Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Police seize campervan in SNP finance investigation?" video.

Of course cooperation with any police investigation is optional. Cooperation is a different thing to following procedure. Police executing a search warrant on your property isn't cooperating. Cooperating is allowing them to search without a warrant. Attending an interview whilst under arrest isn't cooperating, particularly if you remain silent throughout. Cooperation is going for a voluntary interview and answering all questions truthfully and openly. The question isn't whether cooperation is optional or not, it clearly is. The question is, bow have they actually been cooperating?
7
@Bobby-xr4bo What happened to reading comprehension? No one in this thread has accused an individual of a specific crime. The OP comment and subsequent comments throughout the thread are talking about the generality of political corruption and criminal behaviour across parties.
4
Correct. However, it's important to understand that when we vote blindly for a party over the actual individual and their personal platform, we significantly increase the likelihood for corruption. That's what the saying about absolute power and corruption is talking about. When we vote blindly for a party, we vote for a party to have absolute power. The system isn't designed to work that way. The system is designed to work on individual candidates in electorates. Just because someone is a candidate endorsed by a party doesn't mean they agree to all of the party platforms, they're still individuals, they still hold their own minds. But everyone wants to corrupt a system to lazily vote for brands and party leaders instead of who will represent their electorate specifically the best. I bet most of you don't even know who your local member is without looking it up, let alone the platform they stand on. Yet I'm sure some of you mindlessly voted for them based on the brand name endorsing them. I'm also sure some of you complaining didn't even vote at all. You can't complain about corruption, nor claim to be surprised by it, if it comes as a result of your own lack of appropriate engagement with the system. At the next election, actually get to know the candidates not just for major parties but minor parties and independents too. Yes, that takes effort on your part.
3
@Bobby-xr4bo lol Yeah, no. The statements in this thread all remain true regardless of whether any particular individual is guilty of any specific crime. What it instead assumes is non-specific guilt in corruption &/or criminal behaviour by all politicians. Perhaps Peter Murrell is innocent of any wrongdoing in the specific instance being investigated, perhaps he's not. That's quite separate to this thread. Instead the implication is guilty or innocent of this specific charge, Murrell, Sturgeon, Yousaf, Ross, Sarwar, etc have all engaged in dodgy deals and corruption somewhere in their political careers. This has nothing to do with assumption of innocence which applies only to specific charges. This wouldn't need to be explained to someone with an appropriate level of reading comprehension. P.S. "I know you are but what am I", particularly when unfounded and illogical, is a retort best left to primary school playgrounds.
1
What on earth was that "interview"? 90% of the interview was asking the same question trying to twist his words to mean something else, and the final few seconds were trying to equate a £400 fine to embezzling £600K I mean not only did that interview questioning bury the lead, it actively worked against the report it just played moments earlier. Does channel 4 have absolutely no integrity left? You've got a party chair caught with his fingers in the cookie jar, perhaps the biggest political scandal for Scotland in generations and channel 4 are focused on whether they can make it sound as though conservatives want people to vote Labor. Wtf. Your showrunner shouldn't be working in news.
1