1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"Back-to-back" property transactions and Michelle Thomson MP: a perplexing tale

Discussion in 'Scotland/Alba' started by danny la rouge, Oct 8, 2015.

  1. eoin_k

    eoin_k Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music

    But doesn't the lack of hard evidence suggest that she wasn't commiting this paticular fraud? This isn't some discreet, long-term scam; it's a hit-and-run job? You don't hold onto the property. You don't make any repayments. You just default and keep the difference between what you paid for the property and what the bank lent you. You certainly don't stand for political office, unless you used false details for the transactions. If you've been that niave you probably go on holiday, or get false i.d., or live in the cash economy till you hope they've forgotten you.

    None of which is too suggest that property speculators are the sort of people who should administer society's public institutions. But I imagine the other parties would also look pretty poor if we open that can of worms.
     
  2. DexterTCN

    DexterTCN Well-Known Member

    Derek Bateman has posted on Bateman: Why the SNP is popular and why that situation is set to continue for a long time yet - Newsnet.scot

    em...again pretty much backing up what I was saying.

     
  3. two sheds

    two sheds not as daft as i look

    Isn't there possible fraud? If the housing market takes a dive all the company would have to do is go bankrupt and the banks would have lost their money. It's almost a pyramid scheme relying on increasing house prices. I think.
     
  4. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    If she'd been a member of any other party would you?

    I fully understand that you're turning a blind eye. But how many blind eyes can you turn before losing your sense of direction?
     
  5. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    Even if there's no fraud, she's still inflating the housing market in order to get the cash back payment. If people can't see that this is a bad thing overall, then there's something seriously wrong with them; if the attitude of the SNP is that this is just the way business is done, then they can go fuck themselves. So far, the SNP hasn't said one way or another. Some members and supporters have though, and they make me sick.
     
    redsquirrel and xslavearcx like this.
  6. DexterTCN

    DexterTCN Well-Known Member

    'Overall'? that means...Taking everything into account? All things considered? Yeah?

    I don't think Ms Thomson is responsible for inflating the housing market, in any way. She's not a banker. The law under which her business partner was disbarred is a law to protect banks, not people. If she's guilty of something then she is guilty, that's fine...but as usual you go too far...people who support her or her ex party make you sick, they can go fuck themselves? People who vote against tories and red tories? People who vote against trident and bedroom tax and tuition fees and prescription charges? They make you sick....because of this one thing?

    Overall? Overall the SNP are doing what they're meant to be doing. Helping the poorest, pushing for independence, fighting the tories, fighting for the unions against the tories, building houses. That's from my point of view of course, they also do rightist stuff as well. They're not perfect as a party or by its individual members, no party is.

    Overall they're better than anything you have to offer, I've been here more than 10 years and no offence...urban's done nothing, the snp are doing things. Overall if it falls flat it'll be because of people like you, not people like me.
     
  7. redsquirrel

    redsquirrel This Machine Kills Progressives

    I wouldn't bother danny, no one bar a prat like Dexter could possibly see your posts as some sort of smear.
     
    danny la rouge likes this.
  8. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    As usual you have failed to read the post you're quoting. Instead of reading it and looking at what I've actually said, you've gone into full defence mode: you assume I must be attacking everyone.

    I wrote:

    I note that you singularly do not address any of the questions. You have also missed the opportunity once again to say whether you think that these cash back deals are OK by you or not. And, once again in case you missed it, even if legal.

    Your attempt to change the meanings of what I've said is utterly pathetic.
     
  9. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    Try these questions, and don't get side-tracked into how great you think the SNP are and how rubbish anyone who has questions about this story is: stick to the topic.

     
  10. DexterTCN

    DexterTCN Well-Known Member

    You were the one to extend the argument to the SNP and supporters, weren't you?

