No idea who Lloyd is. Any actual evidence of any wrongdoing rather than the Mail insinuations. Were you so vocal around the wholesale corruption by Uk Tory government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
Printable View
No idea who Lloyd is. Any actual evidence of any wrongdoing rather than the Mail insinuations. Were you so vocal around the wholesale corruption by Uk Tory government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
To be called the establishment there would i assume be some support in the mainstream media rather than a generally hostile oneQuote:
Originally Posted by jamie_1875
I didn't realise Nicola Sturgeon was running a book festival!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
She was Sturgeon's Dominic Cummings.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
But a normal human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Would struggle to think she was as odious as that weirdoQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I assume because it wasn't available to Holyrood parliamentarians at the time (might be wrong but I think it is now, or at least set to become available, under Labour) and he wanted to do Salmond a favour in fighting what had turned out to be false charges against him. I think he had to use parliamentary privilege due to the fact the civil case Salmond had brought against the Scottish Government was ongoing (and still is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Full adjournment debate here, which is an interesting watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mB9IbCk7p8
Or it’s because he made it all up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A tory telling lies? Surely not!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Yes, that must be it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The Scottish government after all emerged so squeaky clean from an inquiry into harassment claims against Salmond which they admitted to have conducted unlawfully and with 'apparent bias' - as well as a Sheriff Court trial which saw Salmond cleared of all charges by jury mostly made up of women.
I'm not surprised he launched legal action against them before he died. As far as I'm aware that's ongoing and those who probably breathed a sigh of relief at his passing may not be able to rest easy yet.
Given you can't defame/libel someone once they're dead I'm going to say Salmond was overly "handsy" and a "pest". Probably a baw hair away from being found guilty.
Innocent in court but the post trial comments weren't exactly showing him in a great light.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I wouldn't worry about defamation. Plenty of his enemies have been happy to perpetuate a 'he was guilty really' myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Being cleared of all 13 charges, with a 14th charge dropped by prosecutors, is hardly a 'baw hair' from being found guilty.
Salmond's lawyer acknowledged in court that he wasn't the loveliest of people but a jury clearly didn't believe that made him anything worse.
Evidence is important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t think there was any danger of a conviction. Police Scotland just saw an opportunity to go for the SNP. There was zero evidence at the trial of any guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
What there was though was a nightmare for HR and a definite sacking offence for any employer.
He should have been sacked long before he quit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ahem……. I think you will find it was the Prosecutor Fiscal not Police Scotland who saw the opportunity to go for Salmond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They saw an opportunity to go for the SNP and arrested Salmond? I thought he quit the party after the harassment enquiry fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/snp-out-...n-ratings-fall
SNP out in front in Scotland as Starmer’s satisfaction ratings fall
Westminster voting
Our headline estimate of General Election voting intention is:
SNP: 31%Labour: 22%Reform UK: 16%Conservatives: 10%Scottish Green Party: 10%Liberal Democrats: 9%Alba Party: 1%Other: 1%
Holyrood voting
Our headline estimate of Holyrood constituency voting intention is:
SNP: 34%Labour: 23%Reform UK: 14%Conservatives: 10%Liberal Democrats: 9%Scottish Green Party: 9%Alba Party: 1%Other: 1%
Our headline estimate of Holyrood regional list voting intention is:
SNP: 26%Labour: 22%Reform UK: 16%Scottish Green Party: 15%Conservatives: 10%Liberal Democrats: 8%Alba Party: 2%Other: 1%
Remember when the SNP squeezed the Legal Aid budget in Scotland?
Strange then that Peter Murrell was given approval to receive legal aid, after all its not like he couldn't afford to fund his own legal costs!
Taxpayers are now set to foot the bill for former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell’s legal costs after he was charged with embezzlement, it has emerged.
According to reports solicitors acting for Nicola Sturgeon’s estranged husband have had an application for legal aid approved.
Criteria to claim Legal Aid in Scotland
To qualify for legal aid in Scotland, you generally need to demonstrate that you cannot afford your own legal costs and that the case is covered by Scottish law. You'll also need to pass financial tests based on your disposable income and capital. Additionally, there are merits tests to ensure your case has legal merit and that it's reasonable to spend public money on it.
Looks like he has disposed off his assets
He was the CEO for over 20 years earning £100K plus some years and wasn't that long ago he loaned the SNP over £100,000 so I find it a little odd he now suddenly doesn't have enough to pay legal costs. If he genuinely is skint I don't have a problem with him getting Legal Aid but I hope some investigation has gone on to make sure he hasn't just hidden his money somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Could it be that he's had his assets frozen, therfore not able to pay for his solicitor.
Can legal costs not be fairly astronomical for a case like this though?
The sort of thing that could wipe out the savings of someone who has been well paid and then some?
The sort of legal fees you rack up for the likes of a house purchase would be dwarfed by the sort of expense you could rack up defending a case like this, no?
If anyone in their wildest dreams doesn't think Murrells application wasn't gone over in the tiniest detail to ensure everything was absolutely above board, given the political and media interest in this case, they're aff their heid 😆
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Taxpayers will never know how much of their money was wasted in Scottish Governement's doomed legal battle with Alex SalmondQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18721009.final-cost-alex-salmond-legal-fiasco-not-possible-calculate/
In this case the Scottish government ended up having to pay over £500,000 'towards' Salmond's legal costs (plus at least another £118,000 on 'external legal fees') so that would obviously have been a pretty crippling sum for Salmond to pay had he not won his legal fight (think he possibly crowd-funded for part of his initial costs). So yes, wealthy enough as Murrell appears to have been to bail out the SNP with a loan, legal fees can sky rocket.
Searching the internet Murrell’s net worth is anywhere between £2m and £5m
Personally i think he as lawfully disposed of his assets to insure he is not liable for legal and court costs plus any other financial penalties further down the line.
Late to the party on this one but at least some of those relate to long-term, recurring funding grants (either new, increases to existing or previous annual funding converted to recurring), not a one-off thing like this. For the record, I'm not that fussed that the SG has done this - and I'm in the No camp. Just pointing out that those figures aren't comparing apples with apples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Thank goodness evidence is no longer required 😆Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Something else the media would be over like a rash!
The SNP owed him 60k in their last accounts, I wonder if they still do. If they don't he's needed or used the majority to be able to get legal aid, if not he's benefiting from not being paid from scot gov at the expense of the tax payer.
Evidence for what …he had money ….now he hasn’t and provided the Legal Aid Commisiin enough evidence to be granted Legal Aid. He is not going on trial for any offence against the Legal Aid CommissionQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
His application will have probably been the most checked application they've ever dealt with. The embarrassment if they got it wrong, or something more sinister, would be off the scale stupidity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby