Disinformation and Deceit


Coming hot on the heels of the public acceptance of truth that this blog has been bringing you, the disinformation campaign has stepped up a gear.

A rumour has recently started to take hold that HMRC’s case against Rangers is in trouble because of a 6-year rule for bringing assessments against taxpayers.  This rumour, which we will see is entirely false, has been taken to heart for the comfort it provides by the less sentient creatures who inhabit the world of Rangers messageboards.  Let me clear this up now:  it is rubbish.

The real rules are as follows:

HMRC “normally” have 24 months from the end of an accounting period to start an enquiry.

Where a company has provided “inadequate disclosure”, the statute of limitations was recently reduced to four years, but remains six years where a company has “acted carelessly”.  Sounds promising for Rangers fans?  Well, do not get too excited.  In cases involving “deliberate misstatement”, HMRC has a full 20 years to open an enquiry (let alone conclude it).

Those who have been following this blog will be in little doubt as to in which category Rangers will find themselves.  “Deliberate misstatement” is so much at the core of this case, it could be the title of a film about it.  Not only did Rangers FC repeatedly misstate the facts (to fans, ordinary shareholders, and HMRC alike), they got caught in a very provable way.  (The patient will be rewarded with a full explanation in time).

Back to the 6-year myth: where did this particular piece of disinformation originate?

This yarn first found life on a blog: ScotsLawThoughts.wordpress.com.  What follows is a comical (well it amused me!) tale of the extent some will go to try to prevent the truth from taking hold.

A poster on that blog by the name Louie posted:

louie

Sorry Paul have been busy with papers, to clarify Malcolm is not sitting on the Tribunal. He was asked to scan the developments in Edinburgh and give opinion on the arguments presented, he was not overly impressed by the naked naivety of some of the HMRC positions. He picked up on the six year rule immediately a very grey area that no self respecting Silk should or would stray into, Whytes people are using it in their presentation and defences.
All in all I am told he thinks Andrew has driven a coach and horses through HMRC submissions, he is annoyed because he wanted a clear run at the matters involving English clubs, he will be HMRC lead in any proceedings, however he feels Edinburgh matters could put this event some way off.

Interesting?  It might keep the candle of hope burning if you did not know the facts.  Firstly, the posting tries to invoke the reputation of Malcolm Gammie QC.  That particular Malcolm is a very highly regarded English tax lawyer.  He has no role whatsoever in the current case against Rangers.

The bit that tickled me most is that I asked Paul McConville, publisher of the blog in question, to forward me the IP address assigned to Louie for his posts.  I compared it to the IP addresses used on RangersTaxCase.com.  “Louie” has posted on this site no less than 120 times.  Regular readers might be surprised to learn this as they will not recognise the name.  Breathe easy, for Louie is better known on this site by his other names:

  • rasputin
  • cannon
  • stewy
  • malky
  • rhuari
  • theaccountant
  • jinkyal
  • sam
  • … and in his latest incarnation: ashton
Many of the posts of this character have not seen the light of day as they have been moderated and sent to SPAM heaven.  However, this might be a good time to resurrect some of this guy’s efforts over the life of this blog:
rasputin
Submitted on 2011/03/29 at 6:30 am

I can tell you that you will need a bigger shovel to fill in the hole you are digging. The “Tax Inquiry” involving Rangers FC, will be formally abandoned at the Edinburgh First Tier status, on 18th April 2011, do have a nice day.

rasputin
Submitted on 2011/03/29 at 11:49 am | In reply to rangerstaxcase.

It is not a continuation, there never was a hearing last October, hence First Tier status. Believe me I should know and I do know, c’est la vie.

rasputin
Submitted on 2011/03/29 at 1:59 pm | In reply to rangerstaxcase.

Any secret dossiers on the go, you know the sort, refs, tax cases, care in the community, lack of care in the community that sort of thing,cos your taxation fairytale is just that..must dash ..golf is a calling,,,tout de suite…

cannon 
Submitted on 2011/03/31 at 8:37 am

Now that scotzine has saw sense and capitulated to whyte’s lawyers, who’s next.

theaccountant
Submitted on 2011/08/16 at 8:57 am

Story is , Thornhill of Pump Court Tax Chambers, is suggesting that those favoured by the scheme, were not direct employees of Rangers, that they were in fact subcontracted due to the nature and structure of disputed scheme. There could be a problem there with SFA registrations, however Thornhill is said to be claiming that the players/subcontractors gifted control of said registrations to Rangers FC, which would also affect tax status.

Appears he has blind sided HMRC with this justification of the scheme, insisting no defence is necessary, for a perfectly legal use of taxation law and legislation. The general consensus is that Thornhill is leading by a country mile, HMRC being a poor second at this stage.

sam
Submitted on 2011/09/05 at 9:37 am

Word going round at Centre 1, that the big case is being abandoned.

sam
Submitted on 2011/09/05 at 9:58 am

I wasn’t suggesting anything BK, I may be a lowly maintenance worker, but I overheard several high heid yins, while I was doing some maintence on the exec floor. The rank and file seem to be talking about it that way now also, seem to think it would have also been not went this length of time, if it was nailed on. Strange that the owner dismisses ant view, his own apart as comedic.

sam

I still don’t get it, if rangers and their bosses have committed a criminal offence, evasion, they would face criminal charges, if they have committed no offence, avoidance, why is taxpayers money being wasted, it is one or the other, criminal or not.

ashton
Submitted on 2011/10/11 at 9:39 pm

Paranoia is alive and well and being practised by a few here.. RTC has been consistent in his doubts as to any outcome.

Well whoever you are, you have had a good run! 🙂  Thanks for the sport.
I have had some negative messages from more  professional and sinister origins, and I really think that this guy is just a Rangers fan doing his bit to try to spread disinformation.  He probably thinks that it is in the best interests of his club, Rangers, for this story to be derailed.
I wonder where the followfollow brigade will find their next crumbs of comfort?

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

333 Responses to Disinformation and Deceit

  1. Insomniac says:

    weeminger says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:50 am

    Those of you that follow Craig Whyte’s other interests will be aware of some dealings with Merchant House Group whereby a company called Willow International Trading were mentioned in relation to Liberty Capital’s New Convertible Loan Notes.

    Initially the only link seemed to be a Seychelle’s domiciled company of the same name that may have been involved in some dodgy land deals.

    I’ve just been made aware (via the iii.co.uk messageboards) that there was a company of the same name located at Belgrave Street, Bellshill, ML4 3JA dissolved in 1993.

    Is that just a curious coincidence?

    Try a google of GM Mining. Co-incidence?
    From the Kerrydale Street website:
    “I think the land-bank company connection is wrong. It appears that the group behind Willow are Pershing Nominees, who in turn are owned by Williams de Broe, part of the Evolution Group PLC. Williams de Broe deal in Private client portfolio management and have an Edinburgh office.”

  2. Johnobhoyo says:

    A very good and reassuring piece from RTC today. Helps put some of my doubts at rest anyway. Like others I am still somewhat in the “Too Good to be True” camp and will only really believe when I see the big tax case result going the way it looks like it is going to go.

    I’ve seen these characters wriggle out of many a scrape, so I’m not counting my chickens just yet.

  3. Gwared says:

    Paulie,
    I believe players are paid Weekly, or they were about 5 years ago?

  4. macon rouge says:

    Paul McConville 8:13

    I have just read the Barmy Bloggers site and you have my sympathy.
    As I seem to be in moderation for changing my post name on here I don’t know when you will see this.

    I can confirm that I was in your blog for purely legal/non-football matters before all the Rangers stuff kicked off. Can’t in any way claim to be neutral though.

  5. MWD says:

    Mr Wobbly

    The question is written in English. By the time they work out what it is being asked they will all have voted No.

  6. Lord Wobbly says:

    MWD says:
    24/10/2011 at 8:55 pm
    Mr Wobbly
    The question is written in English. By the time they work out
    what it is being asked they will all have voted No.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    and clearly I’m no better at reading 😦

  7. A bad day for the laptop loyal says:

    Paul McConville says:
    24/10/2011 at 8:13 pm

    It is highly unlikely that Mr Graham will approve my belittling comment on his blog so I’ll post it here, as he likes to frequent here often. (Apologies to the experts here, I shall return to being a mere observer from this post forth)

    A bad day for the laptop loyal says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    October 24, 2011 at 19:47
    There was a glorious time long ago when Rangers ruled the (air) waves and many a loyal journalist dined at the table of succulent lamb.

