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

[eoin_k]

No, there isn't any hard evidence, but the frequency of the particular type of dealings is suggestive of the possibility, which frankly she should have protected herself against - it isn't as if, as a property developer, she wouldn't have been aware of how things can be misconstrued.

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.

 

[DexterTCN]

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.

It means that every time the SNP mess up, they are more likely to be forgiven.

Voters aren’t daft. They know what politicians are, and don’t expect the SNP to be any different. But they believe they are trying to do right, are convinced they want better. You don’t have to like all the policies – who does? But since your government is tied directly to your happiness, don’t you want one that has a convincing line in hopeful language, one that shares your belief that there is a way to make things better?

The opinion polls tell us a story the journalists cannot. The SNP have cornered the market in all-Scotland voting intentions and now they have taken out the copyright on Hope. They will own it for a long time to come.

 

[two sheds]

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.

 

[danny la rouge]

Pretty much saying what I was...no-one gives a fuck

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?

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

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.

 

[DexterTCN]

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.

'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?

If people can't see that this is a bad thing overall, then there's something seriously wrong with them

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.

 

[redsquirrel]

Hilarious. You have real reading comprehension problems, don't you?

Taking your last question first, here's just a selection of my postings on Carmichael:]

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]

'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?

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:

So far, the SNP hasn't said one way or another. Some members and supporters have though

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.

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

You say I have spoon-fed people a load of one-sided garbage. (Despite me linking to Lallans Peat Worrier's article on the matter). So, what specifically am I wrong about? What facts have I got wrong?

You have said I've left out facts. What pertinent facts have I left out?

What, in the end, is it specifically here that you actually disagree with me about? Why not tell us what your take on this matter is. (Other than vague retorts that I'm talking rubbish: maybe I am, maybe I'm misinformed. So point out where).

 

[DexterTCN]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[danny la rouge]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

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.

Overall if it falls flat it'll be because of people like you, not people like me.

People like me? People who ask questions?

What constitutes "people like me"?

 

[Sasaferrato]

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.

The SNP failed to get a majority though, so not quite as popular.

 

[danny la rouge]

Fraud case against former SNP MP Michelle Thomson dropped

"Criminal proceedings against former MP Michelle Thomson will not go ahead." (Scotsman).

 

[Sasaferrato]

Fraud case against former SNP MP Michelle Thomson dropped

"Criminal proceedings against former MP Michelle Thomson will not go ahead." (Scotsman).

Big step from 'a shortage of credible evidence' to 'completely exonerated' I would say.

 

[Poi E]

"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.

 

[Sasaferrato]

"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.

Exonerated was the word that she herself used.

 

[Poi E]

I know.

 

[danny la rouge]

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?

 

[Sasaferrato]

'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.

The health service, particularly cancer services are failing.

The education system is failing, we have dropped more than ten places down the international table.

So how much more of this 'good governance' can we stand before things fail completely?

 

[danny la rouge]

I wondered if she was in the news again, but it appears just to be a sas bump apropo rien.

I note with amusement that Thomson is now Ambassador for the All Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Business Banking. About Us – All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking

 

[Poi E]

The health service, particularly cancer services are failing.

The education system is failing, we have dropped more than ten places down the international table.

So how much more of this 'good governance' can we stand before things fail completely?

Self-reliance, my boy. Don't look to London for solutions.

 

[DexterTCN]

 

[DexterTCN]

Guess who's back.