Rangers boss Craig Whyte won't receive apology from BBC Scotland over documentary

[Danny 0]

Certainly doesn't look like he is 100% confident of winning.

 

Does this mean he has a case to answer? If he was innocent, and these accusations were made, then he'd have nothing to hide surely and could sue happily.

 

I guess this thread just underlines the rather negative feelings in my thread about the current regime.

[calscot 0]

Does this mean he has a case to answer? If he was innocent, and these accusations were made, then he'd have nothing to hide surely and could sue happily.

 

I guess this thread just underlines the rather negative feelings in my thread about the current regime.

 

Strange way of thinking for me. Suppose he is innocent, that does not mean he would "sue happily" - who sues happily? Just because you give someone a chance to right a wrong before taking them to court doesn't mean you don't have a case - it's perfectly normal.

 

And just because you have "nothing to hide" does not mean you want to wash your linen in public. You may think you have nothing to hide but I'd bet you wouldn't want your whole life investigated, scrutinised and twisted against you in the media. People don't just want privacy when they have something illegal to hide.

 

To me it seems some with "negative feelings" are a bit keen to justify it and so leaping to some pretty ropey conclusions at the slightest and irrelevant actions.

 

Whyte may be a bad guy or a good guy, but a wise man will reserve their judgement until they have actual conclusive evidence instead of wild extrapolations of intentions and motivations.

[Guest Dutchy]

Seems to me he's been enraged by the guy from the tax office sitting there saying that he's actually done something illegal, but he's not been prosecuted for it. CW may believe that he's had his name dragged through the gutter for something he's not been prosecuted for. Which leaves any chance of winning such a case down to the skill of the lawyers on both sides, and of course the mind of the judge.

 

Not an easy thing to predict I would say.

 

I, personally object to the name of Rangers being in the title and there are many apoligists for rubbish journalists using the fact that he's the new Rangers owner as justification for this hatchet job. Alternatively, I'd say that it proves, or at least indicates a dire and sensationalist approach to journalist princiles in this day and age and a clear muddying of the BBC's attitude towards Rangers FC.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Does he need to sue the BBC anyways? Can't he just sue the producer (Daly?) and possibly the chap making these false/harmful statements (or again the producer if the latter ommitted material said chap added to his "criminal" comments)? I mean, by giving the programme a wrong title, they did indeed bring our name into disrepute too, did they not?

[forlanssister 3,050]

Does he need to sue the BBC anyways? Can't he just sue the producer (Daly?) and possibly the chap making these false/harmful statements (or again the producer if the latter ommitted material said chap added to his "criminal" comments)? I mean, by giving the programme a wrong title, they did indeed bring our name into disrepute too, did they not?

 

If Carter-Ruck had advised him he had a case he'd sue the BBC in England, maybe Mr Whyte is having cold feet at the prospect of being cross-examined on oath in open court by some of the country's leading QC's, who knows what skeletons may then fall out of the cupboard. It is far easier for the BBC via their counsel to tarnish whatever reputation he has in open court than it is on air.

 

I would imagine the "chap" from the Insolvency Service was perfectly aware of the ramifications of what he was saying and was cleared to do so not only by his bosses but by his departments legal advisers.

 

As things stand at present the report into Whyte's banning for 7 years as a Company Director is covered by an "absolute exemption" which means it cannot be released via a Freedom of Information request, however that could very well change if he takes the BBC to court and they convince a Judge to release it.

 

Of course if there's nothing in that report that could cause concern for Rangers shareholders, (and fans) creditors et al then Whyte could release it himself, and then we may discover the actual "technicality".

[Danny 0]

Strange way of thinking for me. Suppose he is innocent, that does not mean he would "sue happily" - who sues happily? Just because you give someone a chance to right a wrong before taking them to court doesn't mean you don't have a case - it's perfectly normal.

 

And just because you have "nothing to hide" does not mean you want to wash your linen in public. You may think you have nothing to hide but I'd bet you wouldn't want your whole life investigated, scrutinised and twisted against you in the media. People don't just want privacy when they have something illegal to hide.

 

To me it seems some with "negative feelings" are a bit keen to justify it and so leaping to some pretty ropey conclusions at the slightest and irrelevant actions.

 

Whyte may be a bad guy or a good guy, but a wise man will reserve their judgement until they have actual conclusive evidence instead of wild extrapolations of intentions and motivations.

 

What qualifies for you as conclusive evidence?

[maineflyer 0]

I wouldn't get excited by any of this. It's fairly standard practice to establish your client has acted reasonably by attempting to find a resolution short of going to court. I'm almost certain this will have been done on the specific advice of Carter Ruck, without much expectation of the BBC accepting the offer.

[calscot 0]

What qualifies for you as conclusive evidence?

 

That's not a fair question: how can I say what the evidence is before it has been exposed? If the evidence is conclusive, it will be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

However, I can tell you exactly what isn't - attributing guilt to someone merely because they offered an alternative route to reparations than an expensive court case. He may be guilty as charged but his actions to allow the BBC to apologise cannot even be described as anything remotely related to the concept of evidence.

 

In fact what Mainflyer says makes a lot more sense.

[Zappa 0]

In fact what Mainflyer says makes a lot more sense.

 

Sadly, this is often the case. :devil: