The Sevco saga continues ...

[Spellczech]

On 21/01/2021 at 17:13, Footballfirst said:

I don't know why Kenny MacAskill is looking for the head of the Lord Advocate James Wolffe.  The malicious prosecution was carried out under the previous LA, Frank Mulholland.

 

One issue that wasn't mentioned is that Mulholland in now a Judge, Lord Mulholland.

Was he the guy who had to resign for discussing Salmond's accusers on a train?

[Footballfirst]

8 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Was he the guy who had to resign for discussing Salmond's accusers on a train?

No. The previous Lord Advocate is now a judge, Lord Mulholland!

 

You were thinking about Gordon Jackson QC who represented Salmond at his trial. He stepped down as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (one of the top ranked QCs) after he disclosed the names of some of Salmond's accusers while on a train.

 

Jackson, a former Labour MSP, was overheard telling another passenger that Salmond was a “quite objectionable bully” and a “nasty person to work for … a nightmare to work for”. He dismissed the complainants’ allegations, saying: “This is hardly sexual … sex offenders’ register? Not for you. Inappropriate, arsehole, stupid … but sexual? Unfortunately, [names one complainer] and [names another complainer] say it’s sexual.”

Edited February 8, 2021 by Footballfirst

[Spellczech]

34 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

No. The previous Lord Advocate is now a judge, Lord Mulholland!

 

You were thinking about Gordon Jackson QC who represented Salmond at his trial. He stepped down as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (one of the top ranked QCs) after he disclosed the names of some of Salmond's accusers while on a train.

 

Jackson, a former Labour MSP, was overheard telling another passenger that Salmond was a “quite objectionable bully” and a “nasty person to work for … a nightmare to work for”. He dismissed the complainants’ allegations, saying: “This is hardly sexual … sex offenders’ register? Not for you. Inappropriate, arsehole, stupid … but sexual? Unfortunately, [names one complainer] and [names another complainer] say it’s sexual.”

There do seem to be a lot of idiots at the top of the legal profession. Didn't use to be the case. In the 90s, when I got put off being a lawyer it was because they were all drunks...

[Mysterion]

13 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Confirmation from the Lord Advocate of the settlement with Whitehouse and Clark

 

 

They should be made to pay tax on it since it's in lieu of lost wages due to repetitional damage. 

[Mysterion]

Club 1872-2012 announced the other day that they are trying to raise 2.5mill for the latest round of debt for equity and have put off their Dave King share purchase for a few months.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/club-1872-target-further-rangers-23461002

 

Quote

"Our aim, which has been agreed by the RIFC board, is to provide up to £2.5m pounds to RIFC in return for shares at a price of 20p per share.

"If we are able to raise these funds, this will significantly raise our percentage shareholding in Rangers. It will also provide a much needed cash injection to Rangers following the impact of Covid on club revenues over the past season.

"We have until June 2021 to raise these funds and RIFC have asked us to provide a first tranche to the club in March. It will only be possible for us to provide this level of funding to Rangers if thousands of additional supporters now join Club 1872 over the coming days, weeks and months.

 

[Footballfirst]

6 hours ago, Mysterion said:

 

They should be made to pay tax on it since it's in lieu of lost wages due to repetitional damage. 

Lord Advocate statement

 

Starts at 15:19 on the Holyrood feed

 

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/channel/the-debating-chamber

[Cruickie's Moustache]

The irony is of course that the likes of Murdo Fraser were more than likely pretty quiet about the old club and their Tory supporting chairman trying avoid paying Taxes to her Maj by firstly choosing to use EBT's and then by making a total hash of it. Not to mention the millions of debt that needed to be written off when the Murray empire imploded.

[Footballfirst]

The former Lord Advocate fights back according to a Record article.

 

The former Lord Advocate has today broken his silence over the episode.

In a statement released via his solicitor, the senior Scottish judge said he would cooperate with any review of the malicious prosecution.

David McKie, of Levy & McRae solicitors, said: "In light of the unfounded personal attack made on my client in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, he requires to take the unusual step of responding publicly to the false and scandalous statements made under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

“He wishes to make it clear that he welcomes the independent judge-led public inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding this case and it carries his unequivocal support. My client looks forward to participating in its proceedings to the fullest possible extent.

“He has found it frustrating to have his professional reputation maligned, but has until now remained silent due to his judicial role.

