Supporters 'chief' in trouble

[Guest zeeko1]

From what I've heard he "borrowed" the money and paid it back then made the committee aware of it. As their books are externally audited I'm guessing he knew it would come to light and avoided that happening.

 

Indeed it is but that also doesn't make it as big a story as the hun would like it to be.

 

Uh huh, that makes it all right then...nice try, but that doesn't wash. Can we assume Mr B is a pal of yours?

[Guest Dipped Flake]

Not read the story (can't bring myself to open the link to that rag) but anyone who takes money without consent is a thief, end of story. As for criminal charges, that is for the WBMC to decide. I presume they feel that, as the money has been repaid, they would rather not take the matter any further. Has Borthwick been kicked out from his position??

[PTBCAL]

Well, as someone who has never taken money without consent, I will cast a stone!

 

It is outrageous that someone should behave in such a manner. Even if he merely 'borrowed' the money:

 

1. You can't just take charity funds when you feel like it (I'll bet those who donated to the fund didn't do so on he basis that it was Borthwick's slush fund)

 

2. He forged signatures on cheques to do it.

 

Regardless of whether he paid the money back, the Police ought to do something about this.

 

I was alluding to 'without sin'.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Uh huh, that makes it all right then...nice try, but that doesn't wash. Can we assume Mr B is a pal of yours?

 

Try actually reading the posts and understanding them. Oh, and as stated in my first post on the thread he is no friend of mine.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Not read the story (can't bring myself to open the link to that rag) but anyone who takes money without consent is a thief, end of story. As for criminal charges, that is for the WBMC to decide. I presume they feel that, as the money has been repaid, they would rather not take the matter any further. Has Borthwick been kicked out from his position??

 

 

But it isnt,

 

The money came from many different sources, failure to involve the police imo is a gross failure from the board of WBMC of what they agreed to undertake when setting up the charity and becoming involved.

 

It will now lose all credibility and people will be less reluctant to give.

 

Its bad enough that one person could do this on their own, I deal with charities a lot and even small ones tend to require 2 signatories for all financial matters and have checks in place to prevent this sort of thing.

 

To protect itself WBMC must get the police involved and open itself upto full investigation, even if its to ensure no one else was involved or at it.

 

Borthwick also has to be openly outed and penalised, even if to ensure he cant get himself into a similar position. If he is a member of a professional body which I would assume he is he will also be expeled as a result of criminal sanctions.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Not read the story (can't bring myself to open the link to that rag) but anyone who takes money without consent is a thief, end of story. As for criminal charges, that is for the WBMC to decide. I presume they feel that, as the money has been repaid, they would rather not take the matter any further. Has Borthwick been kicked out from his position??

 

He has.

[Seymour M Hersh]

So you think its acceptable to "borrow" money without permission?

 

He could well have just realised he was about to be caught and came clean.

 

The guy and his related charities/supporter bodies are now tinged with incredibility and it will affect their pockets.

 

As far as I am concerned to retain any sort of credibility a theft allegation must be made.

 

Covering it up using the old boys act is disgraceful

 

Where do I say that you muck raking clown?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Where do I say that you muck raking clown?

 

 

Throughout this thread you seem to be trying to calm down the offence, and justify the absolute lack of sufficient action by the board.

 

Not involving the police and justifying that stance to me is as good as saying you find it acceptable, otherwise why would they be letting it go?

[Seymour M Hersh]

But it isnt,

 

The money came from many different sources, failure to involve the police imo is a gross failure from the board of WBMC of what they agreed to undertake when setting up the charity and becoming involved.

 

It will now lose all credibility and people will be less reluctant to give.

 

Its bad enough that one person could do this on their own, I deal with charities a lot and even small ones tend to require 2 signatories for all financial matters and have checks in place to prevent this sort of thing.

 

To protect itself WBMC must get the police involved and open itself upto full investigation, even if its to ensure no one else was involved or at it.

 

Borthwick also has to be openly outed and penalised, even if to ensure he cant get himself into a similar position. If he is a member of a professional body which I would assume he is he will also be expeled as a result of criminal sanctions.

