The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The world’s worst victim

Posted on October 05, 2015 by

Older readers may remember an ITV show called The Krypton Factor, which had an “observation round” section in which contestants were shown a short video clip and then asked a series of questions about it.

Let’s play it now.

The above is an extract of a short package shown on this evening’s STV News. It features Jackie Wright, a woman who sold her home to the now-Edinburgh West MP Michelle Thomson. Please watch the video before answering the questions. You can then read the answers by highlighting the text below each question.

1. How much did Mrs (and Mr) Wright pay for her house?


2. How much did Mrs Wright sell her house to Michelle Thomson for?


3. How much profit did Mrs Wright make on the deal?


4. Was Mrs Wright in any way “vulnerable” at the time of the sale?

No, at least not that we’re told about. The only reason she gives for selling is that “it was our way out of the place, the market wasnae good anyway”.

5. How much profit did Ms Thomson make from selling the house on?

Apparently £24,000. It was bought for £75,000 but for reasons not disclosed to viewers the Wrights had signed an agreement that anything over £51,000 would be kept by Ms Thomson and/or her firm M&F Property Solutions.

6. So who made the biggest profit on selling the house?

Mrs and Mr Wright, who made £6000 more than Ms Thomson.

7. Was Mrs Wright in some way forced to sell the house to Ms Thomson, perhaps at gunpoint or via blackmail?

Not that we’re told about.

8. So what’s Mrs Wright so bent out of shape about?

We don’t know. She’s made over 100% profit on the sale, which is apparently fine, but Ms Thomson has made a smaller profit too, which for some reason ISN’T fine.

The justification for this bewildering presentation, according to the show’s anchorman John Mackay, is that the Lord Advocate will appear and be questioned in the Scottish Parliament tomorrow on the affairs of Ms Thomson’s solicitor Christopher Hales. But that information is relegated to the last 15 seconds of the on-air clip.

We genuinely haven’t a clue why we’re supposed to be outraged on Mrs Wright’s behalf. She voluntarily entered into a transaction in which she made a very large profit, seemingly at the expense of taxpayers. She appears to have had no reason to enter that contract unwillingly. She’s deeply disgruntled that someone else has done exactly the thing she did – made money out of selling the same house.

(Except that Michelle Thomson didn’t benefit from public subsidy to make her profit.)

The clip makes clear that “there’s no suggestion of illegality on [Michelle Thomson’s] part”, so it’s hard to tell why she, rather than Mr Hales, is the main – indeed, pretty much the sole – focus of the story.

If anyone could explain to us what’s going on, we’d be most grateful.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 05 10 15 20:43

    The world’s worst victim | Speymouth

  2. 06 10 15 07:08

    The world's worst victim | Politics Scotland | ...

179 to “The world’s worst victim”

  1. RogueCoder says:

    Poor woman. Only made £30,000 on her property. Oh the humanity.

  2. muttley79 says:

    Rev Stu, Thomson is the MP for Edinburgh West not South.

  3. SNP Baaaddd……..

  4. Murray McCallum says:

    “Do you feel you were led up the garden path?”

    No, I find your questions easy to answer.

  5. Croompenstein says:

    Should the Wright’s not aim their ire at their own solicitor who obviously advised them.. joke..

  6. Bill Cruickshank says:

    Having seen the interview live I concur with every letter of this piece Stu. An outstanding dissemination of the facts. Thanks for setting the record straight!

  7. Grouse Beater says:

    “There’s no suggestion of illegality on her [Thomson’s] part.” STV’s John Mackay.

    “Do you think you were lead up the garden path?” is a loaded question.

    The neutral question is, “How do you feel about selling your house when it was unwanted.

  8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Rev Stu, Thomson is the MP for Edinburgh West not South.”


  9. K1 says:

    Mrs Wright is displaying strong signs of ‘faux outrage’. Is this a labour voter by any chance?

    This isn’t ‘news’, it’s a gripe about ‘how things are’ when it comes to buying and selling houses.

    I think everyone who has bought a house and who has sold a house should take themselves down to the nearest police station. It’s shameful if you sold it for more than you bought it for and it’s shameful if you bought it for less than it ‘was potentially’ worth at some future point.

    You shower of greedy ‘cheeky bitch’ bastards.

    Swanning aboot the place trying to make a profit. Fucking disgraceful!

    That’s Life:

  10. UncensoredScot says:

    9. Why was the use of “cheeky bitch” deemed acceptable in a news broadcast?

  11. James123 says:

    If she thought Ms Thomson was a “cheeky bitch” then why did she make a business deal with her. Maybe the reporter should have asked that question and maybe the answer would have been because she really really wanted to sell her house quickly and make a tidy profit at the same time.

  12. walter scott says:

    They (unionists) won’t stop until there’s a By-election then they’ll hit the SNP with everything they have to wrest the seat back to a unionist MP. It’s what we’ll hear on Thursday at fmq’s from the lightweight Dugdale & her partners Davidson & Rennie.
    Sturgeon will really need to less polite to these scheming 2nd raters

  13. M4rkyboy says:

    ‘If anyone could explain to us what’s going on, we’d be most grateful.’

    It’s a smear campaign.

  14. Training Day says:

    Bernard Ponsonby concluded the smear by informing viewers that this story ‘won’t go away’.

    Oh, if only the story concerned the Chilcott report or the Carmichael court case. Then it would ‘go away’ – wouldn’t it Bernard?

  15. Grouse Beater says:

    A completely manufactured piece of scurrilous innuendo from start to finish, or if you prefer, a fine example of hypocrisy in all its forms demonstrated by all involved.

    To reach that plateau of crapology you have to arrive early to chivvy the interviewee into a state of knowing what it is they will be asked about, and to have their answers ready – rehearsed even – so that time and takes are not wasted.

  16. Fluckmeister says:

    The media creating a story out of nothing – again – in order to continue their biased assault against anyone who stands for an independent Scotland.

  17. galamcennalath says:

    The message …

    “The Soviet Socialist Republic of Caledonia is no place to run a property business!”

  18. Andy Cowan says:

    Seems like the woman selling her house entered into a contract with Thompson’s firm. Maybe she should have sought legal advice about the contract. The clause about any monies above £51k to go to Thompson rather than the seller seems a bit odd. Shouldn’t Thompson’s firm simply take a fee or a percentage? If the seller relies on Thompson to provide the valuation then Thompson adds that clause, it seems reasonable to have a discussion about whether that is ethical or not.

  19. K1 says:

    Also if, if she had wanted the excess profit that MT had made, she could have ‘refurbished’ the house and got a bigger price for it. It seems to me that MT was in the ‘property’ business, which entails specifically buying properties and ‘doing them up’ to gain a better price for them.

    House Under the Hammer et al. Ffs this has become a ‘way of life’ for people, it’s been shoved down our throats: Improve yer hoose tae make a profit’.

    But we know it isn’t about this.

    This is about undermining the SNP’s success. Shameless ‘click bait’ for the masses. And they call themselves ‘journalists’. Rake muckers mair like!

  20. Lesley-Anne says:

    Erm … I think this kind gentleman encapsulates perfectly how I feel about the poor bad done by Mrs Wright. 😉

  21. Helpmaboab says:

    So, to summarise,

    Someone bought an asset in an open transaction. She then sold it later, openly, for a profit.

    If such behaviour is to be considered unnaceptable then the entire “City Of London” must close immediately and all forms of capitalism should be outlawed.

    But then when did the British media become consistent in their logic? The SNP must be proved to be bad and all other agendas are on the back-burner for now.

  22. Zed says:

    Why did the STV reporter prompt her into saying “So you were lead down the garden path?”

    Pretty neutral leading question eh?

  23. Grouse Beater says:

    “she thought Ms Thomson was a “cheeky bitch”

    About the only observation one can make from the sale is, Michelle Thomson is no slouch when it comes to doing a deal in a face-to-face situation.

    Isn’t that exactly what Tories and Labour would praise as a good business sense …

    … after all, Ms Mone sold her ailing bra company for millions when it was up to its nipples in debt. And look at her now!

  24. gillie says:

    We should do a crowd funding appeal so this vulnerable woman can realise her ambition in making a fortune in selling her council house she bought for peanuts. It seems only fair.