“He believes that the fullest possible degree of transparency is required and strongly supports robust and thorough interrogation of the full facts of this case.

"Given the importance of this matter, and the obvious public interest in a full examination of the circumstances, it is absolutely imperative that the remit of any Inquiry also specifically extends to the handling of the recent civil case, not least given the sums of public money involved.

“His view is that any inquiry should also include a public and open review of the entirety of the evidence at the time of indictment, and a detailed examination of all of the case’s processes prior to the decision to proceed."

Scotland's top police officer also backed calls for a public inquiry.

Chief Constable Iain Livingstone lent his support to calls for an inquiry during an appearance before the Public Audit and Post Legislative Scrutiny Committee at Holyrood on Thursday.

“I did listen to the debate in the Scottish Parliament yesterday and heard from the Lord Advocate and a number of members,” he said.

“I shared the levels of concern that were expressed and I also share what was the will of Parliament that the role of Police Scotland would be included with any judicial inquiry that is then established.

“I give my full commitment to participate fully with that, I agree that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances and I give my commitment that the Police Service of Scotland will contribute to and co-operate fully with any inquiry that arises.”

Livingstone also said he had authorised a financial settlement for both men, although he was not allowed to say how much it was.

[Jack Torrance]

Good ol' Frankie bhoy....

Edited February 11, 2021 by Jack Torrance

[tcjambo]

On 09/02/2021 at 17:43, Cruickie's Moustache said:

The irony is of course that the likes of Murdo Fraser were more than likely pretty quiet about the old club and their Tory supporting chairman trying avoid paying Taxes to her Maj by firstly choosing to use EBT's and then by making a total hash of it. Not to mention the millions of debt that needed to be written off when the Murray empire imploded.

Maybe but all these scandals have happened whilst the Dear Leader and her former chum have been running the government up here. Mind you they've got enough to worry about with their own internal scandal. Another one that the taxpayer is having to shell out for.

[ri Alban]

On 02/02/2021 at 17:06, Footballfirst said:

The questions and answers from Murdo Fraser and Kate Forbes can be found at 14:17:45 on following video recording.

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/topical-questions-february-2-2021

 

Basically, the cost of the settlement is not expected to impact on the operational activities of any function including COPFS. 

 

The LA will also also make a statement at a later date.

 

 

 

 

Would the Tories care if it wasn't Rangers? 

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, tcjambo said:

Maybe but all these scandals have happened whilst the Dear Leader and her former chum have been running the government up here. Mind you they've got enough to worry about with their own internal scandal. Another one that the taxpayer is having to shell out for.

What the Feck are you on about. Things coming to light about ebts from 20 years ago and tax avoiding and evasion. What has that got to do with the SNP. 

Don't tell me, all Scots who are Scottish and not British are tims. Sorry I forgot. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by ri Alban

[Boris]

19 hours ago, tcjambo said:

Maybe but all these scandals have happened whilst the Dear Leader and her former chum have been running the government up here. Mind you they've got enough to worry about with their own internal scandal. Another one that the taxpayer is having to shell out for.

Not sure if you are saying that the Govt actively leant on the Crown Office iro the investigation?

That, I doubt, however as the Govt appoints the Lord Advocate and head of Crown Office (I think) then naturally there is a degree of responsibility.

In saying that, the decision to proceed is decided by the evidence produced, by Police Scotland?

Therefore the question must be what was so special about the evidence produced that made the crown office proceed, and ultimately fail? Has to go back to the investigating officers, no?

A conspiricist may think that the investigation was botched to protect the "saviours" of the bastion of Ra Peepil, whilst at the same time cause maximum embarrassment and pain to those pesky separatists.

 

[Footballfirst]

Lord Tyre's opinion on the action of David Grier v Lord Advocate was published today.  He confirms that the case brought against Grier was brought without "probable cause", but it remains for Grier to prove "malice" on the part of the Crown, which will require further hearings.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh018.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

The Lord Advocate made a settlement with Grier's colleagues Whitehouse and Clark for malicious prosecution a few weeks ago, but did not acknowledge that Grier's prosecution was malicious.  Today's opinion takes Grier's claim a further step forward.

