Uilleam

Survivors snubbed in BBC football abuse series The BBC contrives to leave survivors of abuse at the separate entity on the cutting room floor. The makers of a documentary on sexual abuse in football, came to Scotland, and interviewed survivors (a distressing experience for the victims I should think), but excised them from the final documentary. Another coat of whitewash. Or is it greenwash? Whatever the explanation, or rationale, or excuse, it will be hogwash. The SFA's "Independent Report" which appears to be nothing of the kind, and seems bowdlerised by Pederasty Central, itself, and now the censoring of a major documentary. Is it me, or is there something sinister about all this? From today's Times: Survivors snubbed in BBC football abuse series Marc Horne Friday February 19 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/survivors-snubbed-in-bbc-football-abuse-series-0vk087x3h The BBC has shelved plans to highlight Scottish cases in a primetime series exposing sexual abuse in football, leading to anger from survivors. Last week a report commissioned by the Scottish FA found that paedophiles infiltrated the national sport with ease and preyed on vulnerable boys and teenagers for more than three decades. The Independent Review of Sexual Abuse in Scottish Football called on clubs, including Celtic, Rangers and Hibernian, to provide compensation and issue a “clear and unreserved” public apology to the dozens of victims who endured “incalculable” suffering. Researchers working on a BBC 1 documentary series travelled to Scotland to speak to survivors of abuse at Celtic Boys Club after several senior figures at the feeder team were convicted for molesting young players. The show claimed that the series, entitled Football’s Darkest Secret, would shine a light on historical abuse “all across the country”. However, only English testimony will feature in the three-part programme, which is directed by the Bafta-winning filmmaker Daniel Gordon and will be shown later this year. “We were delighted when we heard the BBC were interested in telling our stories,” said one Scottish-based survivor, who asked not to be named. “We felt that at last, after everything we have gone through, our voices would finally be heard across the whole of the UK. “When I heard that our contributions weren’t going to be used it felt like I had been punched in the stomach. We have been let down once again and it’s hard to take.” A spokeswoman for the programme stressed that a BBC Scotland investigation, entitled Football Abuse: The Ugly Side of the Beautiful Game, first screened fours years ago, would be repeated next month. A source close to the production said: “As part of the initial extensive research for the Football’s Darkest Secret project conversations were held with ex-Scottish players. None of them were interviewed on camera.” A press release for the documentary states: “The series will examine abuse that has taken place in youth football all across the country, from Manchester to Newcastle, Crewe to Southampton. “Three years in the making, Football’s Darkest Secret is the definitive account of this dark chapter in English football and the ensuing attempts to seek justice decades later. The series aims to shine a light on the damaging ripple effect caused by child sexual abuse and offers a unique insight into the way it impacts survivors and their families.” The Scottish FA-commissioned report found that known paedophiles had worked together to groom boys and trafficked them over borders, within the UK and overseas, for abuse.

OK, you guys are experts: Borna Barasic: 2 penalties, 2 goals, 2 goalkeepers, 1 competitive match. 1 st time for a Rangers' player?

It's just that we have had a run of some poor performances, in my view. We, however, got the points (Acas excepted, although you know what I mean), but tonight shows that what we get away with, in terms of performance, in the SPL, we don't get away with in Europe. Except we did.

A damned close run thing, as someone said about an encounter in Belgium. I think that we edged it, on the 2nd half performance. As for overall performance, I have to say that what we get away with in the SPL, we don't get away with in Europe.