  25. john king says:

    In Michelle Thompsons place I would be sending lawyers letters to Mrs Wright and STV promising to sue their sorry arses!

  26. Harry McAye says:

    But you know what will happen, Nicola Sturgeon will be pressured into sacking Thomson, even though she has done nothing wrong except make some money through shrewd business sense, and a by-election will be called which the SNP will probably lose. If Sturgeon caves in I may have to reconsider my membership and I’m sure I won’t be alone.

  27. Andrew Morton says:

    Obviously it was STV’s way of satirising the whole ridiculous farrago of nonsense that the Scottish media have dreamt ip.

  28. Robert Louis says:

    This whole story is just nuts. I cannot understand what the problem is, as loads of people sell their houses for profit.

    I honestly think the corporate media jumped on this story before they actually realised that there was no substance to it. This explains why we are now being treated to the most hysterically ridiculous media reporting I have ever witnessed.

    Bizarre, to say the least.

  29. heedtracker says:

    Tory media SNP smear campaign in action. 7 more months. Red or blue tory media, vox pop gets trickier-

    Michael Crick ?@MichaelLCrick Oct 4
    Video of when I was confronted by protestors (and spat at) before police rescued me outside Tory conference this pm

  30. ann says:

    Surely Mrs Wright should have had a couple of independent surveyors out to get their valuations on the premises, which is surely the norm when selling your house.

    I know if x and y said your house is valued at 75K, I know that I wouldn’t agree to sell it for less unless I was really, really desparate which sounds very like Mrs Wrights reason for selling the property.

  31. Donald says:

    Weren’t home reports needed for every sale by this time – so all parties knew the market valuation. And, don’t all sales need to be registered by a solicitor so the solicitor of the seller – not Hales – would have pointed out the price was below market value and asked if they still wanted to go ahead.

    So MT ran one of those companies that says ‘can’t sell your house? We’ll buy it from you but at less than market value’. As long as all parties go in with their eyes open where is the story here in relation to MT?

  32. galamcennalath says:

    If I might go a bit OT to point out an excellent short article on Bella

    “Anglo-British idea that they are at the centre of the universe and hold some exalted position, whilst simultaneously proclaiming that “there’s no such thing as British nationalism. .One of the glories of the UK… A nation of nations without nationalism”. ”

    … a very very true observation!

  33. Mik Johnstone says:

    is this woman on the tory payroll ? ? ? just that if you’re desperate for money you will sell even at a loss … look at o’grade gidiot …. the post office and the rbs all well under the market value ….

  34. Andrew McLean says:

    Omg your house was migin, nobody wanted to buy it, are you stupid! STV are you frigin serious, you waste our time with this pish!

  35. Shuggy says:

    Q9: Have the Wrights been offered any form of reward from any media outlet(s) or representative(s) for their story?

  36. Haggis Hunter says:

    Paedos running loose in Westminster, so they can only concentrate on this because she’s not LabServativeDem and BBC STV media unionist party but SNP bad

  37. Tony Little says:

    The thing that grates with me is that most of the comments are from people trying to make this a ‘moral’ issue. (Particularly narked by MacWhirter on twitter today who keeps taking about morals and ethics but won’t then tell me who decides what these ethical standards are).

    Was anything illegal? So far we don’t now. Were these back-to-back deals illegal? Not as far as I know. Were the mortgages illegal or fraudulent? Not as far as I know. Was anyone ‘forced’ to sell? Not according to the SSDT report.

    the SSDT were concerned about the NON-reporting by the solicitor and nothing else.

    So it’s about the ‘morality’ of a new SNP MSP in business dealing from several years ago. There doesn’t seem to be a similar investigation by journalists into the properties for let owned my many MPs, or their multiple directorships based on their inside knowledge of Westminster, or their ‘advisory’ positions in “the City”.

    This is nothing less than anti-SNP hyperbole, which will backfire. This sort of smear was tried before GE2015 and look what happened. Holyrood elections are 7 months away – even the BBC and heir pals in the Corporate Media can’t keep this going for that long.

    I am no fan of Michelle Thomson, I don’t know her and accept that the property sector is filled with similar ‘grey’ deals (see MP portfolios) but the law is the law, and a deal is either legal or not. The rest is smear and innuendo and I’ve had my fill.

    I hope MT is cleared and remains an MP. In your face Media and Political pygmies. (with no offence to pygmies intended)

  38. Valerie says:


  39. Andrew McLean says:

    My dad, didn’t like the right to buy, it was paid for by rate and payers for generations allowing local authorities to build up housing stock, thatcher let tenants buy so they could become good tories!
    Lesson one, sell for more than you buy, lesson two theirs is only lesson one! Both parties benefited, the only loser is the rent and rate payer who built the house but never benefited in the sale!

  40. jimnarlene says:

    Smear campaign, SNP baaaaaad. That’s what’s going on, and it will go on, and on, and on, ad nauseum.

    The toys are well away from the pram, the SNP took “their” baw, and the unionist weans want it back.

  41. Ronbon says:

    Stu, a brilliant dissection of the facts. There is no doubt in my mind this is a smear campaign and the unionist press and media are out to get Michelle Thomson and the SNP in general.

  42. Jim Thomson says:

    For all those wishing to grumble about fixed price quick sales of houses just google (other search engines are available) “we buy any house” and see what comes up.

    There are wheens o’ them.

    Let’s hope STV bans all such ads from their screens to show solidarity with the poor deceived house sellers.

    Oh, hang on a mo’, don’t those ads provide income? Well, there’s an issue that the MSM needs to explore.

  43. Gary45% says:

    It looks like this non story is not going to go away.
    As Wright says “it was our way out” , was she desperate to get rid of the place at any cost, rough area etc?
    Was a gun held to her head? (EBC Scotch-shires headline tomorrow?)
    Did she give the council the £30,000 profit back?
    Expect even more poor unfortunate souls coming forward in the days ahead.
    There are many people who buy below value properties and then spend sometimes large sums of money bringing them up to market value, kitchens, bathrooms, windows etc.
    Duggers will be round at this persons house the night for a wee cuppa tea, and a wee photie tae hing oan the wa.
    A Red Tory stitch up.
    I’m John Mackay (wuckfit)

  44. If that is what called ‘journalism’ in the UK no wonder we are stuck in this dictatorship under the guise of democracy.

  45. John J. says:

    I wouldn’t worry about this.

    Where I drink there is usually a vigorous debate about all things political, often started by me.

    We have our fair shares of right-wing Tory supporting twits but I can tell you that this subject has not been raised by any of them, partly because most of them have been up to their eyeballs in property speculation and profiteering for decades.

    This obvious smear campaign will die a death if only because most of the Tory MSP’s and MP’s will have so many skeletons in their cupboards than they will not dare pursue it.

  46. GreenRoom says:

    Without more information about the size, condition and location of the property in question it is impossible for the viewer to form any sensible opinion on the validity £21,000 (discounted price) original purchase, the initial offer of £40,000, the £51,000 accepted by the Wrights, or the £75,000 offered by the third party. Everyone involved might have had a good deal, a rotten deal, or a fair deal we just can’t tell. We can only tell that it doesn’t make an very convincing addition to the news coverage of the story.

  47. Martin says:

    Man, I’d love some “cheeky bitch” to value my flat flat at 190% what I paid for it…

  48. Chris Whyte says:

    I’m not clear on the law, so maybe someone can answer this question for me; assuming Ms. Thomson is found completely innocent of any wrongdoing (which looks likely), where would she stand if she wanted this coverage investigated on grounds of Defamation?

  49. YesMeansYes says:

    Leon Brittan, Greville Janner, Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile.

  50. Grouse Beater says:

    More questions for your list, Stuart:

    Did Mr or Mrs Wright contact STV to complain she wanted to go public to assert she had been ripped off.

    Or did STV seek her out, and if so, for what purpose – to inflate, inflame, or confuse the story?

  51. Hugh Kirk says:

    Cringe worthy stuff indeed , STV should be embarrassed by this lousy attempt at smeary journalism.

  52. Chitterinlicht says:

    Been keeping out of this one but i CANNOT BELIEVE STV showed that crap on national tv!

