There's knowing and there is getting enough evidence to charge. Two different things.
Sounds like something Spitty might say about us when we are found innocent ;-)There's knowing and there is getting enough evidence to charge. Two different things.
It wasn't a husband and wife embezzling money, the police said it wasn't. Don't know about the motor home is it part of the embezzlement charges or was his original explanation accepted. I don't know maybe you do and can enlighten us to what the charges consist of. Even if it does form part of the charges maybe she believed her husbands original explantion, again I don't know I haven't questioned her about it, the police have though, they have made their decision. Take it up with them if you think they have missed something.There's a big difference between the witch hunt with City and a husband and wife embezzling money. Do you seriously nit think she would have asked why they had bought a 120k motorhome. Would your wife not have asked questions.
I think folk are also forgetting that Murrell hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything yet. Let’s see how it plays out and what evidence there is.It wasn't a husband and wife embezzling money, the police said it wasn't. Don't know about the motor home is it part of the embezzlement charges or was his original explanation accepted. I don't know maybe you do and can enlighten us to what the charges consist of. Even if it does form part of the charges maybe she believed her husbands original explantion, again I don't know I haven't questioned her about it, the police have though, they have made their decision. Take it up with them if you think they have missed something.
There is armchair punditry assumption and passing judgement from the sidelines, and then there is a full lengthy investigation looking for things that can or can't be proven. I doubt they simply asked her and took her word for it.There's knowing and there is getting enough evidence to charge. Two different things.
We’ve got three scousers telling City fans that they’re guilty whatever happens.
Their prejudice means no meaningful debate will ever happen with them.
Leave them to it, would be my advice.
Meh. Guilt is for common sense to determine, by people skim-reading the Express ans Mail capital lettered headlines.I think folk are also forgetting that Murrell hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything yet. Let’s see how it plays out and what evidence there is.
Oh sure, but it’ll fall on deaf ears.More than happy to leave them to it.
But I will 100% point out the hypocrisy.
But I'll know.Oh sure, but it’ll fall on deaf ears.
Absolutely comparable.The two situations aren’t comparable.
I expect the club to be cleared, and therefore no individual at the club will have a case to answer.
With the SNP, as it stands, we’re being asked to believe that one person would be seen as responsible for embezzlement and the broader chaos which appeared to surround its finances, but that someone like Sturgeon knew nothing about it.
Absolutely comical. If someone farted in the SNP HQ car park, she’d probably know about it.
You do understand it wasn’t the house keeping or a family business ,he’s accused of embezzling, but a political party in which she’d have little involvement in the accounting department?If you're struggling to see the difference between firstly a couple living in the same house and finances where one apparently knew nothing about her finances
She definitely knew aboug the motorhome and that got reposssed or returned. Why was that if it was legit? And she definitely knew about that? So how do you explain that one ? She's a bright woman, she knew what was happening. Anyway we are going round in circles here, so that is me finished on this. Have a good one.You do understand it wasn’t the house keeping or a family business ,he’s accused of embezzling, but a political party in which she’d have little involvement in the accounting department?
I see you still have’t answered whether the motor home is part of what he is accused of ?
Let me put it this way, I have a small business with my wife, she does all the accounts and banking she deals with advertising, donations and sponsoring. I wouldn't have the faintest idea whether she was squirrelling away a few quid, or buying a few clothes and new shoes and putting it in the accounts as something else. She’s my wife and I trust she isn’t ,but never crossed my mind to check, nor will I be.
If you are struggling with such fundamental basics of what the accusations and outcome have actually been, best not jump to such solid conclusions.Two completely different cases City and a husband and wife. If you're struggling to see the difference between firstly a couple living in the same house and finances where one apparently knew nothing about her finances or why a 120k motorhome suddenly appeared and then had to be handed back and secondly a multi million pound international business like City then with a paper trail and numerous people involved then that's your problem not mine.
All I will say is, sometimes it's best to be be a bit more open minded. You can still not pull on those SNP pajamas and snuggle up under that saltire duvet with your lassie every night.
Not comparable at all. Very distinct in nature for the reasons I’ve outlined.Absolutely comparable.
You just seem to be on different sides in each case.
You looking at Sturgeon may be like a Rag or maybe a neutral supporter looking at City, only going on the media portrayals.
The police could be both, either or neither.So do you believe the police were incompetent or corrupt ?
And there we see the prejudice blinding you to the hypocrisy of not seeing the parallels with how people treat our cases. Of course she didn’t have control of accounts she isn’t an accountant.The police could be both, either or neither.
But it doesn’t really matter to my argument. Again, the notion that she had no idea what was happening in a party had total control over is simply preposterous.
However I suppose that if people are inclined to believe that Scottish independence is a good idea, and that the SNP are capable of delivering it in good order, then they’re likely to believe quite a lot of things.
I’ve no skin in the game, but I interpreted the argument being made to you exactly how I outlined.Not comparable at all. Very distinct in nature for the reasons I’ve outlined.
It’s not really prejudice to identify the glaring holes in the independence argument, or indeed to highlight how the SNP have failed to address them.And there we see the prejudice blinding you to the hypocrisy of not seeing the parallels with how people treat our cases. Of course she didn’t have control of accounts she isn’t an accountant.