I saw this in The Guardian, and thought that I should post it here. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/feb/18/burton-kane-hemmings-i-get-scared-before-games-im-not-embarrassed-saying-that Interview Burton's Kane Hemmings: 'I get scared before games. I’m not embarrassed saying that' Ben Fisher After years of suffering in silence the former Rangers forward is able to open up about fear of failure and mental health problems Thu 18 Feb 2021 14.47 GMT It is a couple of years since Kane Hemmings put his feelings down in words. A professional footballer, he wrote Scared, almost 900 words detailing a medley of emotions born of the fear of failure in which he talks about being petrified before a game of letting people down and weary of putting on a brave face to mask anxiety and suicidal thoughts. “When you feel that way, physically you feel tired and maybe a yard off it sometimes because you have all these emotions running through your body,” he says now. The piece begins with a dictionary definition of “play” which no longer resonates. “We don’t ‘play’ football,” the striker, who joined hometown club Burton Albion last summer, says now. “There is so much more riding on it, you can’t just go out there and ‘play’. There is a structure to it, there’s a gameplan, you have to do this, you have to run this way and that way, and you can’t just run about like you did with your mates. Having a good game only makes me feel like, ‘I need to do that again next week now’, but when you’re just playing for the fun of it, there are no expectations.” He accepts pressure comes with the territory but it is something he has grappled with since the beginning of his career. Going from Rangers, for whom he made 10 appearances, including in the Champions League at Malmö, to playing part-time for Cowdenbeath, training twice a week and washing his kit after games following his release at 21, was a shock. “It was a kick in the teeth, a kick to the ego. I loved my year at Cowdenbeath … but it’s not Rangers. I had to get rid of my car and I had to move in with a friend because it was the only place I could afford to live. I started a college course in sports coaching and I was going to college more than I was playing football. I held on to that for many years, thinking, ‘I could get this taken away from me at any point’, and that really, really scared me. It still scares me but I’m in a better place to deal with it now.” Five years ago, Hemmings was suffering in silence. He felt alienated living alone in Glasgow and was “drinking a lot during midweek, drinking on a Sunday and I would go out on a Saturday after most games”. At the end of a season in which he scored 26 goals for Dundee, he pulled on to the hard shoulder of the southbound M6 and spent 15 minutes crying, wondering why he was so low. Hemmings alludes to that moment in his writing – “I’ve just had the best season of my life and I hate it?” – but last year, after a “meltdown” at a friend’s partner’s 30th birthday party, came the realisation that he needed professional support. “I had a few drinks and I was just running about telling people I wanted to kill myself. I got took home, passed out, woke up in the morning, got picked up and took to training and I remember I went and sat in the kit women’s room and just broke down to her. She went and got the manager [James McPake] and he was brilliant. He said: ‘Listen, just go home and get your head right.’ That was a Monday and he said to come back in on the Friday … In a way, it was the best thing that happened to me because I got the help I needed.” Hemmings’ partner, Sophie, reached out to Mark Fleming at Positive Mental Health Scotland and he had a dozen sessions with Fleming’s wife, Aileen. The biggest takeaway, Hemmings says, was recognising the value of being open and expressing emotions. Scared was published anonymously in Mark Fleming’s book, Confessions of a Football Chaplain. “I would never have had these conversations two or three years ago. Never. I didn’t understand why I felt like I did so if I couldn’t figure it out, what was I meant to say to someone? Now I’m happy to talk to anyone about it. People are going to have bad days and bad weeks but it shouldn’t fester for years and years to the point where you’re saying the stuff I was saying.” If you speak to someone to get help, I can’t tell you how good it feels after He talks candidly about the impact of online abuse. “How’s it right that people can just go on to social media and say what they want?” Hemmings asks. “What are people getting from racially abusing someone? Or from abusing someone after a game? When I was at Barnsley, I didn’t play particularly great. I used to open up my phone on a Saturday evening and I didn’t know how to deal with these people telling me I’m terrible.” He turned to writing while at Notts County, during a season that culminated in the club dropping out of the Football League for the first time. “There’s people’s jobs at stake, money on the line, people’s careers … you have to be mentally strong to be able to deal with all that. Having to be like that all the time … it can take its toll. I get scared before every game. I’m not embarrassed saying that. I’ve tried to flip it on its head and turn it into a positive. ‘All right, I’m up for it,’ and embrace it. I feel I’m much more ready to deal with that pressure now.” Hemmings prepares a free lunch in the kitchen at the Burton’s Pirelli Stadium. Photograph: Matt West/Rex/Shutterstock Burton are bottom of League One but have won three of their past four matches under Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink and could move out of the relegation zone if they beat Sunderland on Saturday. Hemmings has scored eight goals in his past 13 league games but, away from matchday, he has prepared meals at a local food bank and attended vaccination rollouts at Burton’s Pirelli Stadium. The club have made Hemmings aware of the support available to him from the club and the wider community should he feel he needs it. The club and the Burton Albion Community Trust are signed up to the mental health wellbeing charter. As a kid, Hemmings went to the half-term camps laid on by the Trust he has since helped at as a player. “If I left the club, I’d like people to think I was out in the community and tried to make some sort of difference. One thing that became evident when I spoke to Aileen was that I feel like I need community around me. Moving home to Burton has been a massive weight off my shoulders. I moved away from home when I was 16 to go to Rangers so I was not at home for the first 10 years of my career.” Billy Kee, Marvin Sordell and Kevin Ellison have spoken powerfully on depression and Hemmings knows his story will resonate with many. “If you speak to someone to get help … I can’t tell you how good it feels after,” he says. “It makes you feel unbelievable, once you delve into how you feel and openly speak to someone without feeling judgment. You walk out feeling like a totally different person. It feels like you are floating.” Book extract: Scared, by Kane Hemmings I LOVE “playing” football. Football is all I know and all I’ve ever really been “good” at. But the problem is I don’t “play” football, I’m in the industry that is football. Where is the enjoyment in sitting in the changing room before a game petrified as to what could happen in the next few hours? I don’t want to let myself down, my teammates, my family or friends that have come to watch all expecting me to do well. But I can't turn round to a teammate and say “I’m scared about going out here”. No, I sit there and do what everyone knows I’m good at, PRETENDING I'M NOT ARSED. And I almost convince myself I’m not. When I’m having a bad game people will say you just didn’t look interested. But deep down it's killing me inside, and I look like I’m not trying but I’m trying even harder. I feel physically embarrassed, because I know I’m better than most players at this level but for some reason I can't bring myself to be better than them, and its all in my own head because I know I’m petrified to let anyone down. I scored 26 goals in a season for Dundee and emotionally that was the worst season I had. I hated it. At the end of that season I broke down crying on the side of the M6 on my way home ... I was thinking 'wtf is wrong with me. I’ve just had the best season of my life and I hate it?' The problem for me is that with all the highs comes a horrible feeling of anxiety. I'm anxious of people’s expectations and then them I put on myself. People say when you score it gives you confidence and I understand what they’re saying, but the overwhelming emotion for me is anxiety. I just feel its even more pressure and I just don’t like it really but that’s just the territory I’m in I guess ... I think the biggest reason I get so scared at times is because football is all I’ve known for so long. I’ve seen so many people better than me fall away and not be able to play any more. It scares me to think everything that comes with “playing” football can be taken away from you at any time and that I could be left with nothing, especially now I have a son to take care of in the world as well. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org.

At what point can we say that there is a "clamour" for an Independent Public Enquiry? Only and independent inquiry on malicious prosecutions of Rangers administrators can have credibility by Liam Kerr Article from Saturday 13, February, 2021 https://www.thinkscotland.org/todays-thinking/articles.html?read_full=14442 LAST WEEK, Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser called a debate, demanding a public inquiry into the “malicious prosecutions” of two administrators of Rangers FC. In his opening remarks he used the word “incredible”. And the contents of the subsequent debate and contributions of members from across the chamber were truly incredible. The facts in summary are that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark were partners in the international insolvency firm Duff & Phelps and handled the administration of Rangers Football Club plc. They were later arrested on suspicion of fraud and on a Friday morning in November 2014, were taken from their homes in Chester, England and driven to Glasgow, arriving too late in the day to be able to appear in court – timing that they believe was deliberate. They were held in police custody until the Monday morning, left in cells without a mattress to sleep on and with lights burning throughout the night, and were checked on hourly as they were deemed to be on suicide watch. They were, in their words, treated as if they were terrorists. Until May 2016, the considerable weight of the Scottish criminal justice system was brought to bear on them. Yet those individuals had committed no crime, and nor was there a proper evidential basis for them to be indicted. Their detention has been deemed a breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. Their prosecution, it has now been admitted by the Lord Advocate, was malicious. The experience that those innocent individuals suffered was horrific and, understandably, has had a major psychological impact on them both. The Lord Advocate has admitted a “malicious prosecution”. It was not a simple human error, or an obscure legal mistake, or an error of evidence that suggested a need for individuals to be taken through a criminal process to establish their guilt or otherwise. In fact, our system of prosecution is admitting, unequivocally, that there was a malicious move to throw two innocent men behind bars and destroy their reputations. So what does “malicious” mean? The Lord Advocate gave a statement on Tuesday that such a prosecution can be “malicious” in law, but not have the requisite character of “malice” that the public might popularly think. Whether or not that is accepted, I am not convinced that a lack of “malice” means a lack of “criminal conduct” as the Lord Advocate seemed to suggest when he said that whilst there had been “significant departures from standard practice” he did not concede criminality by anyone in the Crown Office. In brief, malice is a personal act, and an organisation cannot be malicious. To draw his conclusions from the investigation that he instructed, the Lord Advocate must have identified one or more individuals with the requisite mens rea for the offence, to conclude that the prosecution was malicious. That is, per the dictum of Lord Justice Bayley in the case of Bromage v Prosser, “a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse”, which according to Quinn v Leathem, is “proof of malice”. So the Lord Advocate must have identified an individual who, in their duties, acted wrongfully and “intentionally, without just cause or excuse”. Misconduct in public office is a crime. The conclusion that there was no criminal conduct surely requires deep exploration by an inquiry, in order to retain public confidence, one would have thought. In any event, innocent individuals who were carrying out their job lawfully have faced prosecution not because of a suspicion that they had done anything wrong, but because of malicious intent by agents of the state. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been another instance of malicious prosecution in Scots law but, as Murdo Fraser put it, “we are still no closer to an explanation as to how and why those individuals became victims of a malicious prosecution; who authorised the action against them; or what the motivations behind that were”. What we do know is that Messrs. Whitehouse and Clark were awarded £21 million in compensation and a further £3m in legal fees as a result of their malicious prosecution. The Lord Advocate confirmed on Tuesday that those damages have been paid with a tax indemnity, meaning that, should Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs come against them for tax, the additional cost will be met by the Crown Office, potentially doubling the payout. The Crown Office could be forced to pay overall damages of up to £100m when all the cases are finalised. We do not yet know from which budget that money will be taken, but however the finance secretary chooses to do it, vital public spending of some description will lose out. So it is imperative we understand why this happened, who was responsible and how such grievous acts went unchecked for so long. But getting answers must be combined with ensuring that there is full public confidence in the prosecution system. On Tuesday the Lord Advocate told me in response to my Chamber questions that “in this case... the normal processes that are routinely followed in every High Court case were not followed, but the public should take reassurance… [that]… the prosecution system in Scotland is robust, fair and independent, and is one on which they can rely.” But he did not articulate WHY we should have such confidence. Certain individuals must have made decisions that meant the prosecution proceeded. We need to know who they are and what those decisions were, and those people need to be held to account for them. The public need to be reassured that what we have just seen can never happen again. The Lord Advocate told us there had been an investigation undertaken by a legal team instructed by him. Yet from the outside it looks like the Crown Office is marking its own homework. There will not be public confidence in any inquiry unless it is conducted externally and in public. During the debate, the Lord Advocate argued that it is premature to conclude that any inquiry need not be before a Scottish judge. I do not agree. Given that this all happened on the former Lord Advocate’s watch and now responsibility has been admitted by the present Lord Advocate, it is imperative that there are no questions around legitimacy and independence. The SNP Government argued that that an inquiry should await everything being completed in this matter. Again I argue that that view is not sustainable due to the the extraordinary circumstances and costs of the scandal. The public must have answers as to why malicious prosecutions were pursued in defiance of evidence. To fail to set up a full, independent and public inquiry conducted by a member of the judiciary from outside Scotland, without delay, would, indeed, be “incredible”. Liam Kerr is Shadow Justice Secretary and a Conservative & Unionist member of the Scottish Parliament for the North East.

