GovanAllan 0 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Thought he came across well. Was interested to hear he won't appeal if we lose tax case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Allegations, allegations, allegations. Do you really think if they had anything concrete on him he wouldn't be in jail. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Timorama That's precisely what the BBC show is. Probably got a special intro tune done just for this show with wee Seán dramatically playing his Bodhrán. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,881 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Some more stuff on BBC website now - Paul Murray and Alastair Johnstone interviewed. And apparently CW has announced he will be suing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Re post #29 - "Evidence of alleged" WTF ? Is it evidence or is it not ? If it is evidence it cant be alleged. Surprise surprise the "alleged" tag being rolled out to cover a journalist's back in the event that his supposed "evidence" isnt credible. Now I am not suggesting that Craig Whyte hasnt dabbled in things which work along the edges of the law, but these so-called journalists need to grow a spine and stand behind the "evidence" they are publicly suggesting or just give it up altogether. What am I missing ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 How Murray and Johnstone could be on that programme is beyond me. The two them sat on their hands and watched us circle the plughole and did nothing. Then when someone stepped up they scream he's a crook. Pair of bawbags. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 With regards to his "control" over this company despite being banned from a directorship... The statement from the HMRC Guy (Robert Burns) suggests Whyte was controlling the bank account and directing payments. FFS, that can be done by a lowly accountant. The fact he controlled those would NOT be in contravention of him not being allowed a directorship. Utter pish IMO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 With regards to his "control" over this company despite being banned from a directorship... The statement from the HMRC Guy (Robert Burns) suggests Whyte was controlling the bank account and directing payments. FFS, that can be done by a lowly accountant. The fact he controlled those would NOT be in contravention of him not being allowed a directorship. Utter pish IMO. A programme aimed at the lower end of the social scale ie. Celtic fans. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Mr Burns told the BBC that his team had uncovered evidence that Mr Whyte had taken two sums of £100,000 from the company, apparently to pay a tax bill. "There's no trace of the money being received by the Inland Revenue," Mr Burns said. This is tripe as well. Because he took 100k "apparently to pay a tax bill" absolutely does NOT mean he is obligated to do so. Unless he has withdrawn that money to pay a corporate tax bill (and why would he do that rather than pay it from the companys bank account itself ?) or if he misled the owners of the business as to his intentions then he is not obligated to pay it to HMRC. The fact that it was "apparently" to pay a tax bill would suggest that this is based on nothing more than Mr Burns supposition, no matter where it came from. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Sorry for the piecemeal effort at responding here... The Insolvency Service believes a convicted fraudster, Kevin Sykes, was one of the individuals behind Mullet and Co. Mr Burns said: "We have investigated a number of companies which Kevin Sykes has been behind. "We also know Mr Sykes because of a Serious Fraud Office investigation. In October 2004, he was convicted and received a sentence in total of eight years for his part in a theft from a pension fund which totalled £3m." Ummm, how to put journalistic spin on things.... "a convicted fraudster, Kevin Sykes, was one of the individuals behind Mullet and Co" - they say this company were the auditors of Re-tex. then say that Sykes was behind Mullet (great name !!) and is a convicted fraudster.... What they dont take the time to point out (not explicitly anyway) is that Re-tex was wound up in 2003..... it wasnt until 2004 that Sykes became a "convicted fraudster". Journalistic licence at its best in suggesting that was dealing with a convicted fraudster. The REALITY is that he didnt become convicted until AFTER Re-tex was already wound up. By which time, Whyte's dealings with Sykes presumably had ended. On the face of it this really does look like a hatchet job. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.