Rangers: The malicious prosecution of club's administrators must be investigated thoroughly – Murdo Fraser

BSPECIAL

Well-Known Member
EVERYTHING connected with the shysters involved in the events of 2012 and subsequent, should be investigated........ EVERYONE.
How many people involved in the justice/law system knew this was going nowhere with no prosecutions but were only too happy to sit on the gravy train for months or years and more or less steal money for arsing about kidding on they were doing a job.
 

Coisty09

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
At least someone is saying it.
A legal expert in costs has suggested to me that the real reason for accepting malice is that is a criminal matter that is compensated from the public purse.
Had it been deemed to be professional negligence, then the individual lawyers could have been subject to claims under their own indemnity insurance.
That would not suit the legal profession at all!!
Therefore all the lawyers get their fees met from taxpayers funds if the prosecution is considered malicious.
These crooks in suits will do anything to protect their own wealth and status.
I suspect this is the latest in a litany of crimes against the taxpayer.
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
Combine Lewis Carroll and John Lennon with David Lynch and you still couldn't get to grips with this latest instalment of 'Nothing is Real.'

The way I'm reading this, it's as if the Prosecution were jumping out of their skins to bag the 'bad guys' who stiffed 'good old Rangers'.

As if we were the nations favourite and we'd get justice by hook or by crook.

Nothing could be further from the truth apart from our club being shafted and buggered every, which way.

And now the assorted vermins' great grandkids are going to be set up for life, never mind themselves.

Was it not the case that Duff and Phelps knocked back a better bid from a consortium headed by Walter Smith, to make sure Green and Co got the gig?

Yet these shysters were victims of a 'malicious' witch hunt?

It's an upside down world right enough.
 
Last edited:

Coisty09

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Combine Lewis Carroll and John Lennon with David Lynch and you still couldn't get to grips with this latest instalment of 'Nothing is Real.'

The way I'm reading this, it's as if the Prosecution were jumping out of their skins to bag the 'bad guys' who stiffed 'good old Rangers'.

As if we were the nations favourite and we'd get justice by hook or by crook.

Nothing could be further from the truth apart from our club being shafted and buggered every, which way.

And now the vermin great grandkids are going to be set up for life, never mind themselves.

Was it not the case that Duff and Phelps knocked back a better bid from a consortium headed by Walter Smith, to make sure Green and Co got the gig?

Yet these shysters were victims of a 'malicious' witch hunt?

It's an upside down world right enough.
Read my post No 8 (just above) and it starts to make sense!!
 

JorgAlbertz

Well-Known Member
How much of an investigation is really needed though? They will know full well who it was that made the final decision to prosecute and their rationale will be recorded somewhere (it could be more than one individual if decided in a meeting).

If someone is to get their jotters they will know exactly who, and why.
 

Blue Goose

Well-Known Member
I have no doubt that there are individuals who know exactly what was going on at that time. The whole case was in the "too hard to do" bracket. Nobody wanted to prosecute a complex long fraud which this was.The Crown presented the case against Whyte with leading criminal QC Prentice. No specialism there. The list of witnesses appearing indicated that it was a circus from the start. I find it incredulous that there's no documentary evidence within the club to substantiate these allegations. Remember that the scope of the warrant issued and agreed by the Crown was so narrow that a vast amount of evidence wasn't heard or presented. Total amateur hour.
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member
How much of an investigation is really needed though? They will know full well who it was that made the final decision to prosecute and their rationale will be recorded somewhere (it could be more than one individual if decided in a meeting).

If someone is to get their jotters they will know exactly who, and why.
Those documents will already be lost, guaranteed. The Crown Office deliberately botched the prosecution case to ensure nobody would ever face justice for what happened to our club. That is the real scandal here.
 

Paisleyprod

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
An investigation into how the shysters whyte, green etc. walked away would be more welcome.
They hired people who know how to %^*& the system for a living even better than they do and ensured they were suitably renumerated.