 

Once again you are opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. Try and find out some facts before pontificating. Your holier than thou attitude is sickening.

[Walter Kidd]

which one did he break anyway.... the left one, or the other left one?

 

Funny post.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Once again you are opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. Try and find out some facts before pontificating. Your holier than thou attitude is sickening.

 

 

Hitting a nerve am I.

 

Any charity board which uncovers fraud and doesnt take forward criminal sanctions were possible should imo be wound up.

 

The guy stole money and that is what he did, commited fraud and WBMC seem pretty unconcerned about it because he came clean and gave the interest free loan back.

 

For me if they dont take further action the whole lot of them should resign for neglect of their duties

[loveofthegame]

Never have liked these big time self-proclaimed "top Hearts supporters"- think they're all high and mighty and speak for the rest of us Hearts fans. Away and ****e.

 

Not much lower than stealing from a charity, in particular one of the football club you profess to love so much and be such a 'top' supporter of.

[MackaysCentreSpot]

Throughout this thread you seem to be trying to calm down the offence, and justify the absolute lack of sufficient action by the board.

 

Not involving the police and justifying that stance to me is as good as saying you find it acceptable, otherwise why would they be letting it go?

 

I think Prancer makes a valid point. You do seem to be trying to down play what has happened.

 

 

And not involving the police also throws up questions like, Why not? Is there something else being covered up? etc etc

 

I am sorry but after this disgraceful act, Mr Borthwick should not be allowed any where near HMFC.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Throughout this thread you seem to be trying to calm down the offence, and justify the absolute lack of sufficient action by the board.

 

Not involving the police and justifying that stance to me is as good as saying you find it acceptable, otherwise why would they be letting it go?

 

I am only relating what I have been told. If you have gripe, and, clearly you do with humanity , it is with those who run WBMC. I have no connection to the WBMC other than having attended a few of their dinners as a guest.

 

I am not a friend or supporter of Borthwick in any way shape or form or, for the last time, trying to support, condone or excuse his actions.

 

I'm passing on information that will be more accurate less sensational than the current bun.

[Nelly Terraces]

One of those who lapped out the Vlad doggiebowl. A criminal and a thief.

 

Surely should banned for life from having anything to do with Hearts, and from attending games at Tynecastle. The bloke's a total disgrace.

[Boab Mugabe]

Sordid little man who seemed to think he was a big shot! I hope he is hounded out of all positions of influence within any orginisation connected in anyway to Heart of Midlothian.

 

Correct. Jumped up wee nobber who thought he was some kind of authority for Hearts fans and always gave the 'holier than thou' routine to anyone who'd listen. By doing this, he's brought real shame upon our support as anyone who reads will immediately associate him with all of us. Really low.

 

I wonder who Banderson will turn to now for his quotes...

[Seymour M Hersh]

I think Prancer makes a valid point. You do seem to be trying to down play what has happened.

 

 

And not involving the police also throws up questions like, Why not? Is there something else being covered up? etc etc

 

I am sorry but after this disgraceful act, Mr Borthwick should not be allowed any where near HMFC.

 

Prancer has never made a valid point in his puff.

 

It's nothing to do with me I'm only passing on what I have been told. What part of this do you lot not understand. It's up to the WBMC not me. If they don't feel they want to prosecute then have a go at them no me.

[lou]

I am only relating what I have been told. If you have gripe, and, clearly you do with humanity , it is with those who run WBMC. I have no connection to the WBMC other than having attended a few of their dinners as a guest.

 

I am not a friend or supporter of Borthwick in any way shape or form or, for the last time, trying to support, condone or excuse his actions.

 

I'm passing on information that will be more accurate less sensational than the current bun.

 

And that is appreciated by some of us, think you are taking a helluva lot of stick for nothing on this thread

[Seymour M Hersh]

Hitting a nerve am I.

 

Any charity board which uncovers fraud and doesnt take forward criminal sanctions were possible should imo be wound up.

 

The guy stole money and that is what he did, commited fraud and WBMC seem pretty unconcerned about it because he came clean and gave the interest free loan back.

