“Where allegations are made against people or institutions in which the public have placed trust, it is the responsibility of the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation to determine if there is evidence that criminal conduct has occurred.
“We understand public curiosity about this investigation. However, the Crown does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court. This protects the rights of the individuals concerned who are entitled to a presumption of innocence.”
Seems like the Crown prosecuters decided prosecuteral follow up was not in the public interest and decided on a “psuedo not proven” verdict.
caltonjock 
Get a grip Jocky boy!
No proceedings means there was no evidence on which to prosecute.
Your ‘psuedo not proven’ comment is at best churlish but probably just pure venomous.
LikeLike
And the public will never be able to judge since: “the Crown does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh dear. Is there anything in our justice system with which you agree?
I fear that in your dotage you have lost all reason.
I picture you with a plasticine model of NS and a handful of hatpins sitting in a darkened room muttering some hateful incantation.
As I said before, get a grip
LikeLike
simply stating facts. Alec Salmond was castigated and demonised by the press and on-line haters over the “not proven” verdict returned on one the frivolous charges he faced. So its “nudge nudge” for me
LikeLiked by 2 people
You sir are floundering.
Absolutely no equivalence between a trial which brings forward evidence (AS) and the conclusion of an investigation with no charges(NS)
Your hatred of NS is so palpable that it should embarrass you to express it on your blog.
How many similarly warped people follow your blog, or are they mostly like me only reading your pish to remind ourselves that not all loonies are under lock and key?
LikeLike
In Alec Salmond’s case the public had access to the evidence and were able to make a judgement. After sitting on the voluminous report for over a year a grey anonymous figure advised there was nothing of any interest to the public in the report. Doesn’t seem right. Oh, and cut out the personal attacks. We each have a right to comment and you are not forced to read my blog.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aye right you are auld boy.
Noone in their right mind believes there is an equivalence.
Enjoy your self- indulgent conspiracy theories. The majority live in the real world.
You’d be better attacking the unionists who will continue to feed on the Murrell case and, by association, Sturgeon ad infinitum.
Murrel will sink or swim without our comment, speculation or wishful thinking.
If guilty, hell mend him. Some of the money was mine but my gums aren’t bleeding over it. The law will take its course.
LikeLike
So the way forward is established. Murrell is to stand alone to face as yet unspecified charge off embezzlement. But all is not yet lost. The many Scots who donated to the SNP Independence fund might yet claim a “failure to exercise due diligence”, through the civil courts against the the officers who signed off the accounts namely: Murrell, Beattie and Sturgeon. A liability for the recovery of £600 plus interest would bankrupt them
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. If that’s what it takes (bankruptcy) then so be it. The party needs to go, anyway. It is full of shysters who aren’t the least bit interested in their ‘raison d’etre’ & it’s more than time for them to leave the stage.
I don’t care whether or not I get my donations back. I simply want those who took it, to be prosecuted. All the daft nonsense spouted about Nicola ‘being cleared’ is just that – nonsense. The money is GONE & she was one of the signatories who signed off on the Accounts. Thus how anyone could say she isn’t involved, has no idea how accounts work and how it could be there was no evidence to take the case further, is also nonsense. And I have to ask… why did it take over TWO YEARS to determine that there was not enough evidence? It’s amazing what having friends in the right places, can do.
Yes, actually A GREAT MANY PEOPLE feel there is an equivalence. A GREAT MANY people LEFT SNP – in fact, in their THOUSANDS because they believe there is an equivalence. Your party has been reduced to no more membership than labour – enjoy having your self-indulgent head stuck firmly in… the sand, Colpermc. Attack the unionists? You ARE a unionist if you still believe that poor excuse of a party, SNP, will ever lead you to Independence. If this blog had emoji’s I’d be laughing very loudly. SNP are no more than trough feeders now. They’ve done diddly squat for Scotland in the last 10 years and I don’t expect them to do anything more in the coming year except to continue to have women arrested for telling men to stay out of their spaces. They have nothing n their heads to help Scotland. You might as well accept that, if you’re after Indy. But I suspect you’re not.
Thanks for keeping us informed, CJ. You’re spot on. They knew Sturgeon was guilty as sin & there’d be no way to keep her out of jail so they did the next best thing, as unionists do – lie & cheat and in this case, say there was no evidence. Of course there was, as anyone with a background in Accountancy knows. But… it wouldn’t keep her out of jail. Soo…
LikeLike