Court of Session rules in favour of HMRC + Rangers Issue Statement

[Scott7 5,168]

On what grounds, D'Art?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Presume they mean Murray LG

[Little General 80]

Presume they mean Murray LG

 

it's the least the cunt can do. he should be bankrolling it all the way.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Oh I'm sure we'll see a concerted campaign (looks like it's already in motion!).

 

Found this nugget interesting....

 

The first to fourth respondents are now in liquidation and the fifth respondents, RFC 2012 PLC, are now the only party opposing the appeal.

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

 

If the Murray companies are in liquidation and didn't oppose this Appeal, I'm not sure how they could then be party to an Appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Regardless, we seem to be in the clear as far as the SPL are concerned, as several have pointed out the basis of their decision was the positon at that time.

Edited November 4, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[D'Artagnan 173]

On what grounds, D'Art?

 

If you look at todays ruling they, the 3 judges, appear to have totally ignored previous findings and rulings from the foregoing tribunals, as well as the decisions arrived at in Dextra Accessories ([2005] STC 1111) and Sempra Metals ([2007] STC 1559). Instead they appear to have cut rhough all normal legal precedent relying to set the test against nothing more than "common sense".

 

Much as I detest him Speirs actually sums this up very succinctly in his Herald column.

 

The Lords Carloway, Menzies and Drummond Young took a surprisingly tart view of it all, cutting through impenetrable legal subterfuge to reach “a common sense” view which has been held by most people on the outside for years.

 

He is right in that it is not only surprising but also highly unusual - particularly when put into the context and determinations of the previous lower & upper tribunals.

 

Hence why i feel there is a good chance if challenged - it may be overturned.

[Zappa 0]

Lord Carloway is the judge who made recommendations to the Scottish Gov' to rewrite the law and scrap the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle (aka 'presumption of innocence'), but thankfully 'common sense' prevailed on that matter.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Lord Carloway is the judge who made recommendations to the Scottish Gov' to rewrite the law and scrap the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle (aka 'presumption of innocence'), but thankfully 'common sense' prevailed on that matter.

 

Its the need for corroboration he proposed scrapping Zap and he was rightly condemned for it. But then again why rely on corroboratory evidence when you can just defer to "common sense"

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lord-carloway-under-fire-over-corroboration-plans-1-3109928#axzz3qYoTGK00

Edited November 4, 2015 by D'Artagnan

[Zappa 0]

Its the need for corroboration he proposed scrapping Zap and he was rightly condemned for it. But then again why rely on corroboratory evidence when you can just defer to "common sense"

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lord-carloway-under-fire-over-corroboration-plans-1-3109928#axzz3qYoTGK00

 

You're right D'Art, thanks. I must have been recalling reading articles or quotes within articles discussing the possible ramifications on the presumption of innocence principle. Anyway, Lord Carloway is clearly on a different planet from most other humans.

[D'Artagnan 173]

You're right D'Art, thanks. I must have been recalling reading articles or quotes within articles discussing the possible ramifications on the presumption of innocence principle. Anyway, Lord Carloway is clearly on a different planet from most other humans.

 

You are right Zap he clearly is on another planet and that article is particularly revealing as to the type of character and personality he is, and how he reacts when obstacles block his way.

[forlanssister 3,050]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

 

If the Murray companies are in liquidation and didn't oppose this Appeal, I'm not sure how they could then be party to an Appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Haven't claimed they would, though I firmly believe Murray personally should (fund an appeal).