 

I think that Grier's claim was much lower than the £10.5m made by each of his two colleagues.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

42 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Lord Tyre's opinion on the action of David Grier v Lord Advocate was published today.  He confirms that the case brought against Grier was brought without "probable cause", but it remains for Grier to prove "malice" on the part of the Crown, which will require further hearings.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh018.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

The Lord Advocate made a settlement with Grier's colleagues Whitehouse and Clark for malicious prosecution a few weeks ago, but did not acknowledge that Grier's prosecution was malicious.  Today's opinion takes Grier's claim a further step forward.

 

I think that Grier's claim was much lower than the £10.5m made by each of his two colleagues.

The compensation. involved in this is extraordinary. Somebody should be facing criminal charges

[Boris]

2 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The compensation. involved in this is extraordinary. Somebody should be facing criminal charges

Such as?

[Riccarton3]

18 minutes ago, Boris said:

Such as?

That would only be possible if the investigation could be proved to have been botched intentionally 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

39 minutes ago, Boris said:

Such as?

Those responsible for malicious prosecutions 

[Boris]

3 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

That would only be possible if the investigation could be proved to have been botched intentionally 

 

Perverting the course of justice?

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Those responsible for malicious prosecutions 

 

Is malicious prosecution a crime? Sounds like it should be, but no idea if it is.

[Footballfirst]

34 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Perverting the course of justice?

 

Is malicious prosecution a crime? Sounds like it should be, but no idea if it is.

Misconduct in Public Office is the criminal offence.

 

There would only be two possibilities for that. One was the chief investigating police officer, Jim Robertson and the other would be the original Advocate Depute (prosecutor) James Keegan.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Footballfirst

[NANOJAMBO]

16 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Misconduct in Public Office is the criminal offence.

 

There would only be two possibilities for that. One was the chief investigating police officer, Jim Robertson and the other would be the original Advocate Depute (prosecutor) James Keegan.

Police - did they have a decent case ? Clearly not. 

CPS (or whatever the Scottish equivalent) - how could they allow the case to go ahead knowing there was no likelihood of a conviction. What did they tell the police ? 

If something is malicious then it's intended to do harm - obv none of use are legal eagles but how there can be a multi million pound payout for a "malicious prosecution" without  there being "malice" mystifies me. We have a case where something is deemed to be malicious but the victims have to prove there was malice involved. 

If this isn't a case for a jail sentence then I don't know what is and it should be seen for the national scandal that it is. 

[Footballfirst]

I listened in to part of the proof hearing at the Coart of Session in the cases of David Grier v The Lord Advocate and The Chief Constable earlier today. Grier is claiming £7m in damages.

 

Lord Tyre has previously ruled that there was no evidential foundation to the charges against Grier, but Grier still needs to prove malice on the part of the police/Crown continuing to pursue the case, to be successful in his claim

 

Grier was in the witness box primarily answering questions from Gerry Moynihan QC who was representing the Lord Advocate.  I thought Grier came across very well and explained his role and involvement in the Whyte takeover, so much so that Moynihan was struggling to pose follow-up questions after Grier explained the context and detail of various email chains that the Crown had been relying upon to pursue the case.

 

One snippet that came out  just before the end of the day was that Grier had secretly recorded one or more of his interviews with the Police (he had checked the legality beforehand).  He was also scathing of the lack of knowledge of financial matters shown by the Police officers involved (Robertson & O'Neill).

 

The case continues tomorrow.

[Cruickie's Moustache]

16 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I listened in to part of the proof hearing at the Coart of Session in the cases of David Grier v The Lord Advocate and The Chief Constable earlier today. Grier is claiming £7m in damages.

 

Lord Tyre has previously ruled that there was no evidential foundation to the charges against Grier, but Grier still needs to prove malice on the part of the police/Crown continuing to pursue the case, to be successful in his claim

 

Grier was in the witness box primarily answering questions from Gerry Moynihan QC who was representing the Lord Advocate.  I thought Grier came across very well and explained his role and involvement in the Whyte takeover, so much so that Moynihan was struggling to pose follow-up questions after Grier explained the context and detail of various email chains that the Crown had been relying upon to pursue the case.

 

One snippet that came out  just before the end of the day was that Grier had secretly recorded one or more of his interviews with the Police (he had checked the legality beforehand).  He was also scathing of the lack of knowledge of financial matters shown by the Police officers involved (Robertson & O'Neill).

 

The case continues tomorrow.

