Lord Hodge Deputy President UKSC - Rangers related

jnloyal

Well-Known Member
Appreciate this may well be a long shot but bear with me.

Lord Hodge was sworn in as deputy president of the UKSC yesterday which resulted in Scottish justices now holding the two most senior legal positions in the country.

Lord Wilson who was delivering one of the opening speeches stated amongst other things that “The Law School at Edinburgh is justified in its expression of pride in its two great sons. Today, the whole of Scotland will be celebrating – well except, possibly, in Ibrox.”

Lord Hodge was one of the five justices who found in favour of HMRC but as that was a Scottish case he was always going to be involved in that case. He was also the Court of Session judge who approved Rangers liquidation but again there was nothing he really could do about that.

This might be a private football joke between the two justices but just found it to be a bizarre statement to make by a supreme court justice.

Anyone any ideas as to the back story to this?
 

Rangers_2001

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Possibly because so many folk thought he was against us when in reality I doubt he could care less about us or them.
 

Thor

Active Member
Remember being at a Conference for work and Craig Thomson was speaking at it and he was telling a few jokes at our expense also. Seems we are an easy touch and put up less resistance.
Or that judge is just a tarrier mess!!
 

jnloyal

Well-Known Member
Maybe its just a wee bit of humour mate?
That is exactly how I read it and it must be something related to Hodge but wouldn`t have him cut out to be a football man but could be wrong. Just wondered if anyone knew the background to it.
 

GersyBoy

Active Member
I have a Brother in Law who is a QC, and a bigger fenian Bstd you will struggle to meet, he gleefully tells me how many of them are at the top of the tree.
 

ChildOfGod

Well-Known Member
Remember being at a Conference for work and Craig Thomson was speaking at it and he was telling a few jokes at our expense also. Seems we are an easy touch and put up less resistance.
Or that judge is just a tarrier mess!!
ironic as there are few bigger jokes than that c0ck
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
Appreciate this may well be a long shot but bear with me.

Lord Hodge was sworn in as deputy president of the UKSC yesterday which resulted in Scottish justices now holding the two most senior legal positions in the country.

Lord Wilson who was delivering one of the opening speeches stated amongst other things that “The Law School at Edinburgh is justified in its expression of pride in its two great sons. Today, the whole of Scotland will be celebrating – well except, possibly, in Ibrox.”

Lord Hodge was one of the five justices who found in favour of HMRC but as that was a Scottish case he was always going to be involved in that case. He was also the Court of Session judge who approved Rangers liquidation but again there was nothing he really could do about that.

This might be a private football joke between the two justices but just found it to be a bizarre statement to make by a supreme court justice.

Anyone any ideas as to the back story to this?
My immediate reading of that is a joke between colleagues suggesting he is not flavour of the month with Rangers supporters.
 

jnloyal

Well-Known Member
My immediate reading of that is a joke between colleagues suggesting he is not flavour of the month with Rangers supporters.
Agreed mate that is exactly what I took out of it.

These guys preside over the most important legal issues in the country but if our thinking is correct it just shows how emotive football is when judgements he played at least a part in almost 8 and 3 years ago still resonate today.

Although these judgements to us were naturally huge in reality they weren`t significant in the legal sense.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
I think it's quite simple, as it says in the post.

He was one of the Judges at the Court of Session, who found in favour of HMRC in relation to the big tax case.

He was the Judge who rubber stamped the liquidation of the holding company. He didn't decide anything, just rubber stamped it.

It was a bad "joke" as far as I can see, nothing more than that.
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
Agreed mate that is exactly what I took out of it.

These guys preside over the most important legal issues in the country but if our thinking is correct it just shows how emotive football is when judgements he played at least a part in almost 8 and 3 years ago still resonate today.

Although these judgements to us were naturally huge in reality they weren`t significant in the legal sense.
Absolutely. The emotional aspects around football are insane. Even looking at the intensity of some of the stuff on here at times makes you think folk need to find some perspective in their lives.
 

BobbyShearer

Well-Known Member
My immediate reading of that is a joke between colleagues suggesting he is not flavour of the month with Rangers supporters.
That is exactly what it is.

However, these are professional people dealing with the most serious matters of law in the land.

We could certainly not be accused of being over-sensitive at being the punchline of a joke that referenced a massive part of the upheaval of the last decade.

Would Donald Findlay in the 90’s be allowed to make a gag at the expense of getting a murderer off to his pals? Would that just be banter?
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
That is exactly what it is.

However, these are professional people dealing with the most serious matters of law in the land.

We could certainly not be accused of being over-sensitive at being the punchline of a joke that referenced a massive part of the upheaval of the last decade.

Would Donald Findlay in the 90’s be allowed to make a gag at the expense of getting a murderer off to his pals? Would that just be banter?
I’m not sure your DF hypothetical example is the greatest of comparisons to be honest.

Like any bit “humour” some will like it, some will think little one way or the other and others will be offended/upset.
 

BobbyShearer

Well-Known Member
I’m not sure your DF hypothetical example is the greatest of comparisons to be honest.

Like any bit “humour” some will like it, some will think little one way or the other and others will be offended/upset.
I read that back and it seemed like I was having a go, I wasn’t and point taken.

Simply that anything involving Rangers is sensationalised except when it comes to us being on the receiving end.
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member
Who was the judge that came up with the “common sense” verdict. Ignoring the actual law to find in HMRCs favour was that hodge?
Lord Carloway ? Who also tried and failed to inflict an illegal transfer ban on our club ? Who also deemed in Court that a satirical football chant by Rangers fans was " racist " ?
 

sheddensbear

Well-Known Member
Judges rule on legal facts. They can't make decisions based on what team they support.
I have a bluenose friend who was a lawyer. I asked if it was only RCs who did law. He said that the bheasts tended to go into criminal law, whereas the good guys tended to do commercial law, where the real money was.
 

o7o

Active Member
I bet when he bought a 3 year old he was disappointed it was a horse! However, maybe later on things worked out for him.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
Agreed mate that is exactly what I took out of it.

These guys preside over the most important legal issues in the country but if our thinking is correct it just shows how emotive football is when judgements he played at least a part in almost 8 and 3 years ago still resonate today.

Although these judgements to us were naturally huge in reality they weren`t significant in the legal sense.
Are you saying if he had overseen a trial where an allegation of rape had seen the suspect Bill Bloggs acquitted for an alleged assault on Mary Miggins, that had this judge put Mary Miggins name in place of Ibrox, this would have merely been an acceptable in-joke?
I really need you to explain this, because I am personally struggling to see where this can ever be acceptable?
 
Last edited:

cocobob

Well-Known Member
Are you saying if he had overseen a trial where an allegation of rape had seen the suspect Bill Bloggs acquitted for an alleged assault on Mary Miggins, that had this judge put Mary Miggins name in place of Ibrox, this would have merely been an acceptable in-joke?
I really need you to explain this, because I am personally struggling to see where this can ever be acceptable?
Yes unacceptable.
A law lord should never lower themselves to comments like this, he's opened himself up to being biased in any future Trials/decisions. Totally unacceptable imo.
 
Top