    Your questions are excellent Stu and show up the petty greediness of people

    She says it herself in the clip that she couldnae sell it. Should be glad she didnt lose it to the bank and got he haw!

    And less than 100 people own most of Scotland and this is what has consumed media for last 2 weeks.

    F**cks sake.

    Pathetic reporting.

    Pathetic person

    Very grumpy

  53. McBoxheid says:

    See that “cheeky bitch” Ah heard she was wan o’ thon SNP.
    Ah only wantid 70 grand profit, so ah did, but that bitch conned me!
    SNP Bad SNP Bad SNP Bad SNP Bad blah bloody blah SNP Bad SNP Bad

  54. Luigi says:

    heedtracker says:
    5 October, 2015 at 8:36 pm

    Tory media SNP smear campaign in action. 7 more months. Red or blue tory media, vox pop gets trickier-

    Michael Crick ?@MichaelLCrick Oct 4
    Video of when I was confronted by protestors (and spat at) before police rescued me outside Tory conference this pm

    A carefully edited video of the protest IMO. Not a single pig mask anywhere (there were hundreds of them apparently). Now why would C4 avoid pigs? Perhaps they did not want to offend any muslims!

  55. heedtracker says:

    Let’s face it, all man on the telly/stuffed shirts on Scottish tv would love to call every women member of the SNP a cheeky bitch all the time and far worse.

    Wish they would.

  56. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    I was just about to write about that appalling “news” report but Stu beat me to it

    STV’s phone number is 0141 300 3000

  57. Sinky says:

    O/T but not entirely as he also has some sage advice on Michelle Thomson affair.

    Derek Bateman on the BBC job spec for Scottish News editor

    Well worth a read

  58. manandboy says:

    This not an STV story, this is a Better Together story, aimed at smearing the SNP for the attention of UKOK’s target audience –
    “You can fool some of the people ALL OF THE TIME,
    and they’re the ones you want to concentrate on.”

    Oh, those people who can be fooled every single time
    but always by the same side – the No Campaign.
    Funny how they don’t get fooled by the Yes campaign.
    Eh, well, maybe it’s because the SNP are never allowed on the Telly nor in the Daily Record to put their side of the story.

  59. Dubbieside says:


    I am really glad that Macwhirter and Hutcheon have lived in rented accomodation all their lives, as they must be to honourable to print a story about anyone making a profit out of selling a house if they had also done such a dreadful deed.

    If I was on twitter I would have asked them why they never bought a house. It must be an honourable journalist thing not to make a profit from reselling someone elses house.

  60. peekay says:

    M+F will have made significantly less than £24k profit. No doubt part of the deal was M+F pick up all legal fees/stamp duties/cap gains and Mrs Wright gets handed a crisp, clean cheque for £51k to do with as is her wont

  61. aldo_macb says:

    The normally crazy Iain Smart has an interesting theory about this on his blog.
    It’s nothing to do with “ripping off” house selling punters. Nor with buying houses at knock-down prices.
    He thinks it’s to do with avoiding paying deposits on the mortgages.
    But that’s a much more complicated story for the main stream media to portray – much easier for the MSM to imply that Ms Thomson was ripping off punters. Tell the story a dozen times and hope it sticks.

  62. davidb says:

    @ Harry McKaye

    Ms Thompson was elected on an SNP ticket, but her seat is not in anyone’s gift. She is free to sit there as an independent until the election in 2020 or until she decides to resign the seat of her own free will.

    Freed from the constraints of the SNP whip she may now gorge herself on the public purse. She can employ her spouse, she can rent a house while letting out the one next door. She can get her duck pond cleaned or her wisteria trimmed.

    If she decides to sue for defamation I expect the taxpayers can pay her legal costs. If she wants a new iPad she can get one every year. Indeed she can run up 190 grand a year in expenses and still not be the worst. All the while her pension builds up, and she will get her resettlement grant if the voters elect another in 2020.

    So far there is nothing obviously wrong nor immoral in anything reported in this case. But what constraint is there on an MP who decides to milk it for 5 years?

  63. manandboy says:

    Propaganda works, not just in those who believe it, but also in those exposed to it. Exposure is enough for the propaganda to have an influence.

  64. Tinto Chiel says:

    “YesMeansYes says:
    5 October, 2015 at 9:09 pm
    Leon Brittan, Greville Janner, Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile.”

    How true, but let’s not talk about that…

    Desperation stakes for MSM, or call them what you will.

    They need to keep this going until next May, and they have probably shot their bolt (ooh, Matron!) already.

    They don’t seem to have grasped the concept of the law of diminishing returns.

  65. Sinky says:

    Every party has candidates who are in business and may from time to time do things that most of us think are unappealing.

    Labour and Tories are opening a nasty can of worms for all their elected representatives or 2016 Holyrood candidates and will deter many from putting their names forward just to be crucified by our wonderful media. That will not be good for democracy.

    The SNP opened up their candidates list to be more inclusive of people from outside the political bubble but now they are being told you should have used forensic detective agencies to find out matters that took place years ago and which were not in the public domain.

    From what I can tell is if Ms Thomson has done anything wrong it is in respect of her mortgage applications to our reputable Banks.

    Have the police investigated or prosecuted anyone over of the business methods employed by the Bankers when they lent billions of pounds that they didn’t have collateral for?

  66. SM says:

    I couldn’t believe it when the woman came out and said “bitch” on the news.

    I have written to STV to complain about the broadcast and pointed out the woman didn’t have to sell her house for that price if she wasn’t happy.

    Well done Stu for pointing out the facts of the matter on the ridiculous reporting.

  67. heedtracker says:

    Bit better BBC smear SNP attempt here from the Plantation Quay liggers, wrapping headers with text that have no actual relation or meaning. It is definitely getting worse

    Bought cheaply
    A Crown Office spokesman said: “The Lord Advocate is always happy to answer questions in parliament and will do so tomorrow (Tuesday).”

    The SNP has now removed “The 56″ merchandise from sale on its website. It was launched following the unprecedented election of 56 SNP MPs in May but Ms Thomson’s suspension has reduced their ranks to 55.”

    Can the creep show smell blood?

  68. Itchybiscuit says:

    I can only assume that the meeja are attempting to raise a baying mob, pitchforks at the ready. It’s reminiscent of Monty Python in that ‘she’s a witch because we say she’s a witch’.

    News doesn’t seem to be worthy of the name these days.

  69. Gregory Beekman says:

    Deal sounds like an option to me, which is a standard financial product these days.

    Mrs Wright doesn’t want to lose money by going on to the open market so chooses to limit her risk by getting a guaranteed sum from this company. The company then takes on the risk in the open market. This time, the risk is rewarded with a profit but, given the poor market conditions, it could easily have resulted in a loss.

    Mrs Wright knew what she was doing – she choose to limit her risk by passing it on to Thompson. Is it moral to pass your risk on to someone else?

  70. How does the Council feel about someone buying a flat from them cheap and then selling it on for 150% profit.

    Maybe Mackwhirter and the goons at STV could explain the morals of that profit making transaction.

  71. John Walsh says:

    I have kept my powder dry on this one also.
    I have been in property for thirty years, 12 of which was for a company who built Mrs Thatchers house as a senior manager.
    I frequently offered people 10/15% under forced sale valuation, part exchange .made a lot of money for a knighted CEO. ( not a peep) from the press .
    I am now concerned that previous customers will feel swindeled!
    Or the people I sold property at £80 k now selling at £240k will be sending me thank you letters!
    So sour grapes and property deals go hand in hand, No I am not a millionaire , retired with a heart attack . Get over it Mrs Wright you made £30k.

  72. mogabee says:

    We’ve all met or know people like Mrs Wright. Judgmental to the nth degree, she’ll be delighted that the “meeja” are taking an interest in her “grievance”.

    What an embarrassment.

    Well, all her neeburs and friends and family know her business now.

    Five minute fame…indeed 😀

  73. Iain More says:

    The things that are really starting to bug me about this whole affair are –

    When are the SNP going to stop effin about and take the effin gloves off with the Brit Nats?

    When are the SNP going to develop a backbone in dealing with Brit Nat smear campaigns?

    I do hope that the Brit Nat companies that buy advertising time on Britannia TV at 6 to 6 30 are one and the same as the companies that bought a lot of advertising time round England’s Wuggah World Cup games. Karma can be a right “cheeky bitch” cant it.

  74. Tam Jardine says:

    So if this type of outrage (person buys house/car/whatever) and punts it at a big profit) is beyond the pale and the media/opposition decide it is unacceptable we are going to have a situation on our hands that would make payment protection claims pale into insignificance.

    I can just imagine the adverts: ‘have you mis-sold your house, car or anything in the last seven years? You could stand to claim back thousands. Don’t delay, call 0800 triple 5 triple 6 TODAY

    Mibbe Gordon can claim something back on all that gold he sold for buttons, and Osborne can get a few billion back for the Royal Mail?

    What a pile of wank this all is

  75. tartanarse says:

    Ah feel ah’ve been led up the gairden path then when ah came back doon the path, it was worth mair.

    Only a £30 grand profit? Fuckin diddums.

    From now on I expect folk to be able to refer to Ruthie, Jackie, Kez and her pals as cheeky bitches on tv without complaint.

  76. Jimbo says:

    Michelle Thomson’s main fault, it would appear, is being an SNP MP.

    Had she been a paedophile Unionist MP any wrongdoing would not have been reported on – or at least not until after her death.

  77. John H. says:

    Grouse Beater says:
    5 October, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    “More questions for your list, Stuart:

    Did Mr or Mrs Wright contact STV to complain she wanted to go public to assert she had been ripped off.”

    Or did Mr or Mrs Wright contact the Labour Party, who then contacted STV?

  78. Grendel says:

    Like I said the other day, Ms Thompson bought houses from people DESPERATE to get rid of them.
    Mrs Wright has stated”it wiz a way oot”.
    She was desperate to sell, she trousered £30k selling former socialh housing, she’s theo ne who should be ashamed

  79. louis.b.argyll says:

    Was that REALLY on the TELLY?..
    ..instead of actual news?

  80. Big Jock says:

    Jimbo that puts it in perspective. BBC and Tory pedophile ring covered up. And the media are hounding a woman for making a few bob on a property.

    But we ate clever enough to know the game. It’s mock outrage and deliberate smearing to try and tarnish the movement.

    The SNP called deep thinkers Gerry Hassan,Iain Mcwhirter and Mckenna have all fallen for it. That’s the sad part these were the only intelligent analysts in the media. How can they not see the game being played.

    Forget morals and even legality. This is just a witch hunt game. Mcwhirter and Co will regret their naivety at being suckered so easily. I mean it’s tabloid red top stuff. Journalism for morons.

  81. Fran says:

    It would be interesting to know if the Wrights were rehoused by the council after selling a house which they bought from the council and thus basically stopping a young working family getting a home twice

  82. Les Wilson says:

    Well if we doubted STV’s stance, we certainly know for sure now.
    How is this witch hunt in any way acceptable?.
    The reporter was even putting words in her mouth.
    What creeps the Corporate Media are.

  83. potter says:

    A lot of Scottish Labour types morally outraged that a woman only made £30000 from Thatchers right to buy

  84. Jimmur Phymp says:

    Breaking news, this story is getting massive. Tomorrow the papers will be full of the following scandal: Apparently Michelle Thomson’s Business for Scotland colleague, newly elected SNP MP Richard Arkless owns an online retail business selling lighting products.

    Apparently Arkless is engaged in the immoral capitalist practice where he buys in light bulbs in bulk, marks them up and sells them on in smaller quantities for a profit. It has been reported that in the past Arkless made a living from this practice and has even used it to put food on the plates of an innocent young family.

    It has emerged that Michelle Thomson fitted lightbulbs in her houses. Although there is no suggestion that Thomson used Arkless bulbs, a source insists it can’t be ruled out. As a result there are calls for Nicola Sturgeon to resign.

  85. dramfineday says:

    Oh dear STV, bit of a red faced bummer with that one, carry on smearing as they say.

    Well done Stuart (not for the first time).

    Good supplementary questions Grouse Beater and John H

  86. Luigi says:

    So, an SNP MP, who has, as far as we know done nothing wrong, has been tried by the media and found guilty by association so must go, whilst a LibDem MP, who is a confirmed liar and used his position to smear the FM, is supposed to get a slap on the wrist and enjoy another four and a half years at the trough? Aye right!

    Ruth Davidson? – slap on the wrist
    Malcolm Rifkind? – slap on the wrist
    Jack Straw? – slap on the wrist
    Flipper Darling? – slap on the wrist
    Michelle Thomson? – political career over

  87. Grouse Beater says:

    Took another look at STV’s Carry On Cavorting:

    The only motivation for STV’s clumsy doorstep journalism is to keep a contrived story from becoming moribund.

  88. yesindyref2 says:

    There is another reason perhaps for the onslaught on the SNP. Last year around this time, the SNP got 75,000 new members in a month, and those who took an annual membership are due for renewal. It’s possible this is an attempt to deter prople from renewing.

    Just a random and silly thought.

  89. K1 says:

    Luigi, Lord Sewel: ‘No case to answer’. Slap on the tits.

  90. marcia says:


    Thank you for shedding some light there. ?

  91. Capella says:

    Another brilliant skewering of the dismal CM (Corporate Media).

    I do hope that “cheeky bitch” Nicola kicks this into touch on Thursday’s FMQs.

  92. Stoker says:

    Rev wrote:
    “If anyone could explain to us what’s going on, we’d be most grateful.”

    Blatant misleading suggestive implication?
    Or just plain old shite journalism as befits STV.

  93. Luigi says:

    What about the £10,000 that has gone missing that from Labour party accounts in an Edinburgh constituency? Surely that is big news. Why is that not all over the corporate media?

    Ask a silly question…….

  94. Jamie boy says:

    It’s those dirty unionists. SNP Business spokesperson has a proper background in property asset based inflation unlike those industrial manufacturing types who invest long term which creates nothing for the economy. The fact that the lawyer was struck off and was involved in every one of her transactions is an irrelevant smear and the idea any mortgage fraud could even be remotely possible is defamatory nonsense.
    Waken up .

  95. Tony says:

    Seriously,why is this even newsworthy?

  96. Grouse Beater says:

    Luigi: What about the £10,000 gone missing from Labour party accounts in an Edinburgh constituency?

    Ach, man, that’s just brazen theft and cover up, a police matter, not an entire MSM hunt.

  97. Taranaich says:

    (Warning, mega-rant ahead)

    This infuriates me beyond belief.

    This is what they’re all complaining about? Something that you’d see on a boring episode of Property Ladder? After everything they’ve been attacking the SNP government for, “failing” our schools, police, nurses, and whatnot, this is what they decide to fill our newspapers with? Is it because all the attacks on education, Police Scotland, the NHS have proved ineffective in stopping the SNP – or do you just not actually care, as long as it makes the SNP look bad?

    Don’t give me that “all MPs should be scrutinised, we must have a free press, SNP aren’t perfect” concern troll balderdash. This isn’t scrutiny. This isn’t holding anyone to account. This is a complete waste of everyone’s time with the sole intent to smear and attack the SNP. Not just Michelle Thomson, the individual, the SNP as a party and as a movement.

    What’s really infuriating to me is all the Yes supporters ganging up with the Unionists on this, as if this really is an important thing we should all be concerned about, that “if we’re completely uncritical of the party we’ll end up just like Labour.” Where have you people been living in the past decade?

    Remember everyone kicked up a fuss about Alex Salmond “lying” about EU advice, or inviting a friend to a concert was a “scandalous waste of taxpayer’s money,” or inviting long-time SNP supporters who just happened to win the lottery to tea was “manipulative”? Remember how Nicola Sturgeon was vilified for writing a letter of support for a “benefits cheat,” and the EU thing (again), and then Memogate? They all amounted to nothing. For goodness’ sake, people, if Michelle Thomson has committed wrongdoing, then don’t you think the SNP will be the first to hang her out to dry? They suspended councillors for a few weeks for burning a piece of paper, for Christ’s sake!

    Meanwhile, consider: the SNP conference is not far away. It’s the first to be televised to a UK-wide audience. It will be the first real start to the 2016 campaign. The establishment will stop at nothing to derail the entire proceedings by showing the SNP’s “reluctance” to talk about this complete and utter non-issue as if it means anything.