Not often I'm described as a journalist (thankfully) but have been in Voetbal Primeur today. You are too modest; be thankful, and take pleasure that they did not describe you as a 'Football Writer', which would consign you to the green wheelie bin of useless and partisan bastards that is, largely, the sporting press in this country. Below is something from your competition. Note that the RA manager is called "Franky" (with a 'Y', granted but it is the Flemish variant). Spooky, or what? On the bases that there is no such thing as coincidence, and that the public has a right to know, I have to ask: Did you dazzle on the wing for the Belgian National XI in the 1980s? ‘Little Prince’ Franky Vercauteren seeks glory against Rangers Ben Palmer Wednesday February 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/little-prince-franky-vercauteren-seeks-glory-against-rangers-59w53z5pb Royal Antwerp are not to be underestimated when Rangers face the Belgian side tomorrow in the Europa League. In the group stage, they finished second to Tottenham, but beat Jose Mourinho’s side when they travelled to Belgium on matchday two. Trouble off the pitch Although the club endured a turbulent winter, they sit second in the Belgian top flight, 13 points behind Club Brugge but four ahead of Genk. At the end of December, Antwerp lost their manager, Ivan Leko, who was tempted by a lucrative offer from Chinese side Shanghai Port just six months into his tenure. He was replaced by Franky Vercauteren, a former Belgian international known in his homeland as “The Little Prince of Astrid Park”, the home of Anderlecht, who are Antwerp’s biggest rivals. One of his first jobs in charge was to deal with the fallout of a publicity stunt by striker Didier Lamkel Zé, who turned up to training wearing an Anderlecht strip in an attempt to force through a move to Panathinaikos. He apologised and remains at the club but is suspended for the meeting with Rangers. Recent form Antwerp come into this one in reasonable form. They have lost only once in their past seven outings, winning five. If Steven Gerrard was looking for a gauge of Antwerp’s level then he would have got it at the weekend when they drew 1-1 with Standard Liège, who Rangers beat twice in the group stage but faced stiff competition from in both fixtures. Antwerp did score a last-minute winner against Liège but it was disallowed for offside by VAR, a decision that was lamented by Vercauteren. Injury concerns up front Antwerp host Rangers while having to contend with a number of injury issues. Congolese striker Dieumerci Mbokani, once of Norwich and Hull, is set to miss out with a calf issue and third-choice forward Felipe Avenatti looks most likely to start up top. The Uruguayan arrived on loan from Liège last month and came off the bench in both of their matches against Rangers earlier in the competition. He has scored just three goals in 17 appearances this term, with two of those coming in the Europa League qualifiers against minnows Bala Town and Vojvodina. Midfielders Faris Haroun, once of Middlesbrough and Blackpool, and Alexis De Sart and Jean Butez, the goalkeeper, are all also out. Refaelov poses threat Their danger man is Lior Refaelov, the attacking midfielder who is their top scorer this season with 10 goals in 34 appearances. The diminutive playmaker is comfortable with both feet and his low centre of gravity can make him difficult to tackle as he shields the ball from defenders. Lack of clean sheets Antwerp are not the most resilient in defence. Of the top four teams in Belgium, they have conceded the most goals (36 in 27 games) and have failed to keep a clean sheet in their last three matches. Last summer, they signed Iranian goalkeeper Alireza Beiranvand and the 28-year-old had to bide his time after moving from Persepolis, where he was briefly a team-mate of Anthony Stokes. He made his debut last December in a 2-0 defeat to Tottenham but it was not until January that he nailed down the No 1 jersey and he has kept three clean sheets in eight appearances this year. Before moving to Europe, Beiranvand was considered one of the best shot-stoppers in Asia and was the first footballer from Iran to be nominated for an individual award at the Best Fifa Football Awards in 2017 when he finished joint-ninth in goalkeeper of the year. European history This last-32 tie is the furthest Antwerp have gone in continental competition since 1993, when they reached the final of the European Cup Winners’ Cup and were beaten by Parma at Wembley. Last season, they reached the playoff round of the Europa League qualifiers, which was their first European campaign since 1994/95. Manager’s glory days Since retiring in 1993, Vercauteren has been around the block, managing ten different clubs. A dazzling winger, he shone for Belgium at the 1986 World Cup when they recorded a fourth-placed finish in Mexico and was nominated for the Ballon d’Or in 1983. His managerial career has had ups and downs, winning two league titles with Anderlecht and another with Genk but in the past decade he has managed in the United Arab Emirates, had a two-month spell at Sporting Lisbon and stints in Russia and Saudi Arabia. Vercauteren and Antwerp’s glory days may be behind them but he will be keen to show that they are both still capable of making a mark at the top level.

Indeed it will. I strongly suspect that the whole Rangers' fiasco, when uncovered and made clear, will figure in textbooks, lectures, tutorials, and workshops, for the edification and instruction of aspiring lawyers, accountants, tax inspectors (and not forgetting the Comptrollers of Kerrydale Street), for some years to come.

Actually, it seems to be shootie-in, with your pal's wee sister in goal. I think we could thole the complete Crown Office clusterfuck, more easily, if there was a comprehensive and independent Public Enquiry to come. I am not optimistic. It used to be -only- doctors who buried their mistakes. Nowadays, any lack of integrity and professionalism by government, or by professional practitioner, may be buried under a mountain of prevarication, and fudge, and lies.

From today's Times: A further report on the dripping roast of the Rangers' Administration by one James Mulholland....surely no relation to the erstwhile lord Advocate and malicious prosecutor of the innocent? Next off the bench, and hoping to bank more than three points, is David Grier, of Duff and Phelps. The current Lord Advocate, Woolfe, seems to have been, at least, attempting to clear the hospital ba', passed to him by his predecessor, Mulholland. While failing, and falling short of the Goldson Standard, he has yet to be classed alongside the Bogside Baresi. The learned referee, Lord Tyre, while declaring that there was no reasonable cause to tackle Grier, suggests that VAR is required to determine whether this prosecution of Grier, of Duff and Phelps, was actually 'malicious'. We await the second leg. Grier seeks a modest £5M from the Crown Office, and £2 from Poileas Alba (plus fees and expenses) for the usual reasons. ‘No reason’ to charge Grier in Rangers case James Mulholland Wednesday February 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-reason-to-charge-grier-in-rangers-case-9nsp7vgh0 A judge has concluded that there was no “probable cause” to prosecute a business expert for his alleged role in the sale of Rangers football club, paving the way for him to pursue a compensation claim. Lord Tyre ruled that prosecutors had no legal basis to bring David Grier to court after an investigation into business activities at the club. Grier, 58, managing director at the multinational business services company Duff & Phelps, was acting as administrator of the club when he was arrested. He was cleared during an investigation into how Craig Whyte, a businessman, bought the Glasgow club. Lawyers acting for James Wolffe, QC, Scotland’s lord advocate, had argued that Grier’s £5 million compensation bid should be dismissed and claimed prosecutors were entitled to conclude that Grier was guilty of wrongdoing during the business deal. However, Tyre’s decision allows the latest compensation claim connected to the scandal to continue. In a written judgment issued at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday, Tyre wrote that there was no “reasonable cause” to prosecute Grier. However, the judge said that Grier’s legal team still had to prove at a hearing later this year that the prosecution against their client was conducted maliciously. Grier is suing the lord advocate, claiming that prosecutors had no evidence to justify him being arrested and charged. He is also suing the chief constable of Police Scotland for acting unlawfully when he was arrested during an investigation into wrongdoing at Rangers. He is seeking £2 million in damages from the force. The legal actions stem from a police investigation surrounding Rangers’ financial position during the past decade and the sale of the club to Whyte. The cases brought by Grier come after admissions made by the Crown in another case brought by two businessmen, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark. Prosecutors admitted that the pair were wrongfully arrested and charged. The men later received a settlement of £10.5 million each. Their legal costs, thought to total £3 million, were also paid. Grier said: “I welcome Lord Tyre’s clear and comprehensive judgment. He has confirmed what I have known from the very beginning — that there was never a proper basis to prosecute me. “The focus of the court case now moves to consider the issue of malice . . . In a number of related actions the Crown has already conceded the prosecution was malicious.”

Shameless, and shameful, deflection by the half man-half dildo. His, and other, attempts to posit legal, and moral, equivalence are distatsteful, unnecessary, and plain wrong. Who, apart from those transparently agenda driven, would do this? It's like declaring a housebreaker to be coequal with the Krays, quite frankly. He is too stupid, too entrenched, or, most likely, too scared, to admit, to himself, that he is, most probably, standing on the wrong side of history.

They should actually make the beer......

Neither does Archie.....

Strange; what more could he do this season than exemplify the club(like no other)'s ethic "Disgrace Under Pressure" ??

Waspish, 26th, WASPish.

Below is Mr Alex Massie from today's ST. "Like Gaul, Scottish football is divided into three" , he says; he should have added that one part behaves with considerable gall, and has done for, oh, most of its existence, I should think. Perhaps you know which part I mean. The piece adds little to our understanding, but is another voice looking for a formal Inquiry. One thing he has missed, and it is, to me, a rather significant point: Whitehouse and Clarke never got to court. The Crown Office capitulated , and this, on a claim of 'malicious prosecution', a charge which is almost never brought, and which requires any pursuer to clear a very high bar, or series of bars. They 'won', not on a balance of probabilities, therefore, but on a higher standard of proof, which adds weight to the case for a full and frank, and independently chaired Public Inquiry. Alex Massie: The Rangers case should not be a political football Malicious prosecution of the club’s administrators must be investigated Alex Massie Sunday February 14 2021, 12.01am, The Sunday Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-massie-the-rangers-case-should-not-be-a-political-football-5v5gg8fp0 Like Gaul, Scottish football is divided into three. Broadly speaking, one third of the country follows the royal blue of Rangers, a further third the green of Celtic, while the final third wishes to have nothing to do with either Glasgow powerhouse. As such, any difficulty endured by either half of the Old Firm is a matter of some satisfaction, and plenty of joy, for as much as two-thirds of those who follow Scottish football. Neither Rangers nor Celtic make for sympathetic underdogs, which may help to explain why so little attention, comparatively speaking, has been paid to one of the greatest scandals in modern Scottish legal history. It might be further admitted that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, formerly the Duff & Phelps administrators steering Rangers through insolvency and liquidation in 2012, are not necessarily the kind of individuals whose hard-luck stories tug on public heartstrings. But even administrators — even those involved with Rangers — deserve justice. Instead, Whitehouse and Clark were subjected — for reasons that remain mysterious — to what the lord advocate now concedes was a “malicious prosecution” conducted without anything even approaching “probable cause”. Not a blunder or an oversight or a mere mistake, entered into regrettably but honestly, but rather a deliberate and unconscionable attempt to destroy the livelihoods and lives of two wholly innocent men. Again, the reasons for this persecution remain swaddled in mystery but the outcome is clear: Whitehouse and Clark have each been awarded £10.5 million in damages as well as £3 million in legal costs. Should the taxman demand his share of the damages awarded, the Scottish government is committed to meeting those costs, too. And since five other related cases are still pending, there is every possibility the final bill to the state for this fiasco could easily roar past £50 million and towards £100 million, the price of a CalMac ferry in old money. From which you would think that, even in Scotland, someone must be held responsible for what is, by any measure, a grotesque abuse of state power. It says something, however, that such thoughts may be reckoned optimistic. Speaking in parliament last week Rona Mackay, the SNP member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, accepted the “hugely regrettable” nature of this case but insisted, remarkably, that “we move on and lessons have been learnt”. Doubtless there is a need for a fuller, public and judge-led inquiry but this should not be confused with any sense that any individual has done anything wrong, let alone any expectation that anyone might be held accountable for a fiasco almost everyone agrees is almost unprecedented. I am not sure that will suffice. Newspapers are not protected by parliamentary privilege so the precise terms in which Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins attacked Frank Mulholland, the former lord advocate responsible for chasing Whitehouse and Clark, cannot prudently be repeated here. Even so, one need not be a lawyer to think it extraordinary that a malicious prosecution can happen almost by accident. And yet this appears to be the case. According to James Wolffe, the current lord advocate, however the “legal test” for a malicious prosecution” can, in certain circumstances be met even though no individual had malice, in the popular sense of a spiteful motive”. His acceptance of liability “did not depend on any individual being malicious in that popular sense”. Perhaps not, or at least not in a strictly legal sense. But the alternative is scarcely more cheering, for if the Crown Office has not acted maliciously, in the popular sense, it has plainly acted with extraordinary incompetence, again a term used in the popular sense. “Hopelessly inadequate but not motivated by malice” does not seem a watertight defence. In parliament, Wolffe insisted “the seriousness of what happened in this case should not obscure the truth that, day in and day out, Scotland’s public prosecutors … fulfil their responsibilities with professionalism and skill”. They have, he says, “a justified reputation for fairness, integrity and independence”. Well, yes, doubtless so, but apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play? Since it is a matter of record that Crown Office officials boasted of their determination to “nail the Duff & Phelps people” someone has to be responsible. Rare as this case may be, the suspicion gathers that there is something profoundly wrong within the prosecution service. Incompetence may be preferable to corruption, but the fact that the latter has even been mentioned is proof enough of malaise within the Crown Office. Remarkably, if revealingly, lawyers for Whitehouse and Clark have claimed that meetings to discuss the case chaired by Mulholland went unminuted. Or, at the very least, any minutes have not been released. If so, if confirmed, that is worth more than a raised eyebrow. Once again, where is the accountability and how could anyone sensibly think that a prudent basis upon which to proceed? As Scottish politics is as tribal as Scottish football, I imagine some will be tempted to look at Murdo Fraser and Tomkins harrying Wolffe and note that not only are they each supporters of Rangers, they are also — much, much worse than even that — both Tories. This being the case, their anger and their concern may be dismissed as being of little consequence and occasioned by nothing more than the usual partisan spite evident in such matters. This would, I suggest, be a profound mistake. For this is not in truth a particularly sectarian — in a political sense — scandal. It ought to concern anyone interested in the better governance of the country and anyone who thinks public servants ought to operate within the law. For if the malicious pursuit of Whitehouse and Clark is not a criminal matter, what can be considered such? And if it is a criminal matter, someone must be responsible. Instead, and despite the near unanimity in the legal profession that this is a scandal of shocking dimensions, the government’s line appears to be that, however unfortunate it might have been, there is no sense in which anyone can really be considered responsible for it. How can that possibly be good enough? @alexmassie

For me, he's a Prefer Not To See; Or To Hear, for that matter.

