In my sentence "it" is his submission. But it applies to everything you want as the report states he wouldn't be interviewed (so not a general assessment - it's just what happened).When you say 'it' do you mean the specific allegation that LOTO was demanding that funding be diverted to loyalists in safe seats? Or was it a general assessment of his overall reticence?
Again even if true none of that negates the fact that almost a quarter of million pounds was diverted by people with no mandate. I can't think why people confronted with factual evidence of their shithousery would seek to blame others can you?
To repeat the actual words were 'we were unable to establish the truth over these allegations '
Word of mouth against lack of evidence was just me referencing the last long winded judgement I read. No smoke without fire and all that.
There is plenty of 'both siding' to take from this report not sure this one of them tbh.
And "we were unable to establish the truth over these allegations" means exactly that. It doesn't mean "we don't believe them", or "we think they made them up to cover themselves". It means, that after all the investigations, people who know a lot more than you or I, are saying they don't know.
I'm not taking sides, I'm saying the report says they don't know if it's true that LOTO pressured the party staff to divert funding.
I don't disagree about the shadow fund being dodgy as fuck, and likely worth sacking everyone involved - but I did say in my very first post, that I'd expel them from the party if I had the choice.