    This is the narrative they’re working for. “SNP conference goes ahead, but still no answers on the Michelle Thomson scandal (we made up).” “SNP conference attracts thousands, but shady backgrounds of MPs remain verboten.” “SNP sets out 2016 manifesto, but still no answers from Lab/Lib/Con questions on MPs.” Anything to detract from the real matters going on.

    For all the thud and blunder about how the SNP have “had it easy for the past eight years” (HAH), it’s painfully transparent what’s really going on. Don’t buy into it.

  98. mealer says:

    I think this matter should remind everyone who represents the SNP,at what ever level,that they are under the most intense scrutiny and that they need to be cleaner than clean.

  99. Sandy Henderson says:

    Just been listening to Dugdale on bbc. Same old rubbish. Democracy, she doesn’t know the meaning of the word.
    Corbyne, her mate!!!, is a sly old fox. Does he really not know what is going on in Noland?
    Her ideas of grandeur will be shot down in flames.
    Scottish Labour does not exist. It is of course a branch.
    Guiseppe will pull the strings.

  100. Raft says:

    I bought four virtual crabs on King’s Paradise Bay game and sold them for several times the price to someone else. Will it be on STV News? Yes, probably.

  101. Tinto Chiel says:

    Jeez, and it’s only October.

    Only seven months to go.

    Tin helmets on. Where’s john king when you need him?

    Good news, Kezia: you’re up against “cheeky bitch” on Thursday.

    Vincent Price laugh……..

  102. ErinT says:

    The clip including that “cheeky bitch” comment is terrible and a really nasty character smear that unfairly paints someone as uncaring and cold. Everything else just seems like the usual rubbish involved with property dealing which I won’t comment on until something actually important arises, if it does at all.

  103. Truth says:

    Now that the media seems to have discovered the tawdry world of property deals, perhaps they could turn their attention to Flipper could they not?

    Now that would be a story in the public interest.

  104. Patrician says:

    I said this before the referendum, STV were every bit as bad as the BBC in terms of bias, and they haven’t changed. I watched the rugby on STV at the weekend and I was absolutely gobsmacked at the “News” report just after the game finished, they would just as well have had 5 minutes of screen time with the caption “SNP BAD” displayed.

  105. Jimbo says:

    @ Luigi:

    What about the £10,000 that has gone missing that from Labour party accounts in an Edinburgh constituency? Surely that is big news. Why is that not all over the corporate media?

    Yet another thief in the Labour Party is probably no longer considered newsworthy. After all, the public are already well aware how rotten to the core the Labour Party is.

    No, instead the establishment friendly media in Scotland prefer to try and tarnish the SNP by manufacturing smears in an attempt to paint them as bad as Labour.

  106. Nuada says:

    I’m quite thick. Can someone explain to me about this offer of £71,000, how it fits into the whole scenario, why the “victims” didn’t accept it … oh hell, I’m going down the pub.

  107. cearc says:

    Meanwhile, George Osbourne makes 400,000 on the sale of his second which we helped pay for!

  108. Col says:

    How many kids were sitting eating their dinner with their parents and had to listen to that “cheeky bitch ” comment?

    If I were a parent of young kids I would be fuming that STV thought it appropriate to air that kind of language at that time in the evening.

    That aside, that little piece of media produced outrage was quite simply garbage and those who saw fit to air it should really think about a job in refuse collection.

    As for Bernard, I’m convinced the security services have something on him. He was certainly no stranger to hanging around the lane at night behind where I work in Glasgow years ago (allegedly).

  109. Capella says:

    The witch hunt goes beyond Michelle Thomson. Ivan McKee also bought property in Edinburgh to let out. He is an excellent SNP candidate in the Holyrood elections and so it is imperative to smear him also.

    Furthermore, Paul Monaghan, MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, posted critical comments about the Union Jack, the Royal Family and the Israeli attack on Palestine. That was enough to incur the rage of the CM (Corporate media).

    This orchestrated smear campaign will continue indefinitely.
    What is to be done? (to coin a phrase).

    I do think we need to support the development of internet media. Obviously, that will not reach the sectors of society who are not online. But we have to address that problem asap.

  110. Cadogan Enright says:


    Another candidate for TODAYS TORY

    Cutting tax credits for the low paid “sends a cultural message” according to this tory brainbox

    I suspect the Torys are right – but not about which message

    What about “we are greedy bastards and let’s grind the noses of the poor in the dirt?”

    Or ” let’s steal £1k off every poor family working in this disunited Kingdom and have enough money to scrap inheritance tax for the rich?”

    Any more votes on what culturl message is being sent?

  111. Ronnie says:

    John MacKay, Anchorman?

    Mair like John MacKay, Rubby-Dubby Man!

    (It stinks!)

  112. louis.b.argyll says:

    Relax, the SNP are playing it cool.

    They can afford to.

    Deep down, everyone knows, that despite the constant (successful or otherwise) smear campaigns…

    ..The SNP HAS the moral high-ground…

    And WE have them, to bid, as our sovereign will.

  113. Big Jock says:

    Taranaich – Correct Mcwhirter et al, are going through the motions. They want to appear fair minded and not thrawn. So have decided in the interests of fairness,to go along with the narrative.

    In other words they know it’s nonsense but are being led by other media opinion. In a weeks time it will be dropped. But the damage is done. The intention was never to get to the truth. The truth would kill them. It’s throw a bomb and run tactics. Then say it wisnae me.

    Then they throw the next bomb. Eventually they hope one bomb is fatal. It’s the most crude and corrupt form of politics. The jury should be trying the media and Ruth and Kezia for their unethical behaviour not Michelle.

  114. Big Jock says:

    Louis it worked every other time. Maybe the SNP are just letting the media burn themselves out.

    The polls have gone up everything the smear campaigns start. SNP working on the white noise theory. Eventually Joe Public switches off.

  115. heedtracker says:

    Ms Baillie welcomed the decision of the presiding officer to select her question and said Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC can “bring some more transparency to a case which currently has more questions than answers”.
    Ms Thomson is linked to 13 transactions Mr Hales conducted in 2010-11 where properties were said to have been bought cheaply from clients looking for a quick sale and then sold at a huge mark-up on the same day.
    Complicated “cashback” deals were said to have been used to artificially inflate property prices in order to secure bigger loans from lenders.
    Ms Thomson has denied acting illegally and has withdrawn herself from the party whip, a move which also means her membership of the SNP is suspended.
    The SNP has now removed “The 56” merchandise from sale on its website. It was launched following the unprecedented election of 56 SNP MPs in May but Ms Thomson’s suspension has reduced their ranks to 55.
    Share this story About sharing

    Ms Baillie welcomed the decision of the Presiding Officer to select her question and said Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC can “bring some more transparency to a case which currently has more questions than answers”.

    Ms Thomson is linked to 13 transactions Hales conducted in 2010-11 where properties were bought cheaply from clients looking for a quick sale and sold at a huge mark-up the same day and where complicated “cashback” deals were used to artificially inflate property prices to secure bigger loans from lenders.

    Share article

    Ms Thomson has denied any wrongdoing and withdrawn herself from the party whip, a move which also means her membership of the SNP is suspended.

    The SNP has now removed ”The 56” merchandise from sale on its website. It was launched following the unprecedented election of 56 SNP MPs in May but Ms Thomson’s suspension has reduced their ranks to 55.

    Spot the difference. I didn’t know they cut n paste each other. Its probably not a first but it must be fairly unusual even for tory media UKOK.

  116. Paula Rose says:

    This new name for MSM thing –

    Corpse media – corporate and South East

    CUM – corporate ukok/unionist media

  117. Papadox says:

    What is going on?

    IMHO The ENGLISH STATE (the establishment) is terrified that it is loosing its influence and control over the Scottish population, and their politics. The state is under threat which can’t and will not be tolerated at ANY cost and the longer this situation is allowed to go on unchecked and unresolved allows the Scots to see how they have been led by the nose for the last 300 years by the “ELITE” of British establishment.

    The powers that be have come to the conclusion that this independence challenge is taking hold and needs to be snuffed out before it gets to well established and cannot be extinguished. So hard decisive action is imperative as soon as possible and this is the opening shots of the establishments campaign of lies, misinformation, smear, fear and brow beating to bring the Scots under the whip of England once again.

    This will hopefully solve two problems with one bullet, 1 put the uppity jocks back in their kennel and 2 act as a warning to anyone else who might have thoughts above their station. They will punish us to encourage the others to behave themselves and accept Betty and the establishment as their Lords and masters and bow our heads.

    They have to move now before this indipendance nonsense takes hold and the great British state implodes.

    I personally believe they have missed the boat, its already under way. What the (establishment) do now is anybody’s guess but I won’t be surprised by anything the state does. It will not give up its fatted calf and authority with a smile and a wave.

  118. Al-Stuart says:

    As for STV’s political editor, the far from neutral Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate Bernard Ponsonby. He doesn’t care if he kills innocent people by driving into them whilst he is drunk. This person should NOT be on public television. He is only fit to appear on the Crimestoppers television.

    Ponsonby has already received an 18 month ban and conviction at Sheriff Court for being a dangerous criminal…

    As for STV – they too need to have their fitness to hold a licence reviewed.

  119. Me Bungo Pony says:

    Having just read the WoS “Twitching Corpse” article, it seems the Sunday Mail is guilty of murdering the truth.

    As Mrs Weight clearly states in the video, THEY paid £21,000 for their house, then THEY sold it to Ms Thomson for £51,000 in an agreement THEY made with her. She then sold it for £75,000 netting a profit as AGREED with the Wright’s.

    However, the Sunday Mail claims Ms Thomson bought it off them for £21,000 then sold it shortly after for £75,000. A clear abandonment of the truth in pursuit of a good old smear.

    Then again, is anyone surprised that the SNP’s opponents would resort to downright lies to smear it?

  120. Peter Craig says:

    Given that, on the present evidence, Indyref 2 will be a victory for Yes, this is just the opening salvo of a barrage that will be brutal in its intensity.

    Better together have shot their bolt, there are no more big beasts to roll out, Project Fear could only ever work once, UKOK cannot allow any possibility of a rerun. The SNP have to be neutralised.

    The gloves are off now,everything and anything will now be hurled at the SG.Time for the SNP to get down and dirty.

  121. Me Bungo Pony says:

    I would just like to make clear, I meant Mrs “Wright” NOT “weight” in my post above. Bloody predictive text 🙁

  122. ClanDonald says:

    Years ago my cousin bought a flat in The West End of Glasgow for a knockdown price, but it was absolutely stinking, the whole place stank of cat pee and poo, all the carpets in every room. The place was rancid.

    Anyway she ripped out all the carpets, bleached, sanded and varnished the floorboards, gave it a coat of paint, washed the windows and sold it for a profit of £20k about a month later. I remember thinking it wasn’t enough for the filth she had to put up with.

    So, yeah maybe there are good reasons why people can’t sell their properties. Just saying like.

  123. Legerwood says:

    The Law Society does not come out of this saga too well either but the media are too fixated on their SNP bad to pay it any attention. And if reports are true the Law Society will be hoping things stay that way. See link below.

  124. Patrician says:

    @Peter Craig, 11:55,

    Exactly, I have said this before, here and on Twitter. Indyref2 is being fought now. The result of the next referendum is now so close the British state will do everything in its power to stop the SNP winning a majority in 2016. No majority, no referendum. The muck-raking is only going to get worse, a lot worse. They will throw muck about anything that someone in the SNP might have done, real or imagined.

  125. Lesley-Anne says:

    Don’t panic folks.

    I have found the reason for all this anti SNP mantra from the mmejia.

  126. caz-m says:

    Like Patrician, I have been on STVs case for three years now. They are every bit as bias as their Unionists neighbours BBC Scotland.

    This is a triple attack by STV, BBC Scotland and Scottish Labour.

    Since the Daily Record lost it’s street cred’ STV have played a more prominent role in being the backup to BBC Scotland’s bullshit.

    Lib/Dem Bernard Ponsonby is still ragin’ with the SNP for causing the downfall of his Party.

    The rest of STV are Red Tories. If you want more proof, then listen to Harry Smith’s reports from Westminster.

  127. Brus Macgallah says:

    £30,000 profit on her council hoose eh? Hope she declared it to HMRC.

  128. Big Jock says:

    They are trying to divide us to stop a majority. Can’t believe Mcwhirter and Mckenna fell for it so easily. These woolly novea nationalist never last the pace.

  129. liz says:

    Also had a few things to say to Iain McWhirter today.

    Seems to think every SNP member has to be whiter than white.

    Am disgusted at him – he said well it might not be illegal but……….

    We are run by folk who cover up child rape, who are happy for folk to die, bombing Syria, our ‘friends’ committing a war crime bombing a hospital, but oh let’s all get wound up by someone making money out of a house deal.

  130. caz-m says:

    STV Enquiries/Complaints:

    Open 10am – 2pm (Monday – Friday)

    Telephone: Glasgow 0141 300 3704


    • Edinburgh and East (Suzi Mair)0131 200 8013

    Aberdeen and North (David McKeith)Tel: 01224 848842

    Dundee and Tayside (Craig Millar)01382 591000

  131. yesindyref2 says:

    OT totally
    Came to look at renewing my green bar EV SSL certificate, would have cost £432 for 2 years + VAT. Happened to check to see if any offers, it’s on “Fall blowout” for £99 / yr for 2 years at £198 + VAT total, less than half price. Whoopppee doo. I ran it through then signed into my account and it added the unexpired days of the old cert. For any of you with ecommerce sites it’s a Comodo one. Sorry for that OT spam – I have no connection with the company!

  132. Buster Bloggs says:

    I’m surprised I haven’t heard The SNP are just as bad as The Tories yet, That’s the narrative I think they are heading for, The fact she is no longer in The SNP oh and that other small fact she isn’t under investigation won’t stop them.

    Moving the public’s perception of The SNP to the right would be the only way Labour might win some seats back, if not they are dead and they know it.

    I’m sure nobody expected Labour to go quietly, let’s see what other shit they try and pull.

  133. Tam Jardine says:

    cearc and Truth

    You mention Osborne and flipper making a small fortune from selling houses part paid for by the tax-payer… so many were masters of the art form but they can act with relative impunity.

    Just cast your minds back to the referendum campaign- was there a single solitary instance of our gold standard media up here pulling up flipper, or Osborne or any of those who profited heavily from public funds?

    And will there be a single solitary journalist amongst our robust, impartial, vigorous and principled media who will point out the crass hypocrisy and dereliction of duty by the labour and conservative opposition leaders?

    After all, their parties have a proud tradition of ripping off the public in any number of clever ways.

    After all Ruth Davidson remained in office whilst under police investigation in connection with electoral fraud yet she wants Michelle Thompson strung up in the absence of even an official investigation into her conduct.

    After all the occasions they have accused the SNP of neglecting their duties due to their obsession with independence, Dugdale and Davidson waste an entire FMQ on this bullshit, all of last week, this week and probably next.

    No friends; dogs and cats will rut in the streets and the sea will give up its dead before you find a ‘journalist’ from the herald, the Scotsman or record, or ‘broadcaster’ from STV or BBC pull up Ruth Davidson or Kezia Dugdale on their screaming hypocrisy.

    They had 3 years to stand up and take on the likes of flipper and they developed a blind spot that conveniently was the exact size of Westminster, the BBC and Better Together; the blind spot covered the entirity of the no camp.

    Only in the UK could you take a man who took the taxpayer for everything he could, working the system like a pro, who subsequently fell asleep at the wheel during the credit crunch and presided over the biggest transfer of public funds to private hands in the bailout….

    only here could you put this liability up as the figurehead of a referendum campaign safe in the knowledge that no journalist would ever question his integrity or his record in office. Then reward him for his efforts by giving him an ermine cloak and £300 cash free a day thank you very much.

    They all live in their wee bubble attending awards ceremonies, blowing smoke up each other’s arses and convincing themselves that their constant stream of propaganda counts as serious journalism, and that any criticism of the press is an attack on freedom of speach.

  134. cearc says:

    Double bad news day for Osbourne then!

