Ergatrude 0 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The judge said that he did not know whether Whyte was truthful about genuinely forgetting the reason why he was banned as a director & that is the only reason why his evidence was 'wholly unreliable'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The judge said that he did not know whether Whyte was truthful about genuinely forgetting the reason why he was banned as a director & that is the only reason why his evidence was 'wholly unreliable'. it's what his lawyer will have told him to say. it's water off a Ducks back for me. But i can see why some will see it as something more sinister. I'm viewing CW with a glass more than half full until after the tax case. Then we'll see what he's really about 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Yep and my question is why is CW essentailly saying Ellis is doing this guy Sher's job? It makes absolutely no sense. Ellis has his own business/s, so the idea that he was just all of a sudden made a director of the club recently for "marketing and sponsorship" reasons and based in London to help or assist Misha Sher when Ellis has been a director of Whyte's takeover group all along sounds like total bullshit. Ellis is involved for a reason, but I bet it isn't for marketing and sponsorship. As I have said several times before, based on my conversations with his representative in Guernsey at the time of his aborted takeover bid and other information from his close friends, AE has no interest in Rangers per se, his interest is purely in property development. That's not to say he isn't going to work on "marketing and sponsorship" but there is no evidence that he is experienced in that area. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The judge said that he did not know whether Whyte was truthful about genuinely forgetting the reason why he was banned as a director & that is the only reason why his evidence was 'wholly unreliable'. No it isn't. In his ruling on the case, Sheriff Ross stated: "I accept the evidence led by the pursuer (One Stop Roofing) as credible and reliable, and supported by the available documentation. "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable. "It is not possible to ascertain whether he is not telling the truth or is simply unable to recollect the true position, and has convinced himself that this arrangement is something that he would not have entered into. "Either way, his evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidence." Walter Mitty springs to mind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 No it isn't. In his ruling on the case, Sheriff Ross stated: "I accept the evidence led by the pursuer (One Stop Roofing) as credible and reliable, and supported by the available documentation. "I reject the evidence of Mr Whyte as wholly unreliable. "It is not possible to ascertain whether he is not telling the truth or is simply unable to recollect the true position, and has convinced himself that this arrangement is something that he would not have entered into. "Either way, his evidence is contradicted by virtually every other piece of evidence." Walter Mitty springs to mind. As I said before, other judges have ruled that Rangers songs are sectarian and sentenced people for it. Then another judge ruled that Celtic songs of equal pedigree are not sectarian but annoying some people in the public, the accused got a stern talking to and were done with it. I for one do not trust a judge in Scotland much more than I could throw him/her. Not that this will help if people want to walk along with the media and dance a jig on all negative evidence and perceive evidence that is published about Whyte. Best to cease debate till after the case is heard, for right now those behind all the shyte-stirring are making the most of one of their underlines schemes, i.e. splitting our support. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Whyte is not RANGERS. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As I said before, other judges have ruled that Rangers songs are sectarian and sentenced people for it. Then another judge ruled that Celtic songs of equal pedigree are not sectarian but annoying some people in the public, the accused got a stern talking to and were done with it. I for one do not trust a judge in Scotland much more than I could throw him/her. Not that this will help if people want to walk along with the media and dance a jig on all negative evidence and perceive evidence that is published about Whyte. Best to cease debate till after the case is heard, for right now those behind all the shyte-stirring are making the most of one of their underlines schemes, i.e. splitting our support. I hope youi'll forgive me dB but I do not see what judges decisions in cases about sectarian songs have to do with the case under discussion here or other recent cases where Rangers (not Mr Whyte) have been taken to court for non payment of legitimate bills. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 As Brahim says, if he is totally unreliable in a court of law, why would he be any different with the fans. I think that's a fair question and the part I've highlighted about CW's response regarding Ellis makes me think to myself that if he's not being 100% truthful about Ellis, then what else is he telling porkies about or not being 100% truthful about. It's not as if we can say that he's done everything above board since the takeover. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I hope youi'll forgive me dB but I do not see what judges decisions in cases about sectarian songs have to do with the case under discussion here or other recent cases where Rangers (not Mr Whyte) have been taken to court for non payment of legitimate bills. The way I read DB's post was that if judges can't make up their minds on what songs are offensive or not then how can we trust them? & so by this logic why would we trust a judge that says CW is unreliable? Might not be true, but that was my take on DB's post. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Not that this will help if people want to walk along with the media and dance a jig on all negative evidence and perceive evidence that is published about Whyte. Best to cease debate till after the case is heard, for right now those behind all the shyte-stirring are making the most of one of their underlines schemes, i.e. splitting our support. The support is always split about something. If you want to cease debate till after the tax case, then go for it but as I said the other day, everyone is entitled to voice their opinions on these matters without constantly being patronised and made to look or feel like they're doing something wrong. You have your morals and standards and you're free to live by them. The rest of us will live by our own. 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.