple of weeks and chase emails with the excuse “It has taken a bit of time to get the necessary change of signatory to allow payments to be made.” on 5th April 23, happy to share the email exchange if it helps.
So it’s all about minimising damage to the public image.
I’ll very happily donate that £100 (and more) to a legal challenge if one is started up.
hmmm
another reporting agency
who wid that be then
Wrong, although that one is also quite interesting.
My understanding ring fenced funds should not be touched. However if the organisation was at risk of becoming insolvent and therefore unable to achieve its objectives then it could use tge funds. Is that a crime or a civil matter??
The wording used by Swinney reflected this position.
Assuming they were not at risk the questions is were they used for the puropose i e independence??
The least we are looking at bad faith
“Have been advised”
I wonder if they will tell us by who?
Mmm.
At this time!
So the police already knew and investigated the information you provided. I’m sure this is the information they passed to the CPS and were angry the CPS refused to allow them to charge someone,most likely the exFM .
,”have been advised”
That looks sketchy, who’s advising the police????
“already been investigated”
…yet it was decided that nothing was to come of it. Oh well.
Anyone fancy a banana? 😐
Have been advised by whom,and when?
2nd email, from Police Scotland: “have been advised”? Who provided the advice?
Specialist reporting agency…wtf
“already been investigated”
Spotted it straight away…
Police Scotland HAVE BEEN ADVISED.
By who?
A special reporting agency maybe
Submit a SAR for a copy of the advice received from? regarding your complaint submitted yesterday.
Yes, as I was reading the “Police Scotland have been advised” did make me wonder, but also the persistent use of “at this time”.
Maybe, as Ponsoby suggested, the police should be spammed with comments from people who donated.
So COPFS can’t do anything until the police report to them, but the police “have been advised” not to investigate.
Who’s higher than the police?
Very strange that only the second e-mail has an official stamp on it and that no one has a full first and second name only a first name then a number in the second e-mail.Claire (very informal for an official letter).Claire must have been very quick contacting someone to get them to advise her.Very unusual too that it states that the police have been advised ( by who?) It is a speedy response to an issue that is glaringly obvious needs investigation.
Both replies sent a few minutes apart as well.
already been investigated
“have been advised”
An embarrassment.
How on the hell can they say they’ve completed an investigation into statements that were made within the last week? Who, exactly, would “advise” the police on their own business?
How long until we hear the First Minister paraphrasing Nixon?
“When the Party Leader does it, that means it is not illegal. Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Party and the leadership. This party was torn apart in an ideological way by the Vietnam Group, as much as the 79 group tore apart the nation when Wilson was Party Leader.”
So can I suggest asking for a judicial review of the advice giving agency.Those who donated money to the funds have legal standing as it was their money. As many as you can get. Ask for a judicial review and keep it in the papers.
I suppose the powers that be will be have some defence. What might it be?
“had already been” – superfluous use of the pluperfect
Have been advised.
By whom?
This absolutely fucking stinks to high heaven. They really are going to brazen it out, aren’t they?!