  135. Dr Jim says:

    Rip off, Rip off I’ll give you Rip off

    Compare ASDA prices with Aldi there you are

    Costa Coffee imports milk from England so does Starbucks

    These people are ripping of our Farmers and then they don’t pay tax now that’s a Rip off

    Michelle Thomson, Lovely Woman bought and sold a hoose SHEESH

    I’ve just added Daisley to the list, they’re like a wee anti SNP posse

    I’ll see yeez aw doon the steamy efter (folds arms over uncontrollable bosoms)

  136. call me dave says:

    The comeback kid? A Glasgow boy..regional list for Holyrood maybe!

  137. Patrician says:

    @Tam Jardine, 12:41am.

    Have a look at the links I posted earleir. It deals with German journalists but you can bet it is just as applicable to British jounalists.

  138. A2 says:

    who made first contact there? seems relevent.

  139. Greg Drysdale says:

    Appalling, absolutely appalling tabloid journalism of the kind we only expect from,well, tabloids. Are reporters like David Cowan allowed to reject these jobs on the basis that they are p*sh or is he pushed out the door and told not to come back until he has the dirt? Or at least, found someone alluding to some. I’m utterly shocked that STV news have dragged their asses down the journo-sewer. I think I’ll just stop watching their news now too. They also let Murray off with his assertion that SNP members were carrying out “predatory practices”. Dreadful reporting. Then I had to watch Osborne skipping up some steps. I feel physically sick

  140. Tam Jardine says:

    Dr Jim

    It gets worse Jim.

    Just imagine, in this day and age- some people, some even vulnerable, take train journeys to travel. Perhaps they are going to a funeral, or visiting someone in hospital. They have not bought an advanced ticket, perhaps because they didn’t have time, or it just seemed like an easy option.

    They have to pay for a ticket on the train and they pay the full fare. Just imagine how angry they would be to find that an apex ticket could cost a fraction of the full fare for THE SAME JOURNEY!

    How many times are the train companies getting away with this? How much money are they making from ordinary people.

    Its sickening. We must rid this country of public transport immediately. I blame the SNP for privatisation and for Beeching destroying the rail network. It must be destroyed.

  141. Paul says:

    I am sure STV, Record, Kaye Adams, Labour Northern Branch and many others have checked all the facts of the story. I mean, if it turned out there were allegations the Wright’s haven’t mentioned £30000 profit to HMRC, or to DWP in regard to any means tested benefits they may receive. Or if they were now in social housing after selling a flat they bought from council, and many other hypothetical scenario’s they will all look even more rediculous than they already do if any allegations turned out to have some truth.

  142. Kevin Evans says:

    So everyone’s a winner?

  143. Dr Jim says:

    50% of lawyers can’t read properly by the time they’ve graduated (Fact) Defo (Fact)

    Sturgeon must act (Lawyers for Literacy)

    Some of our poorest Lawyers are unequal says Kezia
    Chinese Lawyers work harder says Jeremy Hunt
    Jackie Baillie says “the fact of the matter is” and “the truth is” she doesn’t know any other words because of the glass ceiling causing her to be unequal, but once she’s eaten someone (thing) she’s alright

  144. Simon says:

    Person A phones company because they have an advert saying we will buy any house immediately, maybe they have a catchy jingle idk.

    Person A is offered some cash right now, in yer hand, readies look at them they’re all crisp and have that new note smell (they’re English notes so you can spend them anywhere).

    Person A accepts the deal and signs a piece of paper saying that they understand that price they have agreed to sell the house for is below market value, and that any monies from the sale of the house over and above the sweet, sweet cash bundle they have just been given are to be paid to Company SNPMPBad once the property is sold.

    Company SNPMPBad buys the house/finds someone to buy the house. The money that is over and above the cash given to Person A is (insert pejorative word secreted/stashed/etc.) in the bank account of Company SNPBad.

    Have I missed something?

    Honestly this has taken quite a wee while for me to get my head round it, even after reading the Law Soc. Ruling.

    The innuendo that has been flying around is astounding.

  145. Sandy Henderson says:

    Sarwar making a comeback attempt as regional MSP. I’m a Glasgow boy!!! says he.
    So was his father who, on his return to Pakistan, stated “that he loved his time in England”.
    Apparently, he got sacked from his new job as well.
    Sarwar, take some advice. Don’t make a further fool of yourself. You’ve already done enough. Give your gums a rest for a few years. God knows they worked overtime with the lips becoming brown as a result.

  146. geeo says:

    Come on now people, i am confident there will be an interview tomorrow on STV ‘news’ with an outraged taxpayer complaining about some ‘2 faced bitch’making a 30 grand profit at the taxpayers expense…..just for balance you understand, natch..!

  147. Lawrence says:

    Been following this for a wee while and still not any closer as to finding out why they were in such as rush to off load the house in the first place, it wouldn`t be that is was being rented out and like many found it wasn’t as sweet a deal as they thought it would be? a bit of a millstone.

    Wonder if the taxman might be interested in the profit they made?

  148. Michael McCabe says:

    @ Nana Smith 10:22pm Thanks for the link to the Ponsonby Post. And all the other links you put up.

  149. Alex Waugh says:

    “…ah mean, how much money has she made?”
    Well, according to most of the gutter press, a fair bit less than 2 million. Not exactly an ’empire’ is it? Barely the cost of one part of a London MP’s chosen flippable property. Ms Thomson’s total ’empire’ is worth less than a few month’s worth of dodgy expenses claims and yet still they are outraged. I also completely agree that the Wrights who, like many MP’s, have made a profit at the expense of the public purse and deprived a family of an affordable council home really should shut up, take their ill-gotten gains and run. If you choose to play the property game then don’t moan when it doesn’t make you as much money as you hoped it would.

  150. john king says:

    Tinto Chiel says
    “Tin helmets on. Where’s john king when you need him?”

    Am sittin here eatin ma porridge.
    Eh…wi ma tin helmet oan. 🙂

  151. Ken500 says:

    A prominent Labour Councillor (a lawyer?) had a similar business but was not struck off. Unionists go free. Chilcot Report. Expenses flip flop. Bank crash no liability. Wasting £Billions and killing and maiming millions of people.

    The Unionists are making a fool of themselves again.

  152. Tinto Chiel says:

    Morning, John.

    Excellent news. You never know the minute…

    Desperation stakes for Unionism, so the barrage will be a lengthy one.

    All I’ve got is a dust-bin lid.

  153. Grouse Beater says:

    Ken: A prominent Labour Councillor (a lawyer?) had a similar business but was not struck off. Unionists go free.

    They have the power, still.

  154. Grouse Beater says:

    Al-Stuart: As for STV’s political editor, the far from neutral Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate, Bernard Ponsonby… he already received an 18 month ban and conviction at Sheriff Court for being a dangerous … driver.

    Another boozy journalist. That’s all we need. Sigh.

  155. MJack says:

    It’s a classic case. Everyone wants to make money out of property (I have over the years) but we don’t want someone else to make money from property that we could be making money from or putting a high price on, we become jealous.

    People who have money can make money from property, if you don’t have a deposit etc you can’t get into property ownership, except with taxpayers subsidy “right to buy”. I wonder if Ruth Davidson will stand up and say that this is exactly what the “right to buy” was all about and that she still supports subsidised purchases of council houses so people can make money from property.

  156. Journalism of the very worst sort by STV last night. What exactly was the story? A woman who approached a company to consider buying a house she could not “get rid of” is apparently upset 4 years later because she only made £30k profit from the deal. I actually found myself swearing at the tv screen while I was watching it. I saw that John McKay responded to Stuart Campbell on Twitter yesterday. Perhaps Mr McKay might now like to come on here today to explain the purpose of the interview with Jackie Wright and also comment on the quality of the journalism concerned.

  157. Dan Huil says:

    The story[!] “won’t go away” because the British nationalist media won’t allow it. Any open-minded person must by now be totally pissed off with the media. Thank god for the internet and sites like WOS.

  158. Jim Mitchell says:

    I wonder what type of home that family live in now, local council, private rental, housing association or is it their own?

  159. Raft says:

    It’s not just quality of journalism. The whole thing is tacky and why Brass Eye existed.

    – “OK, let’s get a shot of you walking your dog. That’s good. Now a close-up of the dog – great! Now roll Phil Collins and Seb Coe VT”.