    I was pointing out the battle being fought between a generally left-wing government and a very right-wing one...pointing out that if she's guilty or innocent it makes no difference up here, changes no-ones minds...there's a bigger battle going on. I gave that answer to you earlier then expanded it to you with specific challenges re bedroom tax, trident,unions, social welfare etc. That's not to dismiss this, it's putting it into perspective and explaining why it doesn't matter.

    I linked to non-urban posts that address Thomson specifically and gave my own honest opinion. (I also just linked sites and encouraged people to read for themselves).

    And I've done it all politely, I think.
     
  11. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    Either you're incapable of reading what I actually said, or you just think it is impermissible to criticise anyone who is a member or supporter of the SNP. Probably both.

    So, you've decided to answer a completely different question again. Which makes it clear to me and everyone else reading that you can't back up your initial criticisms you levied against me: you can't point to any "spoon fed one-sided garbage" or any facts that I'm specifically wrong about.

    Nor can you point to any pertinent facts that I have left out.

    But then you seem not to understand what I'm saying anyway, so perhaps that's no surprise.
     
  12. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    A couple of obvious points here are:

    1. The vast majority of the electorate are in the same position as me; they're not elected to any decision-making government - local, devolved, or UK-wide. Does that mean they are, by your measure, unqualified to make any criticism of anyone* in a position of power? I'd have thought that was an extremely troublesome point of view to hold. Not just slightly, but extremely.

    (*I realise your axiom only holds for the SNP, but that makes this attitude more worrying, not less).

    2. You have no idea what I do or don't do. But also, I no more personify "urban" than you do: it's a bulletin board we both post on. On it people discuss loads of things, and give and form opinions on them. That's what's going on here: I'm discussing a current affairs story.

    People like me? People who ask questions?

    What constitutes "people like me"?
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  13. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

  14. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

  15. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

  16. Poi E

    Poi E Pessimism: a valuable protection against quackery.

    "An absence of sufficient credible and reliable evidence" is pretty strong language from prosecutorial authorities, although they do say "at this time". I am sure many opponents of the SNP will have been helping with the digging for dirt, but evidence came there none. A storm in a tea cup, but it has ended her political career. Extraordinary how Labour and the Tories tried to get so much mileage out of this. I guess once you've banged on about education and Indyref2 this is all you've got, especially when neither party has any policies.

    "Exonerated" is inappropriate as she was never even charged.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
  17. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato T'agba ta ti de, a ma yo ogunja.

    Exonerated was the word that she herself used.
     
  18. Poi E

    Poi E Pessimism: a valuable protection against quackery.

    I know.
     
  19. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge This is definitely the darkest timeline

    Salmond: SNP 'made a mistake' in handling of Michelle Thompson case

    "Mr Salmond, who stood down as leader in 2014, was a Westminster colleague of Ms Thomson and said he had been a "strong supporter of her". He also wants to see her return to the party."

    Salmond doing here what a lot of (but not all) social media SNP loyalists have been doing: getting confused between two propositions. First, that Thomson has not been shown to have been doing anything illegal. Second, that it is desirable to have as SNP business spokesperson someone who was conducting the business Thomson was conducting.

    I see no reason to re-evaluate what I said in post 35.

    "if the SNP knew that this (ie perfectly legal cash-back property deals) was her business, and then made her business spokesperson, what does that say about their attitude to business? And to housing policy?"

    There can be no doubt that they now know this was her business. That Salmond still proclaims himself a "strong supporter of her" poses those same questions about his attitude to business and to housing policy. Is this what the SNP aspires to? Are Thomson's supporters, as well as saying she was doing nothing illegal, saying her type of business is what the SNP should be promoting?

    Salmond is no longer an MP, but he is still a senior SNP member. And the SNP's Westminster group leader is now the former Deutsche Bank investment banker who called for an independent Scotland to abolish capital gains tax.

    So, why should we vote for a party that is no longer even talking left?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017 at 6:33 PM
    Poi E and redsquirrel like this.

Share This Page