PDA

View Full Version : Hyslop admission over T in the park



BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 11:32
Fiona Hyslop has admitted she knew T in the park was profitable before the 150,000 payment was made. Which contradicts her claim the money was required to keep the company viable. Hyslop also claims she didn't see emails from Dempsie which is irrelevant as she admits to meeting her prior to the emails at the party conference. Seems like Ms Hyslop is drowning in her own web of deceit.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 11:42
Well seeing as how its a limited company anyone can pull their accounts and as part of any grant diligence process accounts have to be produced Apparently its also being claimed that T in the park could have left scotland and moved south.....so the grant had a claw back clause if they did leave...considering england is saturated with festivals and T always sells out 80,000 tickets usually with a very short while....then I find that very very hard to believe , maybe the promoters tried a threatening bluff on to get some dough, at any rate, if that was the case, their bluff should have been called and they should not have got one single half penny.....T = Scotland......thats the brand...and if they did pull out it wouldnt be to next year then some other festival organisers would have jumped in filling the gap !!!!

Ms Hyslop says the funding was specifically for venue hire and the transition costs, specifically consultant fees....what consultants / what was their role ?? why should we pay for consultants working for a private Ltd company. Hyslop is digging a big hole here and hiding behind "supporting / retaining festivals in Scotland" ie recognising their economic contribution !! A right fudge

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 12:16
A former SNP aide who set up a meeting between Ms Hyslop and festival organisers DF Concerts has since abandoned plans to stand for election.


Jennifer Dempsie, a former aide to Alex Salmond, was working on a contract for DF Concerts as a festival project manager at the time of the meeting, ahead of the grant being awarded.
She had planned to run as a list MSP for the SNP in the Highlands and Islands constituency in the 2016 elections, but decided earlier this month not to take forward her nomination.
Ms Hyslop told the committee that festival bosses had "expressed concern" about the "long term future" of the event, due to the seven-figure cost of moving from Balado to Strathallan, and said there was a risk the festival could have moved away from Scotland.
Conservative MSP Mary Scanlon said the grant was "a done deal" because of Ms Dempsie's "close connections with the SNP", and asked if this was a "fraudulent application". Ms Scanlon - who said she was given 628 pages of material after 20:00 the night before the meeting - said there was a list of emails from Ms Dempsie to the culture secretary's office. Ms Hyslop said she had not personally read them.

Well...Dempsie worked for DF concerts, obviously had very close SNP ties........they apply for a grant...they get it....all "transparent" in that the grant application process was seemingly administered properly........complete with claw back....throw in some twaddle on T may leave Scotland ( nonsense !!! ) and Mary Scnlon recieves 628 pages on this affait at 20 00 last night conveniently the night before todays "debate" draw your own conclusions....clear cronysim.............. back handers delivered.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 12:17
Fiona Hyslop has admitted she knew T in the park was profitable before the 150,000 payment was made. Which contradicts her claim the money was required to keep the company viable. Hyslop also claims she didn't see emails from Dempsie which is irrelevant as she admits to meeting her prior to the emails at the party conference. Seems like Ms Hyslop is drowning in her own web of deceit.

The money wasnt paid to keep the company viable.......see posts below

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 13:12
The money wasnt paid to keep the company viable.......see posts belowI was referring to her original statement Rob.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 13:19
I was referring to her original statement Rob.

Then she obviously lied, solvency is not mentioned...a grant for "transition costs / consultants fee's is.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 13:38
Are the EU rules on state aid not like any other application?

A company applies, if they meet the rules then the grant is awarded or am I missing something?

Rob you suggested that bribes were paid. Is there any evidence of that? Mary Scanlon asked was the application fraudulent - was it and if so how?

Do the rules for state aid preclude a company which is profitable or which makes a profit on an event making an application or being granted a payment? If not then maybe that's a change that can be made.

If we are saying this grant should not have been made then how does it differ from grants made to other events, why are other events grants ok but this one not?

I too don't think this grant was a good use of public funds but so far I'm struggling to see how, if they meet the criteria, they could have been refused.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 14:02
Are the EU rules on state aid not like any other application?

A company applies, if they meet the rules then the grant is awarded or am I missing something?

Rob you suggested that bribes were paid. Is there any evidence of that? Mary Scanlon asked was the application fraudulent - was it and if so how?

Do the rules for state aid preclude a company which is profitable or which makes a profit on an event making an application or being granted a payment? If not then maybe that's a change that can be made.

If we are saying this grant should not have been made then how does it differ from grants made to other events, why are other events grants ok but this one not?

I too don't think this grant was a good use of public funds but so far I'm struggling to see how, if they meet the criteria, they could have been refused.

Squidge, re read my post the word "bribe" is not used...once..I didnt mention fraud either Ms Scalon did and I qouted her, issue as you well know, is the closeness between Dempsie, T and the SNP government.....someone else could and should have handled this then everything would have been clean no accusations. ALso giving Ms Scanlon 600 plus docs the night before the "debate"...well whats that about ? AGain reasons the grant was given have shifted... its now for consultancy / transtion fee's....so what was the money actually given for......usually grants are given to support growth ( ie assetts etc ) Hyslop is also qouted as suggesting that T may have had to move......so what is tye real reason behind the grant award ?? Thats all thats needed.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 14:08
Well what can you say Hyslop is under scrutiny the media is all over the issue.

Social media is ablaze with it, so if it where really so cut and dried why on earth is she having to explain herself today.

squidge
29-Sep-15, 14:26
Squidge, re read my post the word "bribe" is not used...once.. mention fraud either Ms Scalon did and I qouted her, issue as you well know, is the closeness between Dempsie, T and td.Sorry Rob, you said "back handlers delivered" is that not what you meant then?
issue as you well know, is the closeness between Dempsie, T and the SNP government.....someone else could and should have handled this then everything would have been clean no accusations . I don't know that actually Rob, which is why I was asking you so many questions. I haven't been following this story as I've been a bit busy with weddings lol. I don't know Jennifer Dempsie either. I'm only catching up today cos I'm off sick. You are right though that it would have been much clearer if someone else had handled this and I'm surprised that Dempsie didn't see that. but am I right in thinking that Dempsie made the introductions but wasn't involved in either the application or the decision to award? Is there evidence that this isn't the case?
also giving Ms Scanlon 600 plus docs the night before the "debate"...well whats that about ? AGain reasons the grant was given have shifted... its now for consultancy / transtion fee's....so what was the money actually given for......usually grants are given to support growth ( ie assetts etc ) Hyslop is also qouted as suggesting that T may have had to move......so what is tye real reason behind the grant award ?? Thats all thats needed.These are all legitimate questions. I wonder when the questions that required the docs to be given to Mary Scanlon were asked? That might help to understand what was going on - do you know? Are you watching Fiona Hyslops appearance at the committee?

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 14:32
Well what can you say Hyslop is under scrutiny the media is all over the issue.

Social media is ablaze with it, so if it where really so cut and dried why on earth is she having to explain herself today.

Because her explanation has changed ..we are no futher forward in understanding what the grant was for......consultants fee's / transition costs, help to keep T in Scotland....shifting sands and of course theres the Dempsie issue, should she even have been involved perhaps she should have declared a conflict of interest ?

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 14:36
Oh I can envision dear Squidge stood there with a sign


" nothing to see here, move along "

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 14:42
Sorry Rob, you said "back handlers delivered" is that not what you meant then? I don't know that actually Rob, which is why I was asking you so many questions. I haven't been following this story as I've been a bit busy with weddings lol. I don't know Jennifer Dempsie either. I'm only catching up today cos I'm off sick. You are right though that it would have been much clearer if someone else had handled this and I'm surprised that Dempsie didn't see that. but am I right in thinking that Dempsie made the introductions but wasn't involved in either the application or the decision to award? Is there evidence that this isn't the case? These are all legitimate questions. I wonder when the questions that required the docs to be given to Mary Scanlon were asked? That might help to understand what was going on - do you know? Are you watching Fiona Hyslops appearance at the committee?

Squidge Im not witch hunting but Hyslop has not definitively stated what the grant is for, true it followed due process, but Dempsies role can be seen as a conflict of interest ie given SNP ties / MSP aspirations she worked for the promoters and set ythe meeting up although Hyslop has problems remembering what e mails she avctually read etc etc . Mary Scanlon would not have asked for the docs yesterday surely, and how she can make sense of 600 plus pages in a couple of hours is beyond me, but I dont know for sure. TRuth is T may well have exerted some "threat" on moving out of Scotland, hence the "grant" could be seen as a back hander ie a sweetner towards any additional costs with the new venue....in my view. Basically a lack of clarity all round

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 14:45
Here you go Rob something to read and make sense of.

http://m.stv.tv/news/tayside/1329674-fiona-hyslop-quizzed-over-t-in-the-park-150000-state-aid-to-df-concert/

Had this been occurring in Westminster the person involved would of been out already. The same goes for Michelle Thomson for some reason the SNP seems happy to allow itself to be mired in controversy.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 14:55
Here you go Rob something to read and make sense of.

http://m.stv.tv/news/tayside/1329674-fiona-hyslop-quizzed-over-t-in-the-park-150000-state-aid-to-df-concert/

Had this been occurring in Westminster the person involved would of been out already. The same goes for Michelle Thomson for some reason the SNP seems happy to allow itself to be mired in controversy.

Thanks.. I qoute directly...............Ms Hyslop said T in the Park organisers warned they could move out of Scotland unless they could address the "severely reduced revenues" associated with its relocation to Strathallan..complete and utter tripe, again the grant was allegedly previously given for consultants / transtion costs....for a fesitval of 80,000 and a money spinner.......what was the grant actually for.....

Michelle Thomson......Rachman.....still all parties have their dirty underbelly and so has the SNP.......despite the attempts of passing theselves of as the "clean" party..anti austerity blah blah.....

squidge
29-Sep-15, 15:13
Squidge Im not witch hunting but Hyslop has not definitively stated what the grant is for, true it followed due process, but Dempsies role can be seen as a conflict of interest ie given SNP ties / MSP aspirations she worked for the promoters and set ythe meeting up although Hyslop has problems remembering what e mails she avctually read etc etc . Mary Scanlon would not have asked for the docs yesterday surely, and how she can make sense of 600 plus pages in a couple of hours is beyond me, but I dont know for sure. TRuth is T may well have exerted some "threat" on moving out of Scotland, hence the "grant" could be seen as a back hander ie a sweetner towards any additional costs with the new venue....in my view. Basically a lack of clarity all round I don't think you are witch hunting Rob. As if you would lol. I'm just exploring the issues. I do however think BT is being a bit erm ... optimistic in suggesting that if this had been happening in Westminster then the person involved would be out already. I don't see ANY indication that WM is better at dealing with lies damned lies and politics than holyrood and the House of Lords particularly is dodgy on that score. The Michelle Thomson stuff is curious too. I'll be watching to see how that pans out.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 15:21
I don't think you are witch hunting Rob. As if you would lol. I'm just exploring the issues. I do however think BT is being a bit erm ... optimistic in suggesting that if this had been happening in Westminster then the person involved would be out already. I don't see ANY indication that WM is better at dealing with lies damned lies and politics than holyrood and the House of Lords particularly is dodgy on that score. The Michelle Thomson stuff is curious too. I'll be watching to see how that pans out.

From the P and J : "Not sure what is more difficult: understanding Hyslop's narrative on T in the Park, or getting out of Strathallan during the festival"......brilliantly put....she's digging a hole and cant get out...as for Thomson....a proven shameful Rachmanite...still all parties have their dirty underbelly....and the SNP are no different. Face it theyre all the same...WN the house of Lords and now Holyrood but we had a chance with Holyrood to show integrity....now who is letting the side down eh : ok you can argue that loads of MP's / MSP's have second jobs, side vetures etc etc...but the SNP are the majority at Holyrood and plenty is comming out on the second job chancers / dodgy dealers. STill tats not tarring all SNP MSP's with the same brush, but youve got your share of rotten apples.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 15:30
From the P and J : "Not sure what is more difficult: understanding Hyslop's narrative on T in the Park, or getting out of Strathallan during the festival"......brilliantly put....she's digging a hole and cant get out...as for Thomson....a proven shameful Rachmanite...still all parties have their dirty underbelly....and the SNP are no different. Face it theyre all the same...WN the house of Lords and now Holyrood but we had a chance with Holyrood to show integrity....now who is letting the side down eh : ok you can argue that loads of MP's / MSP's have second jobs, side vetures etc etc...but the SNP are the majority at Holyrood and plenty is comming out on the second job chancers / dodgy dealers. STill tats not tarring all SNP MSP's with the same brush, but youve got your share of rotten apples.