There should be "reaper cushions". Ffs!! It must be the Green Oyster Cult.

Trying to get a dig at The Famous, he ties himself in knots like a bi-sexual contortionist. I wonder if there will be a category for him in the next Census.

"Lord Mulholland was lord advocate when the case against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse was brought" Good Lord, the good Lord speaks! Or, rather, has his man speak for him, which is rarely a good look, to the man on the Cessnock Subway. He seems, from The Times' report, below, rather aerated by the current Lord Advocate's statement to Parliament, and by some of the questioning. He sees these as personal attacks, although, it appears, he is not willing to share his thoughts in an open and transparent manner. However, he does endorse a Public Enquiry (The Times' report, quoting his solicitor, says "the public inquiry", which is an entirely different matter from "a" public inquiry; Mulholland and his man either know something, or it is a slip of the tongue or a typo. Ah dinna ken, me.) His statement is quite unambiguous in regard of his support of an investigation, nonetheless. The current Chief Constable, who was not, as far as I recall, the incumbent when the pursuit of Whitehouse, Clarke, Green, Ahmed, Grier et alia, commenced, also supports inquiry into the events. Whitehouse and Grier, out of court, have trousered up to £75K, each, from the public purse, for wrongful arrests, incarceration, inhuman treatment, and whatnot. Lord Mulholland rejects ‘false and scandalous’ attacks over Rangers FC case Craig Paton Friday February 12 2021, 12.00am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mulholland-rejects-false-and-scandalous-attacks-over-rangers-fc-case-prw8r5s6p Lord Mulholland was lord advocate when the case against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse was brought Scotland’s former lord advocate has broken his silence to push back against “false and scandalous” attacks on him over the malicious prosecution of two Rangers FC administrators. Paul Clark and David Whitehouse were awarded more than £20 million after charges brought against them in their 2014 indictment were dropped or dismissed. After they were cleared they pursued a civil action against the Crown Office and Police Scotland. James Wolffe, QC, the present lord advocate, admitted liability last year and this week apologised at Holyrood to the two men. The Scottish Conservatives held a debate in parliament calling for a judge-led inquiry into the matter. Lord Mulholland, who was lord advocate at the time of the prosecution, gave a statement through his lawyer. David McKie 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.” The statement did not elaborate on which remarks Mulholland considered to have been a personal attack. McKie said Mulholland, who is now a judge, supported calls for an inquiry. These are also supported by Wolffe and by Iain Livingstone, chief constable of Police Scotland. “He wishes to make it clear that he welcomes the independent public inquiry and it carries his unequivocal support,” Mulholland’s lawyer said. “My client looks forward to participating in its proceedings to the fullest possible extent. “He believes that the fullest possible degree of transparency is required and strongly supports robust and thorough interrogation of the full facts. “Given the importance of this matter, and the public interest in a full examination of the circumstances, it is 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.” Livingstone backed an inquiry when he appeared before the public audit and post-legislative scrutiny committee at Holyrood yesterday. “I did listen to the debate in the Scottish parliament 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 said he had authorised a financial settlement for both men, although he was not allowed to say how much it was. “I was able, through my representatives, to engage and make reparation in regard to both Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse within the limits of my authority. “I’m allowed to settle issues if I think it is legitimate to do so, and I did do it in this case, and that was within my limit, which was £75,000 in respect of each individual. In the interests of full transparency I also authorised a commensurate payment of legal expenses in regard of both individuals.”