    It seemed that very little negative press ever came knocking at Rangers door. While the tabloids were gushing about Sir David’s marvelous moonbeams of Super Casino’s and Tenner’s for Celtic’s fivers, they were equally as intense with their criticism of Celtic and stated in a front page headline that Fergus McCann was a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein!

    Craig Whyte, on the other hand, was a “Saviour”, a “Billionaire with wealth off-the-scale” as he waltzed up the marble staircase to rapturous fanfares from all corners.

    Well, we know how the Fergus McCann takeover panned out. But the jury is most definately out on Mr Whyte.

    The time’s are a-changing. Rangers rule the airwaves no more. It will be hard for you to accept at first. Evidently. But you will get there in the end.

    If Craig Whyte is indeed the saviour you hope he is…

  8. stunney says:

    Greengrass, surely an Academical would have much better punctuation than louie?

    Oh, wait… does Hamilton have a Morton Supporters Club?

    😉

  9. Davythelotion says:

    The idea that Celtic are defined by another football team is ludicrous. This turn in the debate is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Scottish media. For years Celtic has been constructed in terms of Rangers and not as an entity in their own right. Pre Bunnet, I don’t remember any media outlet saying that if Celtic went bust it would be bad for Rangers. During the Bunnet’s stewardship Celtic were portrayed as being mean in both wages and transfer fees (biscuit tin). One journalist – with a supposedly Celtic bias- highlighted how Charlie Miller had been paid wages and contract signing fee which in excess of anything Celtic would be prepared to pay.
    For years the media have cast Celtic in rangers shadow. Not only should Celtic vote against any newco, they should make no effort to assist in any way, now we know how they managed to sign players on eye-watering salaries. We also know how they caused every other team on the SPL to inflate their wage bills and spend far beyond their means, with ruinous consequences.
    Remember when Murray Park was to be the football factory, Tore Andre Flo for 12 million? Rangers under Minty were catastrophic for Scottish football, it’s not coincidental that Murray’s time at Rangers was also the time when the Scottish national team declined.
    Let them go the way of Third Lanark.

  10. StevieBC says:

    In the interests of disinformation/deflection – now that the RFC financial problems are in the public domain, should CW not start leaking stories about SDM ?

    I would expect him to be bad mouthing SDM, as to be fair CW has inherited a mess – through his own choice of course. He might even get some sympathy ?

    As a sidenote, the RFC Board members “bio’s” are still comical;
    http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20110508/craig-whyte_2254520_2355748

    Oh dear…!

  11. Mark says:

    DAVE I have agreed with you previously but I am starting to think you are a spoofer.
    Instead of trying to defend the indefensible are you trying to deflect blog topic by arguing for Celtic entry into the EPL for a wee laugh?
    Just a question don’t get offended

  12. selboy01 says:

    Just a question to all……………………………
    If rangers have to change there name in the middle of the season and they managed to stay in the SPL would they still have all there points or would they start at 0 points as Rangers won the match’s and they would no longer be called rangers so under the Scottish Football Flag they would be known by a different name i.e a new club . no history or games and if so how could they still have the same points total.

    thanks

  13. Private Land says:

    Davy

    I’ve been saying the same thing for donkeys. Rangers on the other hand are entirely define by Celtic. Without their status as the ‘not Celtic’ club, they would have been anonymous.

    The worry is that Celtic’s board will attempt to assist Rangers under the guise of this ‘symbiosis’ nonsense.

  14. droid says:

    Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some hire public relations officers…… Daniel J. Boorstin

  15. DAVE says:

    I know mark I strayed from the main topic , think I was rail roaded into it but wont again , so sorru all

  16. gunnerb says:

    Reading of this blog would indicate that most fans would accept RFC2 starting in the third tier and living within their means as the appropriate punishment, I wonder if that is a true and broad consensus of all fans of the professional game?I would hope so, but it would be comforting to know for sure how fans outside of Celtic are discussing this issue. For instance, Easyjambo..do you see this as a live debate on Hearts boards/forums ? (apologies in advance if you dont frequent the boards/forums)

  17. Davythelotion says:

    Droid says

    some are born great….
    -__________________________________-_

    CW makes me think ‘….some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some are out there throwing stones at buses!…’

  18. Hugh McEwan says:

    Private Land says:
    24/10/2011 at 9:24 pm

    Davy

    I’ve been saying the same thing for donkeys.

