Here’s a passage from Crown Agent John Logue’s recent BBC interview in which he described the crime for which Peter Murrell was just sentenced to five years and three months in prison. You’ll note that we’ve highlighted a few words and phrases in red.
JOHN LOGUE: I think the best way I can describe it is in some ways this case was no different from embezzlement that people might recognize in their daily lives. If people are a member of a church or a bowling club or a golf club, if someone in that organization has access to money on behalf of the society or the club and takes it and spends it in the local shops, that’s embezzlement.
And in some ways this case was as simple as that because what we were able to prove after the police investigation and after our investigation was that that was what Peter Murrell had done here. He had access to and control of party funds and he used it for his own purposes and that’s the crime of embezzlement.
And now let’s just swap out those words for some very similar ones.
JOHN LOGUE: I think the best way I can describe it is in some ways this case was no different from embezzlement that people might recognize in their daily lives. If people are a member of [a political party], if someone in that organization has access to money on behalf of [the party] and takes it and spends it [on other stuff it wants], that’s embezzlement.
And in some ways this case was as simple as that because what we were able to prove after the police investigation and after our investigation was that that was what [the SNP] had done here. [They] had access to and control of [ringfenced] funds and [they] used it for [their] own purposes and that’s the crime of embezzlement.
It’s really quite hard to understand why the Crown Office sees the first version as a crime but not the second one, isn’t it, readers? Perhaps their next letter to us will make the difference clear, because to be honest, we’re struggling with it.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login