So perhaps at the start more of an incompetent prosecution (by unqualified officers) as opposed to one with malice?? 

You would have hoped the legal minds at the prosecution service would have nipped things in the bud if the Police weren't up to it from the off!

[Mysterion]

In other news (surprised it wasn't mentioned before) - another day another share issue:

 

https://www.bt.com/sport/news/2021/february/rangers-set-fans-p25m-funds-target-through-new-share-issue

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/6906039/rangers-55m-double-share-issue-fresh-investment/

 

Interesting quote from the story:

 

Quote

And the fan group sent out a rallying cry to supporters to help them buy up £2.5m worth of shares in the Ibrox club by June.

However, they also confirmed that they had been asked by Rangers to provide a "first tranche" of funds in March.

 

Thought they were "rolling in money"... perhaps not? The bail out activities are still frequent at Rangers 2012.

[Footballfirst]

19 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

In other news (surprised it wasn't mentioned before) - another day another share issue:

 

https://www.bt.com/sport/news/2021/february/rangers-set-fans-p25m-funds-target-through-new-share-issue

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/6906039/rangers-55m-double-share-issue-fresh-investment/

 

Interesting quote from the story:

 

 

Thought they were "rolling in money"... perhaps not? The bail out activities are still frequent at Rangers 2012.

The shareholdings listed on their website show that the £5.45m worth of shares issued during March came from Stuart Gibson £3m, George Taylor £1.5m, George Letham £500k and John Bennett £200k.  The source of the remaining £250k is not recorded.

 

Club 1872 has not contributed to either of the March share issues as their holding is unchanged since they bought £250k worth of shares from Dave King in December.

[Footballfirst]

In today's hearing a witness, Philip Duffy from Duff & Phelps, confirmed that Jim Robertson, the lead officer in the case, did indeed sing a Rangers song during a police interview, which he also described as bizarre and intimidating at times.

 

It had previously been alleged that Robertson had sung "The Billy Boys", but Duffy recalls that the words of the song included "The Big Hoose". I'm not familiar with the full repertoire of the Rangers songbook, although I know that Ibrox is known as the "Big Hoose".

 

Other D&P witnesses also confirmed that Roberson had threatened to jail them along with their mates if they didn't tell the truth.  

Edited April 8, 2021 by Footballfirst

[DETTY29]

1 hour ago, weehammy said:

I smell whatabootery!
 

 

I smell far too much knuckle handshakes.

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

In today's hearing a witness, Philip Duffy from Duff & Phelps, confirmed that Jim Robertson, the lead officer in the case, did indeed sing a Rangers song during a police interview, which he also described as bizarre and intimidating at times.

 

It had previously been alleged that Robertson had sung "The Billy Boys", but Duffy recalls that the words of the song included "The Big Hoose". I'm not familiar with the full repertoire of the Rangers songbook, although I know that Ibrox is known as the "Big Hoose".

 

Other D&P witnesses also confirmed that Roberson had threatened to jail them along with their mates if they didn't tell the truth.  

Is the Big Hoose not Barlinnie?

[Footballfirst]

22 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Is the Big Hoose not Barlinnie?

 

[Footballfirst]

Another 20m pieces of confetti issued last week, sorry 20m shares, raising another £4m.  They must be on huge bonuses for stopping 10 in a row.

[Footballfirst]

 

[TyphoonJambo]

Unfair on Kammara I think

[JJ93]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

What proof do they have that he was racially abused? 

[1971fozzy]

39 minutes ago, TypoonJambo said:

Unfair on Kammara I think

if he assaulted him he’s probably got off lightly tbf regardless of how much he deserved it

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, JJ93 said:

What proof do they have that he was racially abused? 

There may have been another player who heard something. 

 

I don't think that UEFA will use the criminal threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  "On the balance of probabilities" is much more likely.

 

I'm sure that they received representations from each of the individuals involved and determined that Kamara's account of him being called a "****ing monkey" was more believable than Kudela's "****ing guy".

[JJ93]

40 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

There may have been another player who heard something. 

 

I don't think that UEFA will use the criminal threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  "On the balance of probabilities" is much more likely.

 

I'm sure that they received representations from each of the individuals involved and determined that Kamara's account of him being called a "****ing monkey" was more believable than Kudela's "****ing guy".

If true, it sets a bad precedent.

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It makes a mockery of claims that penalties are objectively handed out.