    From 1:35 onwards – you don’t edit a piece like that! This really is basic stuff. I as a pro am not going to detail for free in order to help them in their job.

    Everyone involved in the making of this report should be dragged over the coals.

  160. crazycat says:

    If the flat was the Wrights’ primary residence, there will have been no Capital Gains Tax to pay on their £30k profit (that’s the reason for all the “flipping” that MPs did). If they were not living in it, though, CGT would apply.

    A few weeks ago I was at some traffic lights behind a van advertising the sort of service M+F seem to have been providing – guaranteed purchase of any house, no legal fees, no catches, etc. It was fairly clear that the price would be low, but for anyone desperate to sell, it made things simpler to have someone else deal with all the details. (I paid attention to this because I know someone struggling to sell.)

    So the apparent “profit” of £24k will have been reduced by all those fees, and by CGT, which would apply to the second sale.

  161. David Wardrope says:

    Mrs Wright isn’t an “ordinary homeowner” by any chance is she?

  162. sensibledave says:

    … with the greatest respect, I think many here are being a little naive.

    I have no idea whether Michele Thomson did anything illegal – I rather suspect not. However, the area in which she appeared to be operating is often an unsavoury one. I make no further comments about her specific circumstances.

    More generally, there have been, and still are, firms that look to capitalise on the circumstances of some people that are in desperate situations.

    A typical case may go something like this.

    1. A home owner gets into serious financial difficulty. Maybe its not paying their mortgage or the weight of debts outside of the mortgage.

    2. They have got themselves into a situation where they face imminent foreclosure on their property as creditors seek to get repayment of their loans, etc. – maybe court proceedings have been scheduled. The Homeowner does not have the time to sell the house on the open market at the market price – before foreclosure proceedings would conclude.

    3. The home owner finds an advertisement where a firm offers to buy their house, within 5 days, and they contact the advertiser.

    4. The advertiser (lets call them a Financial House (FH)) is staffed by very knowledgeable and capable staff who are more than capable of maximising a given set of circumstances.

    5. The FH staffer visits the Home owner at their home and establishes their total circumstances. They now know the trouble that the home owner is in – and what is the minimum they can offer for the house (regardless of “real” market value) that may offer the only “way out” for the vendor.

    6. FH does a a quick “Exchange of contracts” (that’s how it is done in England where laws may be different in Scotland) with a minimum deposit with completion often set for downline for just a couple of days before a court hearing for a potential foreclosure.

    7. FH is now the quasi “owner” of the property. They may have agreed a price of say, £45k on a property with a real market value of say, £62k (BTW, that is about the price of a garden shed down here!).

    8. As the quasi owner, FH can now market the property for sale eithet on the open market – or, as is more likely, to their contacts, business associates, friends, etc. They might agree a price of say £52k. The price of £52k might be conditional on the sale happening on the same day that the “complete” on the purchase from the original homeowner. In other markets it is called “Options Trading”.

    9. Nothing illegal has happened. However, it is an example of the “unacceptable” face of capitalism – where knowledgeable and powerful people have used their knowledge, skill, money and power to maximise their profit from a situation where some poor soul is “cornered”.

    10. Often houses maybe bought and then sold at not dissimilar prices. However, the FH may be receiving “benefit” via other routes within the deal. So perhaps a consultancy agreement is paid – or an invoice for “marketing services” is paid – instead of that “uplift” appearing in the buying/selling margin at Land Registry (or whatever it may be in Scotland).

    11. It is therefore possible to buy a £40k house by paying just a £4k deposit and then sell that property (including “fees”) at the same price at completion (i.e very little cash is actually required to fund such deals) . However, FH may send the next buyer an invoice for £10k for marketing services as part of the deal. This also avoids Stamp duty and capital gains tax. Nothing necessarily illegal – just highly unsavoury and reprehensible.

    If a political party discovered that one of their MPs might be involved in schemes like this. They might want to suspend the whip. Sharpish!

  163. Jack Murphy says:

    Grouse Beater said on 5th October at 8:07pm:-
    ““Do you think you were lead up the garden path?” is a loaded question.

    The neutral question is, “How do you feel about selling your house when it was unwanted.”
    EXACTLY—-I and others in the room were aghast at the STV reporter.

  164. sensibledave says:

    Jack Murphy 1.20pm

    … I dont know whether you read my comments before yours?

    If a journalist (MSM, local, TV or radio) knew story was “unfolding” and that maybe, legal proceedings might be brought, or maybe a public outcry was looming once “facts” became apparent – then maybe they might produce an interview not dissimilar to the one being discussed?

    Sometimes there might be a story building (as yet unconfirmed in journalistic parlance) about unscrupulous (although maybe legal) business practices?

    If you were a journalist and you had the “in” on such a story – what might you do as you walk the tightrope between what you can say – and what you can’t?

    Again, for the record, my comments are regarding the sort of scheme discussed in my previous post/comments – not anyone specific.

  165. Anagach says:

    Are people dropping the herald ?. Its most recent articles are worryingly slanted and vacuous. Add to that the comments changes – who no longer allow down voting, which was always useful to identify the usual trolls.

  166. Taranaich says:

    @sensibledave: … with the greatest respect, I think many here are being a little naive.

    With the greatest respect, sensibledave, is there any evidence that anything remotely resembling the scenario you outline applies to the current situation?

  167. sensibledave says:

    Grousey and Jack

    ““Do you think you were lead up the garden path?” is a loaded question.

    What if, as part of the vendor’s understanding of a deal, the FH agreed to pay say, £45k for a house and offered an additional incentive of 50% to the original vendor of anything achieved over £52k for the property in an onward sale – as part of the deal? But FH always knew they would never declare an onward sale price above £52k – because they were invoicing elsewhere for “consultancy services”?

    What if you were a journalist (with no political bias whatsoever), and you maybe “knew” that sort of thing was going on – but couldn’t “prove” it yet – how might you conduct and edit an interview for broadcast?

    I would strongly urge that commenters on matters such as these, gather at least a basic understanding of some of the “murkier” business practices that go on. I understand that some people may be less “worldly” than I am and, therefore, may find themselves offering support and comment on the basis of naive, blind faith – when it may be found, subsequently, to be totally unjustified.

  168. sensibledave says:

    Taranaich 1.58

    … absolutely none. I probably know far less about the current situation than you do.

    I do however observe a rather large gap between some of the comments being written above – and the very decisive (disloyal?) action taken by the SNP. Do you think the SNP leadership may know more “facts” than the likes of you and I – given that very decisive action appears to be in an instance where no illegality appears to be alleged?

    Treat my comments above as just general information about how some unscrupulous people operate their businesses in the UK – and be aware.

  169. yesindyref2 says:

    Yes, you outlined a possible scenario, with slight variations would be needed for how it would work in Scotland.

    This is what it’s all about. There’s the possible legal side, and then there’s the moral side. So far nothing has been determined either way in the Thomson case with respect to her. Meanwhile she has distanced herself from the SNP and vice versa, whether under pressure or voluntarily – probably the latter though as her resigning of the SNP whip was instant.

  170. David says:


  171. sensibledave says:

    yesindyref2 3:18 pm

    Thank you yesindyref2.

  172. sensibledave says:

    Simon 2:03 am

    Have I missed something?

    Yes Simon, you have – fairness, morals, ethics to name but a few.

    As discussed on the next thread. The FSA and the FCA have rules about “Treating The Customer Fairly” when the customer is a “Joe Soap” i.e. a consumer.

    Companies are judged to be capable of entering contracts without a “fairness” test from the law. Consumers have protection, under the law, from unfair terms.

    Millions of people willingly signed PPI contracts with the banks …. how’s that working out?

  173. Grouse Beater says:

    Sensibile: What if…

    What if you stop playing with yourself?

  174. Helen Mills says:

    I wonder if the MSM will be so quick to support Mrs Wright when she is being cross examined by Ms Thompson’s legal team.

  175. skozra says:

    When I first caught a glimpse of that lady’s coupon in the video preview picture above with her face partially obscured with the You Tube play button, I thought it was Alex “Hurricane” Higgins.

  176. Stevie says:

    Talk about female sense of entitlement!

  177. sensible dave is my hero

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top