    =====================================

    Likewise. I have said for years Murray’s madness is the thing which totally destroyed football finances in Scotland. My hope is that we can back to the way we were, football clubs budgeting based on their ability to raise cash. Kind of like every other business.

    Celtic have said for years that we will only spend money that the Club can raise itself, plus a bit of manageable debt. I think that is the proper business model for Scottish football.

  19. tomtom says:

    Had a conversation earlier this evening with an Ibrox employee of long standing. Now this guy is a died in the wool Rangers fan who would not have anything said against Rangers and was prepared to believe anything that came out of there. His first words were “any jobs going”. Apparently the mood within Ibrox is becoming increasingly anti Whyte and, at least within the hallowed walls, the veil is being slowly lifted from their eyes.

  20. campsiejoe says:

    Hugh Mc @ 9.35

    There are still Celtic supporters out there, advocating that we should be spending £10-15 millions that we don’t have

    The idea of having to live within our means, even after the financial meltdown of recent years, just doesn’t register with them

  21. Johnobhoyo says:

    campsiejoe – going OT here – but who are these people advocating such a spend? The usual excuse that gets peddled around is “look at Leeds” or “look at rangers” to try to justify the lack of investment in recent times. That’s just scaremongering as these two cases are examples of absolutely horrific financial management.

    When the current Celtic team struggles so badly against so many teams these days that tells me that things are not right in so many areas.

    I also take you back to the only truly excellent team to have worn the hoops in the last 30 or so years – it was built by substantial funds given to a very good manager who made the most our of that investment. Looked at from a different angle, when MON was spending £20m+ (less than a year after Barnes/Dalglish spent millions) were you chastising the Board for taking Celtic into such a level of debt? No, me neither.

    And noone is asking for such levels of investment to be repeated – just enough funds to attract a decent manager who could build a decent side. Not appoint an untried rookie who has built a sorry team around the likes of Mulgrew, majstorovic, Samaras and Forster.

  22. Sergeant Pluck says:

    If I understand correctly (admittedly, a big “if”) there is a theory that Whyte will deliberately use the wee tax bill to push RFC over the edge, thereby avoiding the big tax bill.

    Is there anything to stop HMRC choosing not to pursue the wee bill at present, but rather to wait until the outcome of the FTT before making their move?

  23. easyJambo says:

    gunnerb says: 24/10/2011 at 9:33 pm

    Reading of this blog would indicate that most fans would accept RFC2 starting in the third tier and living within their means as the appropriate punishment, I wonder if that is a true and broad consensus of all fans of the professional game?I would hope so, but it would be comforting to know for sure how fans outside of Celtic are discussing this issue. For instance, Easyjambo..do you see this as a live debate on Hearts boards/forums ? (apologies in advance if you dont frequent the boards/forums)

    Gunnerb – It is a live issue on Hearts forums. On the most popular messageboard, the last thread amassed 845 replies and 36,000 views. The general consensus is as it is here that they would like to see RFC 2012 start at the bottom of the pyramid, but there is a small number of posters who stoutly believe that a deal will be done that will see RFC emerge relatively unscathed. The general level of knowledge of the case is, as you would expect, lower than it is among the devotees of RTC, but there is a growing number who have been keeping a watchful eye on this blog.

  24. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Paul McConville,

    Re 60 days and all that. My best guess is as follows. At 60 days an arrestment almost certainly gets you a preference over a liquidator. It very probably does not get you a preference over a receiver appointed by a floating charge holder (ie Lord Advocate v RBS – funnily enough about a competition between an HMRC arrestment and a receiver appointed by a secured creditor under a floating charge; plus ca change and all that). It probably, but not definitely, gets you a preference over an administrator (the point has not been tested in Scotland, and they don’t have arrestments in England so there is no analagous English authority; but most informed commentators think the better analogy is with a liquidator than a receiver, and in particular that the position of the receiver depends upon the phrase “effectually completed diligence” which appears in the legislation relating to receivers but not that relating to administrators).