 

For me if they dont take further action the whole lot of them should resign for neglect of their duties

 

Does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? I have nothing to do with the WBMC.

[davjambo]

Dont get me wrong if he's been at it then what a complete sh#te, but as were playing the forces of darkness on saturday i get the feeling it wont be the only negative hearts story this week.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? I have nothing to do with the WBMC.

 

 

Fair enough

 

You just seemed to be taking the criticism awfully personally.

[MackaysCentreSpot]

Prancer has never made a valid point in his puff.

 

It's nothing to do with me I'm only passing on what I have been told. What part of this do you lot not understand. It's up to the WBMC not me. If they don't feel they want to prosecute then have a go at them no me.

 

Thats not the case. In between some rubbish he has posted he has also made some very valid points.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

Never have liked these big time self-proclaimed "top Hearts supporters"- think they're all high and mighty and speak for the rest of us Hearts fans. Away and ****e.

 

Not much lower than stealing from a charity, in particular one of the football club you profess to love so much and be such a 'top' supporter of.

 

Agreed. Because you have connections at Hearts doesn't give you the right to act like a [mod edit]

 

A few on this board unfortunately.

[Boris]

Prancer has never made a valid point in his puff.

 

It's nothing to do with me I'm only passing on what I have been told. What part of this do you lot not understand. It's up to the WBMC not me. If they don't feel they want to prosecute then have a go at them no me.

 

Given this has been mentioned in a Daily Newspaper surely the Police can investigate this matter for themselves?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Given this has been mentioned in a Daily Newspaper surely the Police can investigate this matter for themselves?

 

 

A complaint has to be made, but anyone can make the complaint.

 

I would imagine now its in the open one will be forthcoming, regardless of the boards wishes.

 

The board have screwed over the cause here, as who will give money, to a board they dont trust.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Fair enough

 

You just seemed to be taking the criticism awfully personally.

 

That's because it's unwarranted.

[Boris]

A complaint has to be made, but anyone can make the complaint.

 

I would imagine now its in the open one will be forthcoming, regardless of the boards wishes.

 

The board have screwed over the cause here, as who will give money, to a board they dont trust.

 

Is this a difference between Public & Private law then?

 

I mean if anti-terror cops are acting on suspicions about groups and apprehending them before they blow themselves up, or say the Police get intel re an armed robbery and foil it, they are hardly acting on a complaint.

 

Surely an article in a paper refering to what appears to be financial mismangament/fraud should be investigated regardless?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Is this a difference between Public & Private law then?

 

I mean if anti-terror cops are acting on suspicions about groups and apprehending them before they blow themselves up, or say the Police get intel re an armed robbery and foil it, they are hardly acting on a complaint.

 

Surely an article in a paper refering to what appears to be financial mismangament/fraud should be investigated regardless?

 

Fair point

 

Tbh as far as I am aware for a theft to be investigated someone has to report it, however as you point out, the police do have intelligence lead investigations, albeit these tend to target more serious crimes.

 

I suppose the main issue here would be to investigate the police would need access to the files, WBMC could refuse to give this access and tbh I doubt the police would do anything further.

 

I certainly hope someone reports it and he is done, for the good of the charitable cause.

 

Re Seymour, if you think the criticism is unjust fair enough, but frankly I think its absolutely shocking that the commitee tried to cover this up and didnt take legal action. It looks bad for them, and imo is a total neglect of their moral duties (and any legal ones) of being involved.

[Ally Alexander]

Is is not likely that WBMC did not wish to prosecute to keep the matter under wraps so that it did not undermine the charity's fundraising? It is not be the first time that no action has been taken against embezzlers.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Is is not likely that WBMC did not wish to prosecute to keep the matter under wraps so that it did not undermine the charity's fundraising? It is not be the first time that no action has been taken against embezzlers.

 

 

It has the exact opposite effect when everyone finds out though, which they inevitably do, as everyone wonders why it was covered up, how it happened and who else was involved.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

http://sport.scotsman.com/heartofmidlothianfc/Hearts-fan-club-secretary-took.4731612.jp

 

Very sad, and a huge breach of trust, if true (and I don't have any reason to disbelieve it).