The whole sorry fiasco has been a carve up from the start.

They knew what they were doing, they knew they'd get away with it.

Imran bottled it and ran away.

The laws need to look after businesses and shareholders over crooks who can con, steal, bully and carve up.
 

Zwingli'sSausages

Well-Known Member
Those documents will already be lost, guaranteed. The Crown Office deliberately botched the prosecution case to ensure nobody would ever face justice for what happened to our club. That is the real scandal here.
The narrative against us was set from day one and it we cheated the taxman so now all this stuff is just noise. The amount of people now, nearly 10 years later that still peddle this nonsense says it all.
There is zero appetite to bring the culprits to justice.
 

Hillheadbear

Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaallllllllll
At least someone is saying it.
A legal expert in costs has suggested to me that the real reason for accepting malice is that is a criminal matter that is compensated from the public purse.
Had it been deemed to be professional negligence, then the individual lawyers could have been subject to claims under their own indemnity insurance.
That would not suit the legal profession at all!!
Therefore all the lawyers get their fees met from taxpayers funds if the prosecution is considered malicious.
These crooks in suits will do anything to protect their own wealth and status.
I suspect this is the latest in a litany of crimes against the taxpayer.
So if 'malice' is admitted and if it is a criminal matter, then would criminal charges follow?
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
At least someone is saying it.
A legal expert in costs has suggested to me that the real reason for accepting malice is that is a criminal matter that is compensated from the public purse.
Had it been deemed to be professional negligence, then the individual lawyers could have been subject to claims under their own indemnity insurance.
That would not suit the legal profession at all!!
Therefore all the lawyers get their fees met from taxpayers funds if the prosecution is considered malicious.
These crooks in suits will do anything to protect their own wealth and status.
I suspect this is the latest in a litany of crimes against the taxpayer.
I don't think this is correct.

The only way that the Pursuers here could have succeeded against the Crown here would be if a malicious prosecution was established.

This is because the Crown (and those acting as prosecutors for the Crown) has an immunity from civil suit for negligence, so they actually wouldn't have been liable for damages if only negligence could be shown. This is mentioned in one of the reported decisions in the Whitehouse/Clark case:


Malicious prosecution without probable cause is a very high standard to reach and it's very difficult to successfully sue the Crown. I didn't think the administrators would be able to establish it when their actions were first raised - just goes to show how lacking the case against them actually was.
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member
The narrative against us was set from day one and it we cheated the taxman so now all this stuff is just noise. The amount of people now, nearly 10 years later that still peddle this nonsense says it all.
There is zero appetite to bring the culprits to justice.
Legal warrants for police searches regarding alleged serious white collar crime, and the reasons for such searches, are quadruple checked by senior lawyers before being issued. These documents would not have left the Crown Office without verification from the very top of the legal food chain. It is inconceivable what happened did happen. It was no accident.
 

Coisty09

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I don't think this is correct.

The only way that the Pursuers here could have succeeded against the Crown here would be if a malicious prosecution was established.

This is because the Crown (and those acting as prosecutors for the Crown) has an immunity from civil suit for negligence, so they actually wouldn't have been liable for damages if only negligence could be shown. This is mentioned in one of the reported decisions in the Whitehouse/Clark case:


Malicious prosecution without probable cause is a very high standard to reach and it's very difficult to successfully sue the Crown. I didn't think the administrators would be able to establish it when their actions were first raised - just goes to show how lacking the case against them actually was.
I believe you are underestimating how much that finding suits all concerned....
People wandering off into the sunset on both sides with very healthy bank accounts and the taxpayer fleeced.
If I am wrong, then it follows that criminal prosecutions will take place to punish those who acted with malice.
I will not be holding my breath.....
Are you in the legal profession perchance?
 