    So, if its an administrator he wants the time to do it is this week. As others have pointed out, its salary time on Friday and there are lots of win bonuses due. There may therefore be a net cash difference of £5m or thereabouts between going on 27th October and going on 1st November.

    A decision to take it beyond this week points to a receiver, but even then, why take the chance? I think a receiver would win a contest with HMRC but there are arguments to be made and why expose yourself even to the cost and delay of the litigation? Particularly so since the gain is only temporary. At 14 weeks – ie 98 days – the money is automatically released to HMRC, so there is in effect a furthcoming and at that point HMRC have their effectually completed diligence. What does he gain in that additional 38 days? Not enough to let him get to the January window, and he has the same issue at the end of November in terms of salaries etc. Given the way things are going he may get to the stage where he can’t pay the bills.

    The commercial logic of his position is to go this week. I do not think doing it this early was part of his plan. Will he have the cojones?

  25. Lord Wobbly says:

    Did anyone notice the latest money making wheeze? I’ll leave you to make up your mind about the choice of material.

    http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20111021/win-rangers-music_2254024_2489837

  26. Lord Wobbly says:

    Pmacgiollabhain People fixated on the Big Tax Case. They
    forget that the small tax bill is still outstanding.
    #thatsahint

  27. Hugh McEwan says:

    Sergeant Pluck says:
    24/10/2011 at 9:56 pm

    If I understand correctly (admittedly, a big “if”) there is a theory that Whyte will deliberately use the wee tax bill to push RFC over the edge, thereby avoiding the big tax bill.

    Is there anything to stop HMRC choosing not to pursue the wee bill at present, but rather to wait until the outcome of the FTT before making their move?
    ==============================================

    Such a theory is nonsense. The “big tax bill” exists just now. It is simply not being chased pending the tribunal. In administration HMRC would include it in their claim.

  28. weeminger says:

    If Celtic were to suffer financially by the demise of Rangers and be forced to downscale even more, I wouldn’t mind that much. If the league was more competitive, I’d be happier actually. Perhaps fans would be encouraged to support the team instead of barracking every misplaced pass or failure to control the ball.

    I welcome a league where everybody fights on the same basic terms. Naturally our much bigger support gives us an advantage over very team but that’s life. If they were actually in with a shout of a decent position perhaps the other teams’ fans would return, partially (or fully) negating the loss of Rangers (who won’t actually disappear).

    Sorry about the O/T.

  29. Davythelotion says:

    Johnobhoyo says
    ——————–_________________________

    listening to Sundays’ 606, caller ( man utd fan) justifies the 1-6 defeat by saying that man city are ‘…spending big money…’! It’s all relative, the best players in MON’s teams were larrson and Lubo, not his signings and not expensive.
    What we need is a move away from the idea that money is the solution, for Leeds, Portsmouth, Newcastle and now Rangers it was the problem! A good scouting network allied to youth development is the only sensible way forward.
    Incidentally, when is someone going to enquire about how Rangers managed to get aubstatial income from the sale of defenders who then disappeared without a trace? ( income of £9M per year).

  30. gunnerb says:

    Davythelotion says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:18 pm

    Incidentally, when is someone going to enquire about how Rangers managed to get aubstatial income from the sale of defenders who then disappeared without a trace? ( income of £9M per year)
    _______________________________________________________________

    If this a reference to Boumsong I thought that police investigations concluded in a dead end some considerable time ago….as for Hutton..he hasn`t quite disappeared yet.

  31. Mark says:

    davy fair point I’ve always wondered about all this

    Boumsong – utter p1sh – how much? bought by former rangers manager
    Hutton, utter p1sh sold to Spurs, and boy were they sold a pup, shifted for a fraction of the cash
    Bougherra, all the touting failed to attract major bid but likely buyer former rangers manager
    Toothy! – sold to Asotn Villa (bought by Celtic manager (ahem!)) but going to be sold back to rangers for a quarter original fee.

    McGeady – sold for near 10 million, holding his value and likely go for more than original transfer fee…
    Reporting of Ki and Kayal and Izzi, all less than the above former rangers players…utterly ridiculous, the process is clearly promote rangers average players (Goian will be worth ten million next year) and ok momey for Celtics top players, this maximises and minimises income to those clubs

    But I am just paranoid…..who said that?

    Boys looking after their favourite club?

  32. Insomniac says:

    Weeminger:
    As well as GM Mining at that address, there is also a company called Multi Metals Ltd. I’m sure you’ll be aware that they both were in David Murray’s portfolio at some point.

  33. the Don Dionisio says:

    Paulie W.
    I made some comments on receivership, arrestments and effectually executed diligence at 1.59pm on 8/6/11 under “Rangers Circular Released”, which are not dissimilar to your own.

    Where I went wrong there was in relation to inhibitions, and I was pointed in the right direction by Onand(x3) who reminded me that inhibtions no longer confer priority in insolvency proceedings courtesy of the BAD Act.

  34. andy says:

    http://chrisgraham76.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/barmy-bloggers-and-the-bbc/

    there was virtually nothing new to be learned. It was common knowledge during the takeover process that Whyte had been disqualified as a company director for a period of time.

    BBC last week was the first time i had heard or seen in print anywhere, anything about the motherwell billionairre being disqualified for 7 years

  35. bluebears1308 says:

    Insomniac says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:28 pm

    Weeminger:
    As well as GM Mining at that address, there is also a company called Multi Metals Ltd. I’m sure you’ll be aware that they both were in David Murray’s portfolio at some point.

    _________

    Insomniac: Are you saying that murray and whyte were in business together with these 2 companies?

  36. JMaclure says:

    Is the BBC getting too big for its boots? Sunday, 23 October 2011 21:30 69 Comments By a Newsnet reporter

    Threats of court action from Glasgow Rangers new owner and demands for apologies from the European Commission, the BBC it seems doesn’t have to look for its troubles these days.

    The demands for an apology from the EC follow a quite unbelievable display of arrogance and indeed rudeness on the part of Jeremy Paxman and a studio guest (Peter Oborne) who both decided it would be good fun to lampoon and generally insult an EC representative on Newsnight.

    The gentleman on the end of the gratuitous slights, Amadeu Altafaj Tardio, was in a Brussels studio in order to give UK viewers a European viewpoint on the debt crisis currently engulfing the Eurozone.

    “Mr Idiot” was the term adopted by Paxman and Oborne in order to address the European gentleman who sat through the proceedings with admirable restraint until he could take no more of the repeated insults and promptly walked out.

    European Commissioner Olli Rehn has now written a letter to BBC Trust Chairman Lord Patten, himself a former commissioner, demanding an “unqualified apology” for the disgraceful treatment of Mr Tardio.

    It’s Paxo’s trademark apparently, being rude and dismissive to guests. However on this occasion it went beyond rudeness and has to be said verged on xenophobic.

    Demanding apologies is one thing, the threat of litigation is quite another and that’s what the BBC’s northern outpost, BBC Scotland, is facing after someone decided to run a hatchet job on Sir David Murray’s Rangers replacement Craig Whyte.

    The Ibrox club had already announced that it would no longer cooperate with the BBC prior to last Thursday’s documentary detailing the business history of the club’s new owner. Radio Scotland has an over reliance on football to fill its increasingly low brow schedules, so it will be interesting to see how the station will cope with losing fifty per cent of its required old firm soundbites

    But what of the Rangers ‘documentary’?

    The programme was heavily trailed under the guise of ‘news’ on various BBC Scotland TV and radio news programmes, it was clear that BBC Scotland felt that they had a big story.

    As a result of this I, and probably many others not steeped in matters Old Firm, watched the broadcast. My thoughts after watching the documentary were that it amounted to no more than a hatchet job on Mr Whyte.

    I’m still trying to work out exactly how some disgruntled ex-Rangers board members managed to persuade the publicly owned broadcaster to use scarce resources in order to smear the club’s new owner.

    The clip of one ex-director uttering the phrase “no surrender” when describing his response to being asked to step down was bizarre and, it has to be said, did nothing for the image of either him or the old board.

    But it was the subject matter that had me scratching my head; questionable business dealings. If the BBC really wanted to pursue questionable corporate practices and possible institutionalised corruption then surely the place to look would have been the local authority formerly headed by one Steven Purcell.

    It isn’t as though Mr Whyte was a former cocaine user with a drink problem who fled the country after being visited by police in council chambers and who set up arms-length companies using public cash and staffed them with party colleagues paying them generous salaries.

    The BBC could have investigated dear old Glasgow Council where contracts were awarded to Labour party donors and public funds were used in order to promote Labour and attack the SNP.

    But no, BBC Scotland decided to spend public cash ‘investigating’ Craig Whyte for the sole reason that he has, what can best be described as, an up-and-down corporate C.V. and now controls one half of the Old Firm.

    The broadcast came only weeks after the corporation was forced to issue a grovelling apology to Rangers after a quite disgraceful attempt to portray the club’s manager Ally McCoist as having a flippant attitude to sectarianism. One would have thought that a period of silent humility ought to have followed such a dangerously reckless manipulation of video.

    But what is it about the BBC that leads it to believe that everything it does is beyond reproach, that smear campaigns and gratuitous insults are what we, the public, pay our licence fee for? We have tabloid newspapers and commercial TV stations to satisfy those societal cravings.

    One answer lies in the fact that the BBC is a law unto itself. Complain about a broadcast and if you are fortunate enough to have the complaint acknowledged then more often than not you will receive a generic conveyor belt statement that patronisingly dismisses your concerns.

    Approach Ofcom and they will politely inform you that the BBC is none of their business, and by extension none of yours. In short there is nobody that will listen – the BBC behaves with impunity.

    And please don’t suggest that the Audience Council have any real inclination to hold the BBC to account. A body that believes Scottish traffic reports should be included when quantifying current affairs output deserves to be ignored.

    Thus, the corporation doesn’t have to worry how many viewers it angers or alienates; funding – notwithstanding the freeze to the licence fee – is guaranteed. This unaccountability married to a guarantee of income is why the BBC is fast losing credibility amongst many viewers the length of the UK.

    It’s worse in Scotland where we have a setup that is very clearly not equipped to deal with and reflect the rapidly changing Scottish political and cultural landscape. The SNP conference should have been a major political event for BBC Scotland, who instead provided an insulting tokenistic glimpse of the Inverness proceedings.

    The BBC needs to be shaken up, lest the dissatisfaction manifests itself into something other than angry complaints. It needs a body with teeth, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK, to ensure that the arrogance that very clearly pervades the corporation doesn’t erode what’s left of its good name.

    Until then Paxman will continue to ridicule and berate people from beyond England’s borders. Question Time host David Dimbleby will continue to treat ‘regional’ guests from those same areas with contempt and BBC Scotland will continue to act as a broadcast equivalent of the Daily Record and keep the Old Firm ‘troubles’ as prominent in the public consciousness as it can.

  37. johnty says:

    same with many of us andy.. perhaps they were privvy to the ramblings of the late glasnostradamus..

  38. Stu says:

    Mark,

    Sorry mate, but take off the green tinted specs. Hutton, when he was sold, was probably among the top three right backs in Europe. He WAS Rangers attacking threat in Europe, and was virtually unplayable for Scotland at the time.
    There’s no doubt he’s lost his way a little bit down south, but if it was possible, I’d have him at Parkhead in an instant.
    However, point taken on the rest!

  39. Paulie Walnuts says:

    Whaddya think Don? Will Whyte ask for a sit down this week?

    I can’t shake the idea that we are attributing to him much more competence than he truly possesses and that he is busking it as he goes along. That part of me thinks he soldiers on well past the point where prudent people realise the game is up.

    But these are big sums of money for only a short term stay of execution, and, at the risk of repetition, the only reason for not paying the wee tax bill is because he intends to stiff HMRC for it.

  40. Mark says:

    JMaclure

    Paxman offends everyone, the BBC at worst dared prpmote an anti rangers story, and what fall out indeed eh? offended? really? they are trying to help you all, they are trying to warn you, they are screaming “ICEBERG”, miming “ICEBERG”, drawing “ICEBERG”, they are shouting nay screaming “WATCH OUT YA F CKIN EEJITS” and this is your retort? to steer a true and steady course, same speed, a story about paxman and yon laddie from the EC which is nearly a fortnight old? ya twat, but not just you every darn last one of ya

  41. paulmac says:

    JMaclure says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:47 pm
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I watched that interview…Mr Paxman did not refer to the European commissioner as “an idiot”..

    The person referring to the commissioner as “the idiot” was Mr. Oborne…who had been on other TV slots through the day making the same derogatory comments towards anything European..