Ps FoI response admits there is public interest in release of T grant but ministers ( note the plural : so more than one minster was involved.....does this smoking gun go all the way to the top ??? ) decided "on balance" to keep it secret...now why keep details of a 150,000 grant secret, 15 million yep but 150k ?????? AGain we are left to draw conclusions of backhanders and cronyisms, this is going to run and run. Hysop has lied, others at ministerial level were involved.......integrity has to be questioneed

Alien Adrenaline Reflex
29-Sep-15, 15:49
oh noes 150 grand! a drop in the ocean... http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/04/rbs-sell-off-george-osborne-defends-1bn-loss

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 15:53
oh noes 150 grand! a drop in the ocean... http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/04/rbs-sell-off-george-osborne-defends-1bn-loss

Yes RBS thats a scandal.... but so is giving 150k as a non-refundable grant to one of thebiggest live music promoters on the entire planet...or its ok for the SNP to do this and not be held to account eh ?? PLenty of hard working businesses could do with a 150k grant.....noticed the url date ...August....nice try and diverting attention away from whats is at best a stupid decision to at worst back handers and cronyism....that wont go away, your not whiter than white as more is outing.....

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 16:02
oh noes 150 grand! a drop in the ocean... http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/04/rbs-sell-off-george-osborne-defends-1bn-loss

Did Osbourne personally profit ? What about Michelle Thomson SNP MP, she personally profited handsomely through dodgy property dealings......this one wont be swept aside....Rachmanite money grabber.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/michelle-thomsons-suitability-mp-called-question-following-property-allegations (https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/michelle-thomsons-suitability-mp-called-question-following-property-allegations)

Alien Adrenaline Reflex
29-Sep-15, 16:05
i think the diverting of attention is the other way around - backhanders? thats just fine then. if a company applies for a grant and is within the rules for getting it why should they not get it? its not a charity they are not looking for thew most deserving business to get grants simply the ones that best fit the criteria. it goes on all the time. look back tot he days of CASE there were successful businesses getting grants all the time becaus ethey were able to make a good case for getting it. the deservedness of the business is irrelevant. wherether they were able to properly fill in the application is what is the question. and whether there was any underhand dealing in the processing of that application is what matters. so you can rant on and on about them being profitable all you like but at the end of the day thats how grants work, they are not all fro struggling startup businesses. the comapny may have been able to get a grant in england as well and that would explain why they suggested that they could move the event there.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 16:11
i think the diverting of attention is the other way around - backhanders? thats just fine then. if a company applies for a grant and is within the rules for getting it why should they not get it? its not a charity they are not looking for thew most deserving business to get grants simply the ones that best fit the criteria. it goes on all the time. look back tot he days of CASE there were successful businesses getting grants all the time becaus ethey were able to make a good case for getting it. the deservedness of the business is irrelevant. wherether they were able to properly fill in the application is what is the question. and whether there was any underhand dealing in the processing of that application is what matters. so you can rant on and on about them being profitable all you like but at the end of the day thats how grants work, they are not all fro struggling startup businesses. the comapny may have been able to get a grant in england as well and that would explain why they suggested that they could move the event there.

ARe you seriously trying to tell me that T would have moved to England...well let them go as 80,000 people attend T...so some other festival organiser would have moved in......the crux is Hyslop has not come out and said exactly what the grant was for, and under FOI minsters decided not to divulge the circumstances...so Im not rantiing....whats there to hide.......the initial grant was for infrastructure assistance that was knocked back so apparently ended up for consultancy / transitional costs.....in other wirds they were getting 150k whatever....the circumstances behind the requirement were re jigged......

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 16:14
Ok here's 150k we can work out how to make it look legit later but don't worry guv the monies a done deal leave the technicalities to us.

rob murray
29-Sep-15, 16:20
Ok here's 150k we can work out how to make it look legit later but don't worry guv the monies a done deal leave the technicalities to us.

SPot on, in a oner, and under FOI it turns out ministers decided to keep details secret / undisclosed, the original grant application was for infrastructure and it was knocked back, this came out this at the hearing as contained within the 6oo pages released to Scanlon, so the initial grant application gets knocked back and they go and find another way / reason to apply ( succesfully ) stinks to high heaven...cannot be defended not forgetting of courses that Dempsie, a prospective MSP candidate sets the meeting up between T and Hyslop.................get real the SNP has its black sheep same as every party.....and the primary reason for "ranting" as teh geezer suggests...is....ITS OUR MONEY NOT THEIRS

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 17:04
Funny how George Adams chair of the committee can tell the BBC it's all above board before he's even questioned Fiona Hyslop....whitewash much .....you really couldn't make it up !

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 22:49
A nice bit of govt transparency here a part copy of the TITP foi request not that they have anything to hide.


Holyrood at its best the SNP showing us all what transparent government for the people looks like.

BetterTogether
29-Sep-15, 23:18
As it seems that the guardian is the preferred news medium of choice for many thought this may be acceptable.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/29/fyona-hyslop-accused-t-in-the-park-subsidy

rob murray
30-Sep-15, 09:04
A nice bit of govt transparency here a part copy of the TITP foi request not that they have anything to hide.


Holyrood at its best the SNP showing us all what transparent government for the people looks like.

SOrt of reminds me of JFK released docs.......releasing stuff the night befoe under FOI, blanking out docs and also the fact that ministers ( plural ) were involved in the decision making process !!!

BetterTogether
30-Sep-15, 09:12
SOrt of reminds me of JFK released docs.......releasing stuff the night befoe under FOI, blanking out docs and also the fact that ministers ( plural ) were involved in the decision making process !!!


Without being overtly cynical how far do you think it will be allowed to go, SNP virtually have a monopoly in Holyrood he chair is SNP he stated everything was in order prior to hearing a word from Hyslop then you have 620 pages of heavily redacted paperwork.

It's almost as good as the old soviet show trials.


"Nothing to see hear, move along "

rob murray
30-Sep-15, 13:26
Without being overtly cynical how far do you think it will be allowed to go, SNP virtually have a monopoly in Holyrood he chair is SNP he stated everything was in order prior to hearing a word from Hyslop then you have 620 pages of heavily redacted paperwork.

It's almost as good as the old soviet show trials.


"Nothing to see hear, move along "

Nothing cynical here, hope the wider public sees through this obvious sheenanagan, just shows the old saying on power.....absoulte power absoluty corrupts and its bad for Scotland as a nation to have a virtual one party state......

BetterTogether
01-Oct-15, 09:12
You couldn't make it up, after days of silence on Michelle Thomson apart from a nice squirrel picture for its front page yesterday today they've really gone and show Nationalist Paranoia at its finest.

Apparently TITP and Hyslop doing dodgy deals isn't down to her it's all Westminsters fault.

rob murray
01-Oct-15, 12:59
You couldn't make it up, after days of silence on Michelle Thomson apart from a nice squirrel picture for its front page yesterday today they've really gone and show Nationalist Paranoia at its finest.

Apparently TITP and Hyslop doing dodgy deals isn't down to her it's all Westminsters fault.

BUll....the facts are that the original application was knocked back and ways were found to pay out the money for "other reasons" ( consultancy / transition fee's ) in other words come what may they ( T ) were going to get money. To claim its a westminster plot to discredit a proven duplicous liar...well thats nonsense.

BetterTogether
01-Oct-15, 13:09
I agree but it is amusing to watch them imploding with self indignant paranoia St Fiona doing a dodgy deal .....NEVER


Cry freedumb it's them thar in Westmonster tha's doin it !

BetterTogether
01-Oct-15, 14:29
It gets better Hyslop didn't read the report on TTIP prior to making the grant.


http://news.stv.tv/tayside/1329824-fiona-hyslop-did-not-read-ekos-report-prior-to-t-in-the-park-state-aid/