Billy72

Active Member
While the crown office are looking into everything,could they get someone to find out where the evidence, for the dolls at the piggery vanished to.might be in someone at the tops bedroom cupboard. No surrender w.a.t.p
 

Zwingli'sSausages

Well-Known Member
Legal warrants for police searches regarding alleged serious white collar crime, and the reasons for such searches, are quadruple checked by senior lawyers before being issued. These documents would not have left the Crown Office without verification from the very top of the legal food chain. It is inconceivable what happened did happen. It was no accident.
Of course not. The law is not a free floating edifice. It always needs to be backed by political will. Something we have very little of
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
He could only do it because of Murray and his obsession with EBTs.
No EBTs=no Whyte=no Administration and Green and Ashley would have been powerless.
This is not intended as any defence of Murray, but he / we made use of a scheme that was perfectly legal at the time.

That HMRC then decided it wasn’t and began seeking retrospective charges for its use singling us out as a cause celebre in the process is what really needs investigating, IMO.

Was Reid behind that decision, I wonder?
 

watch

Well-Known Member
I don't think this is correct.

The only way that the Pursuers here could have succeeded against the Crown here would be if a malicious prosecution was established.

This is because the Crown (and those acting as prosecutors for the Crown) has an immunity from civil suit for negligence, so they actually wouldn't have been liable for damages if only negligence could be shown. This is mentioned in one of the reported decisions in the Whitehouse/Clark case:


Malicious prosecution without probable cause is a very high standard to reach and it's very difficult to successfully sue the Crown. I didn't think the administrators would be able to establish it when their actions were first raised - just goes to show how lacking the case against them actually was.
There is little doubt that we don’t have the full picture of everything that went on with the EBTs, sale to Whyte, and all that followed (as referred to above, it would be interesting to know what John Reid was up to behind the scenes). That no “journalist” has ever taken this on as an investigative piece is very surprising.

As for this case against the Crown, I’m more inclined to think that this is just a simple example of the Crown making an absolute mess of it, which is not surprising. Read paras 3 - 13 of the judgment cited by Marty above and you will get a feel for that.

What is particularly embarrassing is that the Lord Advocate at the time was Frank Mulholland who now sits as a judge in the Court of Session.
 

bedsblue

Well-Known Member
This is not intended as any defence of Murray, but he / we made use of a scheme that was perfectly legal at the time.

That HMRC then decided it wasn’t and began seeking retrospective charges for its use singling us out as a cause celebre in the process is what really needs investigating, IMO.

Was Reid behind that decision, I wonder?
I don't think we really have to wonder on that matter.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
It wasn't just the administrators who were maliciously prosecuted. Charles Green and Imran Ahmad also received an apology from the lord advocate. All four will now take the Crown to the cleaners for damages.
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
An investigation into how the shysters whyte, green etc. walked away would be more welcome.
The prosecution itself was not malicious in my opinion. The Procurator Fiscal obviously thought that there was adequate evidence to not only justify the charges but also to reasonably expect convictions. Having attended one of the pre-trial hearings it was my understanding that the issue of concern was how the police went about their investigation and how the evidence which was obtained from that police investigation ended up being rendered inadmissible as a result. Important evidence not being allowed to be heard in court got these shysters off the hook.
 
Last edited:

baystatebear

Well-Known Member
I've often commented that if the bheasts had found themselves in the exact same situation as Rangers, the consequences would have been at most a fine, and perhaps a points deduction. There is no way, absolutely no way, that what was done to Rangers would have been allowed to happen to them.

For a start, the sectarian card would have been played long before things were brought to a head. Questions would have been raised in parliament by sympathetic legislators, 'discrete calls' would have been placed with newspaper editors 'reminding' them of the bheasts long history of 'religious and ethnic victimization', and how the current tax investigation was just a continuation of the sectarianism that the club has had to content with since their founding. The pressure on all fronts would have been ratcheted up until a 'compromise' was arrived at allowing the bneasts to skate with only minimum sanctions being imposed.
 
change consent
Top