 

The money was just resting in his account, of course...

 

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Is there anyone on the committee who wants to explain the reason not to involve police?

 

Also will the federation of supporter clubs be getting rid, more to the point does he have access to their finances?

 

I reckon someone involved in one of these organisations must be on this board and able to comment.

 

I cant actually believe a poster has tried to defend him or suggest the police shouldnt be involved.

[lou]

Is there anyone on the committee who wants to explain the reason not to involve police?

 

Also will the federation of supporter clubs be getting rid, more to the point does he have access to their finances?

 

I reckon someone involved in one of these organisations must be on this board and able to comment.

 

I cant actually believe a poster has tried to defend him or suggest the police shouldnt be involved.[/QUOTE]

 

 

 

 

 

Are you at the wind up??? at no point has any poster treid to defend him, all Seymour has done is post the info he had been given

[JamboAl]

Is is not likely that WBMC did not wish to prosecute to keep the matter under wraps so that it did not undermine the charity's fundraising? It is not be the first time that no action has been taken against embezzlers.

 

If this happened with any charity and they did not prosecute, I sure as hell would not give them another penny as I would be suspicious as to whether it reached its intended target.

[lou]

Is there anyone on the committee who wants to explain the reason not to involve police?

 

Also will the federation of supporter clubs be getting rid, more to the point does he have access to their finances?

 

I reckon someone involved in one of these organisations must be on this board and able to comment.

 

I cant actually believe a poster has tried to defend him or suggest the police shouldnt be involved.

 

Have you made a contribution to the charity involved? are you a member of the Federation?

[Guest JamboRobbo]

Are you at the wind up??? at no point has any poster treid to defend him, all Seymour has done is post the info he had been given

 

No? Maybe not intentional, but I certainly Seymours first post as a suggestion that Mr Borthwrick hasn't done much wrong.

 

From what I've heard there really isn't much of a story there but the hun has been hounding certain people from the WBMC to create one. If my information is correct it was Borthwick himself that brought it to the WBMC's attention and the money has been paid back. Also it was a private meeting and there are strong suspicions who it is that's leaked this to the hun newspaper. Not a fan of Borthwick myself but perhaps we should avoid jumping on the bandwagon of hang him high.

 

To be fair, Seymour seems to have distanced himself from things in later posts, but his initial post did seem to imply there wasn't much wrongdoing.......

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Have you made a contribution to the charity involved? are you a member of the Federation?

 

 

Oh sorry is it only members who are allowed to find theft from charities unacceptable?

 

Put it this way, I won't be donating anything to either of them until they act in a proper manner, instead of covering it up.

 

In essence hearts fans and donors gave Borthwick an interest free loan whilst he had financial difficulties, which he granted himself, and the board dont seem to think legal action is necessary.

 

Tbh as I am said I cant see a reasonable explaination for their stance.

[lou]

No? Maybe not intentional, but I certainly Seymours first post as a suggestion that Mr Borthwrick hasn't done much wrong.

 

 

 

To be fair, Seymour seems to have distanced himself from things in later posts, but his initial post did seem to imply there wasn't much wrongdoing.......

 

I still don't think Seymour has defended him at any time, I think Seymour is purely concerned for the bad PR this will attract for WBMC, remember this is the Sun and we can be sure there was more than a bit of spin put on this story.

[Guest S.U.S.S.]

Have you made a contribution to the charity involved? are you a member of the Federation?

 

He is asking questions about a story in the press and this forum, while i dont think he will get an answer he is entitled to ask.

 

As of course are you.

[lou]

Oh sorry is it only members who are allowed to find theft from charities?

 

Well are you, yes or no, if not you have no right to demand answers from anyone and I would imagine the Federation members will make the decision about JB's role as these are the people whom it concerns

[Gilamas]

OK, so I know Seymour. I don't think I know anyone else on this thread, though. I am not a member of WBMC and I don't know Borthwick. I don't condone his actions in the reports. All as actually reported leaves me - what's the term - shaking with rage.

 

But you know what? Seymour has reported on things he KNOWS or has referred to actual text in the tabloid. He has refrained from comments that would be speculation.

 

The tabloid reporet - let's look at that: OK, smoke and fire and all that, but looking at the paragraphs: "alledged - alledged - understood reported - understood - alledged - reportedly."

 

Other than the facts such as organising Remembrance Sunday, the only fact quoted is the hearsay (ie not from original source) of: A source at the Willie Bauld Memorial Club was today quoted saying: "He submitted a letter to our chairman, Wilf McLauchlan, claiming he had only borrowed the ?10,000 to pay for financial problems he had run into due to 'problems' in his personal life." Now, accepting that quote as true in every respect = criminal activity. We have to assume it was borrowing without consent (actually, even if with consent, there would have to be some major resolution to authorise that action as not being ultra vires, as it is hardly in th ebest interests of WBMC - so borrowing like that is not borrowing, but theft. Repayment (whether before or after being found out) is restutution, but does not erase the original theft.

 

Certain other posters on this thread have gone in big time on the speculation bit, assuming fact. Some big things, some silly things.

 

Who is to know that the Club did NOT take legal advice? Their lawyers may have said that B's resignation plus the replacement of the money was sufficient?

 

"Borrowing" and repaying the ?7k - until/unless someone from the WBMC speaks, who is to know what that did with the accounts? It may hgave dropped the balance below a certain level (even for a day?) that may have meant a lower interest rate. You just don't juggle other funds as though you had control of them for personal use.

 

But this thread has brought home to me how one bit of info can be reported on then chewed over and changed about. We all have perspectives, but let's try to keep them objective and not subjective.

 

We could try being supportive and inclusive instead of abusive.

OK that's enough of the "-ives".

 

See - anyone can create column inches for a tabloid by analysing to bits what is alleged, reported and so on.

[lou]

He is asking questions about a story in the press and this forum, while i dont think he will get an answer he is entitled to ask.

 

As of course are you.

 

Why would anyone on the committee post the answers on KB, we are entitled to this info when the committe make a public statement regarding this, and not before

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Well are you, yes or no, if not you have no right to demand answers from anyone and I would imagine the Federation members will make the decision about JB's role as these are the people whom it concerns

 

 

No I am not

 

And I never demanded answers, I simply asked if they cared to comment,

 

These bodies look from money from hearts fans, if they want to continue receiving funds they better get their act together quickly, as I am fairly sure the majority of members/donors, will be rightly concerned at the little cover up that was attempted here.

[Patrick Bateman]

What a piece of trash, I'd echo calls for a life ban. Nobody should ever treat the club in such a manner and expect to get away with it.

 

Anyone else think he looks a bit like Thomas Hamilton? Creepy.

[Guest JamboRobbo]

I still don't think Seymour has defended him at any time, I think Seymour is purely concerned for the bad PR this will attract for WBMC, remember this is the Sun and we can be sure there was more than a bit of spin put on this story.

 

I'm intelligent enough not to fall for either sides spin thank you very much.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

OK, so I know Seymour. I don't think I know anyone else on this thread, though. I am not a member of WBMC and I don't know Borthwick. I don't condone his actions in the reports. All as actually reported leaves me - what's the term - shaking with rage.

 

But you know what? Seymour has reported on things he KNOWS or has referred to actual text in the tabloid. He has refrained from comments that would be speculation.

 

The tabloid reporet - let's look at that: OK, smoke and fire and all that, but looking at the paragraphs: "alledged - alledged - understood reported - understood - alledged - reportedly."

 

Other than the facts such as organising Remembrance Sunday, the only fact quoted is the hearsay (ie not from original source) of: A source at the Willie Bauld Memorial Club was today quoted saying: "He submitted a letter to our chairman, Wilf McLauchlan, claiming he had only borrowed the ?10,000 to pay for financial problems he had run into due to 'problems' in his personal life." Now, accepting that quote as true in every respect = criminal activity. We have to assume it was borrowing without consent (actually, even if with consent, there would have to be some major resolution to authorise that action as not being ultra vires, as it is hardly in th ebest interests of WBMC - so borrowing like that is not borrowing, but theft. Repayment (whether before or after being found out) is restutution, but does not erase the original theft.

 

Certain other posters on this thread have gone in big time on the speculation bit, assuming fact. Some big things, some silly things.

 

Who is to know that the Club did NOT take legal advice? Their lawyers may have said that B's resignation plus the replacement of the money was sufficient?

 

"Borrowing" and repaying the ?7k - until/unless someone from the WBMC speaks, who is to know what that did with the accounts? It may hgave dropped the balance below a certain level (even for a day?) that may have meant a lower interest rate. You just don't juggle other funds as though you had control of them for personal use.

 

But this thread has brought home to me how one bit of info can be reported on then chewed over and changed about. We all have perspectives, but let's try to keep them objective and not subjective.

 

We could try being supportive and inclusive instead of abusive.

OK that's enough of the "-ives".

 

See - anyone can create column inches for a tabloid by analysing to bits what is alleged, reported and so on.

 

Seymour stated that he borrowed 7k.

 

He then states no one knew about this until later when he admitted it.

 

Do you not think "borrowing" without permission is theft?

 

Seymour doesnt seem to think so and seems to be referring to it as some minor indiscretion.

 

As far as I am concerned it is theft and the only appropiate action by anyone who has him employed or on their board, is to dismiss him, review all activities and report any suspicions to the police.

 

Do you disagree with this?

[Guest JamboRobbo]

But you know what? Seymour has reported on things he KNOWS or has referred to actual text in the tabloid. He has refrained from comments that would be speculation.

 

The tabloid reporet - let's look at that: OK, smoke and fire and all that, but looking at the paragraphs: "alledged - alledged - understood reported - understood - alledged - reportedly."

 

Ok, Lets look at Seymours original comment. It starts "From what I've heard there really isn't much of a story there".

 

"From what I've heard" sounds awfully similar to phrases The Sun use like "understood" and "allegedly" - So IMO, Seymours original statement does exactly the things that you accuse the sun of doing, and claim Seymour is immune to.

 

Anyweay, I'm not on here for Seymour bashing. I've been on the receiving end often enough that I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm sure he didn't mean to say anything controversial and is just trying to pass on what he heard.

 

just pointing out that your point wasn't entirely accurate.

[lou]

I'm intelligent enough not to fall for either sides spin thank you very much.

 

 

Of that I have no doubt, but have a look at all the posts on this threads, clearly some have fell for the Sun's story

[Boris]

I still don't think Seymour has defended him at any time, I think Seymour is purely concerned for the bad PR this will attract for WBMC, remember this is the Sun and we can be sure there was more than a bit of spin put on this story.

 

Arguably, sweeping it all under the carpet may do more damage to the WBMC.

[portobellojambo1]

But it isnt,

 

The money came from many different sources, failure to involve the police imo is a gross failure from the board of WBMC of what they agreed to undertake when setting up the charity and becoming involved.

 

It will now lose all credibility and people will be less reluctant to give.

 

Its bad enough that one person could do this on their own, I deal with charities a lot and even small ones tend to require 2 signatories for all financial matters and have checks in place to prevent this sort of thing.

 

To protect itself WBMC must get the police involved and open itself upto full investigation, even if its to ensure no one else was involved or at it.

 

Borthwick also has to be openly outed and penalised, even if to ensure he cant get himself into a similar position. If he is a member of a professional body which I would assume he is he will also be expeled as a result of criminal sanctions.

 

Prancer,

 

Which part of it has been dealt with in house do you not understand.

 

I do not agree with what happened, I do not think it was right to do it (i.e. take these funds), however on repaying the fund and owning up to what he had done the members and commitee of the WBMC SC then took a decision that as far as they were concenred the matter was closed. Why they took that decision is their business, the matter is closed and has got feck all to do with you. However if you are a member of the WBMC and object to the manner in which this business has been dealt with then you should raise it through police channels as a private case. If you are not a member then it is none of your business, those whose business it is have decided how it should be dealt with.

 

When it comes to jumped up little feckers you are in a league of your own.