Here is a first take from The Times The Report seems to be at pains to stress equivalence betwwen clubs; ie one serious assault, here, is the same as several dozen/score, there. I don't think that holds water. Scottish football clubs must offer compensation to victims of historic sexual abuse Marc Horne Thursday February 11 2021, 12.00pm, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-football-clubs-must-offer-compensation-to-victims-of-historic-sexual-abuse-p6v7gbzp7 Scottish football clubs, including Celtic, Rangers and Hibernian (Hibs), must offer compensation and a “clear, unreserved and public” apology to victims of sexual abuse that blighted the national sport, an official report has said. The Scottish FA’s Independent Review of Sexual Abuse in Scottish Football, ordered in 2016, has today finally published its devastating findings. Dozens of survivors who endured “incalculable” suffering came forward to give evidence against paedophiles who preyed on vulnerable young players over three decades. The review authors were shocked at how easy it was for these men to use their status and “good standing” to infiltrate Scottish football and gain unfettered access to children, who received little or no support from those tasked with protecting them. “The price they have paid has often been lifelong, frequently serious and sometimes catastrophic,” the report said. “The collateral damage caused to their relationships, their employment, their physical and mental health and their social wellbeing is incalculable.” The review also found that: * Former senior figures at Celtic FC were likely to have been aware of the historic abuse taking place with its feeder club but the authorities were not alerted. * No evidence could be found to corroborate Rangers FC’s claim that they contacted the police after sacking a paedophile youth coach in 1991. * The Scottish FA turned its back on a man who confided that he had been raped as a boy by a top-flight assistant referee and sought help in seeking justice. * Known paedophiles worked together to groom boys and trafficked them over UK and international borders for abuse. * An abuser took boys to a hostel in England where they were forced to barricade themselves in a room after being presented to a group of naked men. The review stressed it was not able to attribute culpability or liability — saying that was a matter for the courts — but insisted those who failed to protect the young should now be held accountable. It said: “Although we are clear that the direct responsibility for the alleged abuse of these young people and the consequent harm lies with the men who perpetrated or are said to have perpetrated these acts, we are also very aware of the accountability which lies with clubs and organisations in football since these shared a duty of care to the young people in their charge.” It called for all clubs and organisations involved to make a “clear, unreserved and public acknowledgment and apology” to the survivors of sexual abuse. “This apology should be on behalf of the club/organisation itself as well as the wider football family,” it said. “Furthermore, clubs and organisations concerned should openly acknowledge the impact of these events on those affected and the enduring effect this has had on them (and their families) into their adult lives.” “Acknowledgement and apology do not eradicate the harmful events or the pain that has resulted. “But for many this will be a starting point for reconciliation and for healing and this is of vital importance.” However, it concluded that simply saying sorry was insufficient and that a “more concrete response”, involving financial compensation, is required. It said: “To support people who have experienced sexual abuse in Scottish football is an emphatic and constructive testimonial to their experiences and a tangible way of making reparation. “The Review concludes therefore that Scottish football should consider how this can best be done, including consideration of the creation of a fund which might underwrite support and assistance for those who have been personally affected by sexual abuse in Scottish football and indeed those in Scottish football who are experiencing other mental health challenges and issues.” The authors suggested that commercial donors or sponsors might also be “contributed to or underwritten by commercial donation and sponsorship”. The findings will put further pressure on Celtic and Rangers, as well as other senior clubs — named in the report — including Hibernian, Motherwell and Partick Thistle, to accept responsibility for historic sexual abuse. While expressing “regret and sorrow” for the victims, Celtic FC has insisted it is not legally culpable for abuse at Celtic Boys Club, insisting it was an “entirely separate organisation” with which it had historic connections. However, the review concluded that senior clubs could not distance themselves from past abuse at “inextricably” linked feeder clubs. It states: “In those days the ties between those community-based youth football clubs and the senior professional club were clear and strong. “The relationship was strongly established to the point that officials of both clubs often knew each other well and interacted; officials of the senior club were often involved in the activities and profile of the community football club; the senior club would allow the youth football club to freely use its premises and facilities; branding, badging, colours and strips were often similar or identical. “The Review is of the view that, if the relationship and history between the youth football club and the senior club was so shared, so close, and so inextricable, then when sexual abuse of young players formed part of the history of one then it too formed part of the history of the other. “A shared heritage is not confined to trophies, victories and celebration; it also extends to defeats, failures, and deficiencies.” A number of men who held senior roles with the boys club have been convicted for sexually abusing children and teenagers. Among them are Jim Torbett, who founded Celtic Boys Club in 1966, who has twice been imprisoned for attacking young boys between 1967 and 1994. Testimony from his victims appears in the report. Torbett had two stints at the club, the first from 1966 and 1974 and the second from 1978 to 1996. Hugh Birt, a former boys club chairman gave evidence at Torbett’s first trial in 1998 that he was kicked out by Jock Stein, Celtic FC’s manager, after allegations of abuse emerged. The report records it concern about the circumstances, stating: “The Review concludes, from the accounts received that it is possible that a number of people in Scottish football may have had some suspicion regarding (Torbett’s) alleged activities at the time including former managers at Celtic Boys Club; a former senior manager and a former board member at Celtic FC at the time; and a group of young players at Celtic Boys Club.” The authors said they had been unable to confirm whether the police had been informed, adding: “The Review finds it concerning that (Torbett) was permitted to return to Celtic Boys Club in another capacity after only a few years. The report also makes it clear that clubs should not attempt to use changes of commercial ownership or status to evade responsibility. In 2018 an alleged victim of paedophile Gordon Neely, who worked as head of youth development at Rangers’ ground, Ibrox, between 1986 and 1991, was told he should pursue his complaint with liquidators. The former youth footballer was told by lawyers that Rangers were owned by a different company when the abuse took place and that duty of care was not with the current owners. An email sent to his solicitors said: “The company which owned Rangers Football Club . . . which you refer to as owing duties of care to your client will have been the company then called The Rangers Football Club PLC and now called RFC 2012 Limited.” The review challenges this type of stance, stating: “The Independent Review considers it inadequate for clubs or organisations to avoid this issue because, in the intervening years, they have changed their governance, their name or their company status or ownership. “The ethical obligations remain and are uninterrupted irrespective of intervening administrative, constitutional or commercial changes.” Although the review panel possesses no legal authority to enforce its findings, clubs will find its conclusions difficult to dismiss. The report notes that Neely, who died of cancer in 2014, was immediately dismissed by Rangers in 2011 after a parent complained after he pulled down his son’s underwear and pulled him over his knee. Rangers have repeatedly insisted they also informed the police, but investigators were “unable to confirm” whether this was the case. Two other former Rangers youth players came forward to state they were sexually abused by Neely at Ibrox, but did not tell anyone at the time. The report also contains testimony from a man who was raped by Neely at Hibernian’s stadium and training ground. It said parents had raised concerns about his conduct but there was no evidence that any action was taken, or warnings issued, before he went on to join Rangers. The report criticised the Scottish FA for failing to do more to help Pete Haynes when he came forward to report that he had been sexually abused by Hugh Stevenson, a former youth coach and assistant referee, in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mr Haynes, who waived his right to anonymity, asked for assistance in getting justice for the abuse that blighted his teenage years and later life, but little was done. The report backed him and concluded the Scottish FA’s actions “fell short of the appropriate action that could have ensued from such a report or concern being raised”. The report also contains allegations that Jim McCafferty, a former Celtic FC kit man and boys club coach, who is now serving a lengthy jail sentence, smeared toothpaste and boot polish on to the genitals of a naked boy as part of an “initiation ceremony” during a trip to Austria with the junior club Fauldhouse Juveniles. The review confirmed it had received reports that abuse was carried out by paedophiles who worked together to abuse and traffick boys. “The contributors provided information concerning possible organised sexual abuse and sexual exploitation,” it said. “This included allegations concerning the introduction of young players between adult men for sexual purposes across borders under the guise of football activity.” It added: “The Review heard accounts from more than one contributor of a team visit to England where the boys stayed, with a coach, in a hostel. The boys were taken to a swimming pool where a number of adult men were present and who were walking about naked. “Later, when these boys had returned to their sleeping accommodation, some of these adult men attempted to enter their room and the boys, all young teenagers, were forced to barricade themselves in to protect themselves. “This was a very frightening and disturbing event and can also be seen as part of a process of desensitisation of these young men. “ The review noted that it was aware of circumstances where “adults involved or alleged to have been involved, knew other adults who were subsequently charged and/or convicted or named in allegations concerning sexual abuse in football both in Scotland and England.” It concluded by calling for the introduction of “consistent and continuous measures to improve the protection of young people and the reduction of risk”, adding: “These accounts alone should be enough to inspire and motivate change without question or inertia.” Rangers have strenuously denied any wrongdoing. The club previously issued a statement which said: “It is understood the individual was dismissed immediately and that the police were informed. “All employees adhered to the strictest codes of conduct.” Celtic FC and Rangers FC have been approached for comment.

Well, it's out, although I thought that it was being held back due to pending court cases. Maybe it's been bowdlerised instead. Perish the very thought!! I'll try to find an Executive Summary, if there is one (which I doubt.) https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/7516/independent-review-of-sexual-abuse-in-scottish-football-final-report.pdf

Well, it's out, although I thought that it was being held back due to pending court cases. Maybe it's been bowdlerised instead. Perish the very thought!! I'll try to find an Executive Summary, if there is one (which I doubt.) https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/7516/independent-review-of-sexual-abuse-in-scottish-football-final-report.pdf

I'm not sure that this piece, below, from The Times adds anything. However, the Lord Advocate, should there ever be a full public Enquiry, does not rule out an "independent" chair; then again, he does not rule it in. “I entirely agree the judge appointed would have to be demonstrably independent . . . and it may well be appropriate to appoint a judge from outwith Scotland. However it would be premature at this time to conclude that when the time comes to establish the inquiry there is no Scottish judge that can satisfy that requirement.” On a happier note, surely Mr Craig Whyte must be roundly pissed off that he was actually prosecuted and found not guilty, and that the massive public compen pail accessed by the other involved gentlemen is beyond the reach of even his capacious, rapacious, snout? Outside judge could lead Rangers sale inquiry Greig Cameron Thursday February 11 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/outside-judge-could-lead-rangers-sale-inquiry-5c2js92jw Scotland’s most senior prosecutor has not ruled out bringing in a judge from another part of the UK to head an inquiry into the “malicious” prosecution of the former Rangers FC administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse. James Wolffe, QC, the lord advocate, said the Crown Office would support an inquiry into why they were indicted in a fraud investigation but only after all related legal proceedings had ended. His comments came as questions were asked at Holyrood about the role of his predecessor, Frank Mulholland, now a judge, in the attempt to prosecute Clark and Whitehouse. Raising the issue in a debate, Murdo Fraser, the Conservative MSP, said the men, who worked for Rangers’ administrators Duff and Phelps, believed they had been treated like “terrorists”. Wolffe, who became lord advocate in 2016, has accepted there was a “very serious failure in the system of prosecution” with the men later each being awarded £10.5 million in damages. Their detention in 2014 was deemed to have breached the European Convention on Human Rights, Fraser said, adding: “The experience . . . has had a major psychological impact on them both.” After the charges against them were dropped or dismissed, Clark and Whitehouse launched civil proceedings against the Crown. Craig Whyte, who bought the Ibrox club for £1 from Sir David Murray in 2011, was also eventually brought to court on two charges. He was cleared on both after a trial in 2017. Charles Green, the former Rangers chief executive, and Imran Ahmad, a former club director, are also thought to have received a written apology from the lord advocate and are believed to be negotiating compensation payments. David Grier, a financier who worked at Duff and Phelps, also continues to pursue a claim. With other cases pending, Fraser said the total cost to the taxpayer could reach £100 million. But he added: “We are still no closer to an explanation how and why these individuals were victims of a malicious prosecution.” Fellow Conservative Adam Tomkins, the Glasgow MSP, said: “When he was lord advocate Frank Mulholland went out of his way to see to it that two innocent men were hounded by the state.” With the Tories pressing for a full independent public inquiry the lord advocate accepted that there had been a “serious failure in the system of criminal prosecution”. Wolffe said: “I have committed myself and the Crown to supporting the process of an inquiry once related legal proceedings have concluded.” He added: “I entirely agree the judge appointed would have to be demonstrably independent . . . and it may well be appropriate to appoint a judge from outwith Scotland. However it would be premature at this time to conclude that when the time comes to establish the inquiry there is no Scottish judge that can satisfy that requirement.”

The important point is that the current LA admitted liability. It does seem to me that it will be difficult for him to cry, now, 'No blame attaches', or, even, as is most certainly the case, 'A big boy did it and ran away', (in this instance to some higher legal calling, which seems akin to that strange phenomenon, the disciplinary promotion). Apart from which, the plaintiff, Whitehouse, has had his lawyers approach Court, for permission to make all available evidence available to a future Enquiry. Last Friday, The Times reported (posted on Page 5, here) "A former administrator who sued prosecutors over a “malicious” Rangers fraud investigation has urged judges to let him pass key documents on to any future investigation." That would seem to put him several miles away from an NDA. Meanwhile, other gentlemen pursue compensation, and there are no settlements to date. I am not sure that these fellows will be able to demonstrate as clearly, and, apparently, easily, as Whitehouse and Clarke, financial losses. For that reason, I doubt that they will be on a similar, eye-watering scale. Doubtless, however, there will settlements, again at the expense of the Public Pound. The LA has committed to returning to Parliament, to make a further, and full, confession, I take it when the outstanding cases are resolved: "I cannot, at this time, disclose in detail the basis upon which liability was admitted, but, when it is free to do so, the Crown will disclose the basis for those admissions in full—including to this Parliament." I, cynically, suspect that the LA hopes to preclude a full, independent, public Enquiry, by issuing a report, and by statements in Holyrood. Not good enough, for me.