 

If there is no proof, he should not be punished. They just want to be seen to do something amid the typical hysteria at mere words being uttered. 

[Wilson]

It seems pretty clear there were witnesses. Ergo, guilty. 10 games is nowhere near enough., and punching a racist is not  IMHO a crime.

[Footballfirst]

29 minutes ago, JJ93 said:

If true, it sets a bad precedent.

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It makes a mockery of claims that penalties are objectively handed out.

 

If there is no proof, he should not be punished. They just want to be seen to do something amid the typical hysteria at mere words being uttered. 

Slavia appear to have accepted the decision without protest.

 

https://en.slavia.cz/clanek.asp?id=Slavia-received-UEFA-disciplinary-decision-840

 

Slavia Chairman of the Board Jaroslav Tvrdík said: “Ondřej was suspended for 10 UEFA games and as a club we respect the decision,” adding that “In any case, Ondřej Kúdela should not have approached the opposition player. I deeply regret that and apologise to Glen Kamara for a situation that has clearly caused distress to him and his teammates, as well as everyone associated with Slavia and Rangers. I am taking positive steps to prevent such a situation from happening in our club ever again.”

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, JJ93 said:

If true, it sets a bad precedent.

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It makes a mockery of claims that penalties are objectively handed out.

 

If there is no proof, he should not be punished. They just want to be seen to do something amid the typical hysteria at mere words being uttered. 

 

It would be you defending that racist arsehole Beyond parody

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Wilson said:

It seems pretty clear there were witnesses. Ergo, guilty. 10 games is nowhere near enough., and punching a racist is not  IMHO a crime.

Punching anyone racist or not is a crime. The Czech player was in the wrong, and so was Kamara, two wrongs do not make a right.

Verbally abusing someone racist or non racist, is not as bad as physically assaulting someone in my book. Kamara should have received the same punishment as the Czech player.

[JackLadd]

10 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Punching anyone racist or not is a crime. The Czech player was in the wrong, and so was Kamara, two wrongs do not make a right.

Verbally abusing someone racist or non racist, is not as bad as physically assaulting someone in my book. Kamara should have received the same punishment as the Czech player.

 

Totally agree. Moral equivalence is not the job of UEFA, certainly not when it's lopsided as that.

[Wilson]

We have to stamp out racism. Ten match ban is not enough- a fan would get a life ban.  Kamara equal punishment?. FFS.

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, Wilson said:

We have to stamp out racism. Ten match ban is not enough- a fan would get a life ban.  Kamara equal punishment?. FFS.

Definitely equal punishment. No matter what you are verbally abused, it does not give you the right to physically assault someone.

[Wilson]

17 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Definitely equal punishment. No matter what you are verbally abused, it does not give you the right to physically assault someone.

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course assault is wrong, but sometimes provocation should be taken into account in the punishment. 

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, Wilson said:

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course assault is wrong, but sometimes provocation should be taken into account in the punishment. 

It was. That is why Kamara received a three game ban. Which is one game less than Roofe got for kicking the goalie in the head.

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

now that rangers are back at the top of Scottish football will that save them from admin2 or is that still on?

 

seems to have been imminent for a few years but not sure if the cost of getting back to the top is having a greater adverse affect than the reward of getting there ?

[milky_26]

9 hours ago, Wilson said:

John, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course assault is wrong, but sometimes provocation should be taken into account in the punishment. 

the problem with what you are saying is the assault i think happened down the tunnel after the match not immediately after the racial abuse

[Wilson]

So how should Kamara have reacted after being called a "f*ing monkey"  ?  I am all in favour of punching racists (particularly when the authorities do f all about it).

[CMc]

The moral equivalence is unhelpful. 
 

Racism is wrong. Punching folk is wrong. 
 

However, the temptation for retributive justice is greatly diminished when there is a reasonable hope of justice from the authorities. 
 

The track record of the footballing authorities to deal with racism (and sectarianism) is pathetic. 
 

It is incredibly admirable how many of the victims of racist attacks during football manage to rise above the perpetrators and hold to a non-violent response. When the authorities fail them, it makes it harder for the next victim to do the same. 

[JJ93]

15 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

It would be you defending that racist arsehole Beyond parody

And only you would think that fair 'judicial' treatment is wrong for those you think are guilty without evidence. 

 

You, sir, are beyond parody.