    Mr. Paxman to his credit robustly condemned Mr Oborne for his rude and offensive comments towards the European commissioner..

    So your post is inaccuarte and wrong!

  42. TheBlackKnight says:

    JMaclure says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:47 pm

    Do you feel better getting that off your chest?

    Was the programme not in the interest of the general public? Were the allegations (based on key witnesses and information passed to the BBC) not put forward?

    I do not recall the BBC stating their position in regard to the allegations! I do not recall the BBC making wild accusations! I do not recall any defamations against the Whyte Knight!

    Paxman on the otherhand!

  43. Mark says:

    Stu, I despise Hutton and really wouldn’t want him at Celtic so yes with regards him maybe green tinted, but oof the rest all touted as world beaters oh jaysus!

  44. Insomniac says:

    No, bluebears1308, I’m replying to Weeminger’s post about the compay called Willow International on the previous page. Here’s what he said:

    “24/10/2011 at 10:50 am

    Those of you that follow Craig Whyte’s other interests will be aware of some dealings with Merchant House Group whereby a company called Willow International Trading were mentioned in relation to Liberty Capital’s New Convertible Loan Notes.

    Initially the only link seemed to be a Seychelle’s domiciled company of the same name that may have been involved in some dodgy land deals.

    I’ve just been made aware (via the iii.co.uk messageboards) that there was a company of the same name located at Belgrave Street, Bellshill, ML4 3JA dissolved in 1993.

    Is that just a curious coincidence?”

    What I’m saying is that two companies with previous connections to David Murray also share that address. No more, no less.

  45. gunnerb says:

    JMaclure says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:47 pm

    Is the BBC getting too big for its boots? Sunday, 23 October 2011 21:30 69 Comments By a Newsnet reporter
    _________________________________________________________________________
    A “newsnet reporter”..pardon my ignorance Jim but is this a recognised professional body such as the Press Association or the NUJ or the BBC?

  46. paulmac says:

    Ps. I believe Mr Oborne is a journalist for the Daily Mail….which says it all..

  47. AllWhyteOnTheNight says:

    I can’t see past this week either. The HMRC arrestment is too big a sum to throw away for him.

    If he doesn’t appoint this week then he has to keep going to the January window. That’s going to cost him at least 2 salary runs with little income to offset that.

    So potentially throwing away at least £5m of easy recoveries. You would then have to be very confident you were going to make that back on player sales. Big transfers are not as common in the January window and if everyone knows that Rangers need the money then why not just offer a pittance (Rangers benefitted from this tactic when they took Gavin Rae and Kishinivelli from Dundee when they were in admin first time).

  48. Davythelotion says:

    JMcLure says
    ———————————————————

    what on earth does paxman have to do with rangers tax case? If you think that Craig Whyte shouldn’t be the subject of a documentary because he bought Rangers, then say so! If you think there’s a story to be told about politicians then do what RTC did and start a blog.
    Why not earn your PR money by showing CW how to tie a proper knot in his tie and how to talk to the press without sounding like someone has his beans in a bulldog clip.

  49. gunnerb says:

    unnerb says:
    24/10/2011 at 11:03 pm

    JMaclure says:
    24/10/2011 at 10:47 pm

    Is the BBC getting too big for its boots? Sunday, 23 October 2011 21:30 69 Comments By a Newsnet reporter
    _________________________________________________________________________
    A “newsnet reporter”..pardon my ignorance Jim but is this a recognised professional body such as the Press Association or the NUJ or the BBC?
    ______________________________________________________________________
    paulmac says:
    24/10/2011 at 11:04 pm

    Ps. I believe Mr Oborne is a journalist for the Daily Mail….which says it all.

    __________________________________________________________

    Thanks for the heads up Paulmac, no need to respond JMclure

  50. duggie73 says:

    Errr… maybe this is somewhat against the spirit of the blog, but hey ho.
    If any posters do feel they have an accurate understanding of the legal situation over arrested funds under a variety of insolvency scenarios, maybe they should hold off posting them?
    Dunno that anyone but Whyte really gains anything by knowing for sure, dunno that all that much is lost by readers on here not knowing right now.
    It is their own call, obviously, and it is just a thought.

%d bloggers like this: