Dave King and OldCo

[forlanssister 3,050]

75% of the people you named are post-admin folk. As GS pointed out above, those who saw Rangers slip into admin where Whyte, HMRC and LBG, and, to a degree SDM. The rest did a neat job in ruining Rangers further, but were not the reason why we ended up in admin.

 

I listed 12 names 6 were pre-administration at the school I went to that was 50%. Each and everyone of them are culpable, the last 6 were only able to do what they did due to the culpability of the first 6.

 

We do speak about two different things, as the above was happening when Whyte was already in control. He should not been able to be in that position if he had tax enforcers chasing him already and he was not paying his considerable dues even before he took over.

 

You condemn HMRC for leakin and then you condemn them for not leaking, have you any idea how stupid that looks?

 

Try reading Barca72's post again.

 

If HMRC had the power to unilaterally intervene in the business of everyone it was in dispute with then the economy would simply grind to a halt.

[der Berliner 3,246]

Seems there is a dispute between Scottish judges et al and the UK SC ....

 

Scotland vs the UK supreme court: What you need to know about the growing dispute

 

UK supreme court under fresh scrutiny after criticism from senior Scottish judge

 

16th April 2015 Source: The Herald, Legal News

 

THIS week Lord Carloway, Scotland’s lord justice clerk, attacked the UK supreme court as a “relatively remote, far removed” institution with a “depressing influence” on the Scottish legal system. (Click here to read more).

 

Carloway’s comments reopen the debate over the independence of Scotland’s legal system.

 

Read more here ... https://commonspace.scot/articles/1049/scotland-vs-the-uk-supreme-court-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-growing-dispute

 

... which might not exactly mean anything, but it is interesting nonetheless.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I think that he had been previously banned but had expired and the record of that was not publicly available.

 

Once the ban was served the records were expunged and the files locked and could only be opened by order of the Secretary of State or by petition to the High Court. The latter was the method used by Private Eye a practice which took them many months.

 

Mark Daly was quite astute in revealing the ban via transcripts from another court case.

[der Berliner 3,246]

I listed 12 names 6 were pre-administration at the school I went to that was 50%. Each and everyone of them are culpable, the last 6 were only able to do what they did due to the culpability of the first 6.

 

Looks you are up for some "debate the debate" stuff again? For debate's sake, yes, you catched me there I did not even check how many names there were involved and what percentage of them were there pre admin. Feel better now? I have since already said who I deem responsible for our fall into Whyte's hands and admin. Rangers tie-bearers were few in amongst those. I've heard your opinion now, no need to repeat it.

 

You condemn HMRC for leakin and then you condemn them for not leaking, have you any idea how stupid that looks?

 

Why do you see need repeating what you have said before?

 

Try reading Barca72's post again.

 

Once was enough,we have moved on from that.

 

If HMRC had the power to unilaterally intervene in the business of everyone it was in dispute with then the economy would simply grind to a halt.

 

Aha. I applaud your stand that HMRC should not break "their" rules and give sensitive data about certain tax-offenders to official authorities or even the police when said tax-offenders (nearly 4m, mind you) is about to wreck another company and accrue even more tax-debts and ruining a multi-million pound business along the way. The same HMRC that vehemently blocks any attempts to get any info whether they have actually chased their leaks down, not to mention of the leaks themselves. BTW, I'm not saying HMRC should "leak information" to anyone (like a certain blogger), but give information to relevant and likewise confidental authorities. If that is not a possiblitiy, as they all have their own ivory towers to protect, the Rangers case should give reason to think about changes.

Edited September 14, 2015 by der Berliner

[forlanssister 3,050]

Looks you are up for some "debate the debate" stuff again? For debate's sake, yes, you catched me there I did not even check how many names there were involved and what percentage of them were there pre admin. Feel better now? I have since already said who I deem responsible for our fall into Whyte's hands and admin. Rangers tie-bearers were few in amongst those. I've heard your opinion now, no need to repeat it.

 

With the exception of the MCR/D&P mob all those so far arrested wore Rangers ties as have others whom the Police seek to help them with their inquiries.

 

 

 

Why do you see need repeating what you have said before?

 

Because I hope against hope that things will eventually resonate.

 

Once was enough,we have moved on from that.

 

If only it were!

 

 

Aha. I applaud your stand that HMRC should not break "their" rules and give sensitive data about certain tax-offenders to official authorities or even the police when said tax-offenders (nearly 4m, mind you) is about to wreck another company and accrue even more tax-debts and ruining a multi-million pound business along the way. The same HMRC that vehemently blocks any attempts to get any info whether they have actually chased their leaks down, not to mention of the leaks themselves. BTW, I'm not saying HMRC should "leak information" to anyone (like a certain blogger), but give information to relevant and likewise confidental authorities. If that is not a possiblitiy, as they all have their own ivory towers to protect, the Rangers case should give reason to think about changes.

 

Being in dispute with HMRC in not a criminal act nor should it ever be and believe or not many, many disputes fall against HMRC. Rangers themselves were in dispute with HMRC should Rangers have been prevented by HMRC from conducting their business simply because of that dispute?

[Scott7 5,167]

"This week Lord Carloway, Scotland’s lord justice clerk, attacked the UK supreme court as a “relatively remote, far removed” institution with a “depressing influence” on the Scottish legal system."

 

Some Jocko Judges have been saying that for decades forgetting that the SC Bench like the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords before it has a quota of time-served Jocko Judges on it.

[der Berliner 3,246]

With the exception of the MCR/D&P mob all those so far arrested wore Rangers ties as have others whom the Police seek to help them with their inquiries.

 

Had they anything to do with Rangers changing ownership from SDM to Whyte? And consequently ending up in admin? That was the bone of contention, not the state we have ended up with in 2014. Thought that was clear enough.

 

Because I hope against hope that things will eventually resonate.

 

If only it were!

 

I file that under disrespectful ...

 

Being in dispute with HMRC in not a criminal act nor should it ever be and believe or not many, many disputes fall against HMRC. Rangers themselves were in dispute with HMRC should Rangers have been prevented by HMRC from conducting their business simply because of that dispute?

 

We are talking people being hunted by tax enforcers*, not exactly companies merely in dispute with HMRC. But that, actually, wasn't the point.

 

*

HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

 

I'll move on from this particular debate, thanks for the input.

Edited September 14, 2015 by der Berliner

[forlanssister 3,050]

Had they anything to do with Rangers changing ownership from SDM to Whyte? And consequently ending up in admin? That was the bone of contention, not the state we have ended up with in 2014. Thought that was clear enough.

 

You think Whyte and Withey (and the MCR/D&P mob for that matter) had nothing to do with that?

 

 

I file that under disrespectful ...

 

File it where you like.

 

We are talking people being hunted by tax enforcers*, not exactly companies merely in dispute with HMRC. But that, actually, wasn't the point.

 

*

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

 

Look go back and look over your post history in regards to Whyte, look for things like it was the media's fault, Whyte's got a plan yada, yada, yada. I don't need telling Whyte's a c*&t I shouted it often enough when it was akin to heresy. However the fact remains as big a c*&t as he and as present circumstances demonstrate he is and must be entitled to the same due process as everyone else and as Barca72's post demonstrated they simply could not have done as you wished (at the time of the takeover).

[der Berliner 3,246]

You think Whyte and Withey (and the MCR/D&P mob for that matter) had nothing to do with that?

 

If you have information to the contrary, back your opinion up.

 

 

Look go back and look over your post history in regards to Whyte, look for things like it was the media's fault, Whyte's got a plan yada, yada, yada. I don't need telling Whyte's a c*&t I shouted it often enough when it was akin to heresy. However the fact remains as big a c*&t as he and as present circumstances demonstrate he is and must be entitled to the same due process as everyone else and as Barca72's post demonstrated they simply could not have done as you wished (at the time of the takeover).

 

Some people have moved on. Both from their mistakes and on things where they were correct. If you want to lambast people who did trust Whyte initially, you'll have some task at your hand.

 

As for barca72's post, what did you not comprehend from my last comment on that?

 

Aha. I applaud your stand that HMRC should not break "their" rules and give sensitive data about certain tax-offenders to official authorities or even the police when said tax-offenders (nearly 4m, mind you) is about to wreck another company and accrue even more tax-debts and ruining a multi-million pound business along the way. The same HMRC that vehemently blocks any attempts to get any info whether they have actually chased their leaks down, not to mention of the leaks themselves. BTW, I'm not saying HMRC should "leak information" to anyone (like a certain blogger), but give information to relevant and likewise confidental authorities. If that is not a possiblitiy, as they all have their own ivory towers to protect, the Rangers case should give reason to think about changes.

Edited September 15, 2015 by der Berliner

[craig 5,195]

If you have information to the contrary, back your opinion up.

 

 

 

 

Some people have moved on. Both from their mistakes and on things where they were correct. If you want to lambast people who did trust Whyte initially, you'll have some task at your hand.

 

As for barca72's post, what did you not comprehend from my last comment on that?

 

Aha. I applaud your stand that HMRC should not break "their" rules and give sensitive data about certain tax-offenders to official authorities or even the police when said tax-offenders (nearly 4m, mind you) is about to wreck another company and accrue even more tax-debts and ruining a multi-million pound business along the way. The same HMRC that vehemently blocks any attempts to get any info whether they have actually chased their leaks down, not to mention of the leaks themselves. BTW, I'm not saying HMRC should "leak information" to anyone (like a certain blogger), but give information to relevant and likewise confidental authorities. If that is not a possiblitiy, as they all have their own ivory towers to protect, the Rangers case should give reason to think about changes.

 

Who are these relevant and confidential authorities though ? HMRC have very strict guidelines on information sharing (notwithstanding illegal leaks....) so just who would they be able to share the information with ? The data privacy act also restricts what information can be shared and with whom. I would suspect that unless there was some kind of legal case against Whyte at the time that sharing any of his information, including his tax arrears, would have been in breach of both HMRC and data act guidelines.

 

I really wish that we could accept that the fate that the Club has seen in the last 3 years is, as FS said earlier, down to those wearing RFC ties - it starts with SDM and runs through Whyte, Green, Ahmad etc. For all we attempt to blame HMRC, LBG, John Reid and everyone EXCEPT the custodians of our Club... the sad reality is that if our various Custodians had managed us appropriately we simply wouldn't have been in the position we found ourselves.

 

Sometimes it is OK to accept your culpability.