flyingrodent

I take your point here, and maybe it's because I had a court job many moons ago, but I always thought we as a nation took a vague interest in justice. I feel like I've been coming at this from totally the wrong angle. I've been thinking of it as primarily a matter of football justice. After checking the dissenting opinion, I now think the football issue is a comical triviality, and that it'll be a travesty of justice if nobody winds up in prison.

I've no idea - Mrs R is the lawyer in the Rodent household. Perhaps it's possible that Sir Dave will never see the inside of another courtroom? Who knows? On the other hand, given that Rangers appear to have won *specifically within the terms of reference of this particular case* and that the dissenting opinion is so blunt... Well, there are serious questions to be answered here. Wouldn't you agree? I think it would be something of a travesty of justice if that judgement was left unused.

Tedi: Looking for a future cellmate, is he?

That's very wise advice. Nonetheless, Ms Poons' take on the case should be - at very least! - ringing alarm bells. How could it not? She really does tear MIH a new hoop there, and lays out in graphic detail the issues that future proceedings - proceedings with far wider remits than the case ORFC just won- should examine. Looks like it's brown trousers time for Sir Dave...

If even ten percent of what that guy is saying is correct in law, old Rangers are f*cked out of the park, half the league championships of the last decade will have to be marked "no award" and Sir Dave is going to spend the next few years dodging HMP Barlinnie rather than HMRC. We've been here before with anonymous lawyers, of course... But that looks, on the face of it, absolutely damning. If there's any substance to it, the SPL and BDO are going to eat old Rangers and their employees alive.

Whatever we may disagree on, I'm in full agreement here. Open the can of worms and let's see what horrors spill out.

Too much

Zing, very good point, fully conceded. Previous statements to this effect should be reversed - the court doesn't decide whether Rangers in reality ripped off the taxpayer; the court decides whether Rangers were able to prove to the court's satisfaction that their scheme was legal. They did so successfully, on a majority. Nonetheless, the point I'm stressing here is that the court don't have magical mind-reading powers to decree what did or did not happen. They're there to rule on the evidence presented.

I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here. HMRC losing the tribunal proves only one thing - that two out of three judges weren't convinced by the proof that HMRC were able to present*. Again - the court does not decide whether Rangers actually diddled the taxpayer. The court decides whether HMRC can prove that Rangers diddled the taxpayer. HMRC thought they had a strong case - they were wrong. Happens every day, all over the world. Nonetheless, let's think about this proposition you're making. You're saying that prosecutions that fail are proof that no prosecution should ever have been brought, because prosecutions are very expensive. Have you thought through the implications of that? Maybe you should get on the phone to Crown Office - they lose tens of thousands of cases every year, after all. If Crown Office think they've got a 60% chance of convicting you for murder, should they sack it off because it's not worth the expense? And recall here - HMRC are required to chase up proven tax dodgers** like your old club. Really, get a grip. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no prosecution should be brought unless there is a 100% chance of conviction. You're just hilariously wrong, aren't you? *When considering this point, it's worth recalling that one of the judges complained that your club were intentionally withholding evidence. **Your old club are proven tax dodgers.

Because a) All the judges concluded that there was a concrete case to answer, not least because your club openly admitted to around thirty instances of tax evasion avoidance and were found guilty of several more, and because b) it's HMRC's duty and obligation to pursue serious cases of tax evasion, wherever they occur and because c) your old club has only avoided a brutal judicial shafting because two of the judges somehow concluded that the thirty-odd cases of tax evasion avoidance that your old club admitted to, plus the ones you were found liable for, didn't mean that the entire thing was deliberately set up as a scam. It really is hilarious that anyone would try to pin some kind of culpability on HMRC here. They've done their duty to the British taxpayer to the best of their ability. Your old club, on the other hand, has benefitted from a small judicial miracle - your legal team have somehow managed to polish the turd that is your old club's crooked financial dealings. You'd be better spending your time thanking them than bashing Hector. The guilty parties in Rangers' demise are the men who picked up all those fat EBT gifts "loans". That's it - not Hector, or the diddy clubs, or the football authorities, or some bloggers. Your owners, directors and players killed your club with their sticky fingers, their mismanagement and their refusal to take responsibility for their own actions. Pretending otherwise is hilarious, but it does give me a bit of a chuckle so please, continue.

Even the judges that supported Dave's lawyers' argument acknowledged that there was a case to answer, and both praised HMRC for the rigour of their investigations. Hector joins the ever-expanding list of innocent punters blamed for your club's messy suicide. On the other hand, all three judges noted that your club were obstructive and unhelpful; one actually concluded that your representatives intentionally attempted to mislead, delay and obstruct the inquiry. Which is to say - HMRC actually look pretty good here, having argued in good faith and lost out only because they wrongly assumed that they could prove the whole thing was a scam, by proving that a substantial proportion of it was a scam. They were wrong. Your old club, OTOH, stands accused of dishonestly attempting to hide the truth from the authorities, and that's just for starters. I've asked before and I'll ask again - why not take out your anger on Sir Dave - the man chiefly responsible for killing your club - rather than joining a big circle-jerk of rage about Hector and some bloggers?

Clue's in the first line, surely - "A 37-year-old man has been arrested over allegations of "offensive" online material relating to Rangers tax case". That says "arrested for sectarian offences" to me. Some brainless walloper shouting about Benian Fastards or Cun Hunts, you'd imagine.

"Hysterical accusations", indeed! I love this stuff. Celtic fans have the wrong idea when they refer to New Rangers fans as "The Zombies", though. Surely, based on all the evidence we've seen in these very threads, "The Ostriches" would be a more apt title.

The types of activity we're discussing are not similar, from a legal and/or moral standpoint - "Wanting to hang onto their information", which is the phrase you use, is a very different thing from "Active concealment of documents" and "attempting to mislead the tribunal", which is what M' Lord is publicly accusing the man who administered your tax fraud avoidance scheme of. Which of these two classes of activity could credibly be seen as the actions of honest, innocent men, and which would suggest a willingness to pervert the course of justice, if necessary? Further, what kind of person would risk perverting the course of justice for personal/organisational gain? If you said "an honest, innocent" one would pervert the course of justice, congratulations! I've just met a Motherwell boy with wealth off the radar who would like to invest in your local football team.

From Tom English's report on Rangers' tax case conduct... "The story of Mr Red is told in the FTT report. There’s not a lot I can tell you about Mr Red, apart from the fact that that is the codename ascribed to him in the tribunal report published on Tuesday. He is a chartered tax advisor, a qualified tax inspector and is, or was, a senior member of the Murray Group’s tax function. His name features throughout the 145 pages. When critics slam HMRC for pursuing this case so vehemently and slam the FTT for taking an age to rule on it, they reckon without the presence of Mr Red, one of Murray’s own people. Mr Red caused HMRC and the tribunal some problems. Of the three person panel, Kenneth Mure and Scott Rae were the two members who went with Rangers, but even Mure and Rae had issues with Mr Red, the key man in the tax affairs of the Murray Group and the person who operated the EBT scheme within the group. They called his evidence “somewhat defensive” and referred to a “culture of defensiveness” from the Murray Group both in their testimony and in their dealings with HMRC. Mure and Rae admitted to be being “disturbed” by part of Mr Red’s evidence. Later in the report, the dissenting voice, Dr Heidi Poon, goes after Mr Red in a coruscating way and perhaps illustrates part of the reasons why this affair took so long. “The protracted and chequered course of the enquiry was largely due to a lack of candour and co-operation from Mr Red, who was the chief operating officer dealing with the enquiry,” writes Poon. She talks about documents not being disclosed despite repeated requests and statutory demands for information. She talks about Mr Red’s “hostility” and the fact that he “refused any meetings with HMRC in the course of the enquiry”. The impasse was broken only when the City of London Police consulted with HMRC’s Criminal Investigation Section and seized documents from Ibrox. It was, according to Poon, only in May 2009 that the Murray Group finally provided the documents that were requested. That was, says Poon, fully five and a half years after the HMRC enquiry had begun. She adds: “The conduct of the Murray Group in general, and Mr Red in particular, in the course of HMRC’s enquiry went beyond the [Mure and Rae] description of ‘a lack of candour’... There is evidence of active concealment of documents. Equally, to describe Mr Red as ‘somewhat defensive’ [Mure and Rae’s description] in giving his sworn testimony would be an understatement. On more than one occasion, Mr Red had attempted to mislead the Tribunal.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/tom-english-if-only-murray-and-his-men-had-been-co-operative-from-day-one-1-2650192 For clarity, on how Rangers FC interpreted the meaning of the concept of "confidentiality". But this is all perfectly normal business practice, of course. "Loans" that never have to be repaid; "innocent" men who always attempt to deceive those investigating their conduct and businessmen who would rather destroy their own companies than see them subjected to external scrutiny by the authorities. All perfectly normal and above-board; nothing suspicious at all about it.

Well, why would a player need to be reassured that the EBT scheme wasn't a criminal rip-off? The answer to that question is probably the same as all the others about Rangers' conduct which are yet to be answered - a few examples of which... - Why did David Murray offer to settle with HMRC for £10m, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Rangers refuse to cooperate with the HMRC investigation by withholding as much documentation as they possibly could, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why wouldn't David Murray agree to accept liability for the tax case when selling the club, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why wouldn't investors buy Rangers with the tax case hanging over it, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did David Murray sell the club he purportedly loved to a conman for a pound, if he knew he was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Craig Whyte stampede the club into liquidation ASAP, if he knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - Why did Duff & Duffer act as if the club was liable for the tax case, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? - And why did everyone associated with Rangers over the last ten years deliberately stretch out this case as long as possible, even though doing so was massively harmful to the club's finances and survival prospects, if they knew the club was innocent of a majority of the charges? Well, if you think the two judges are correct, Rangers did these things "Because they were innocent of a majority of the charges". If you believe Ms Poon, they did them more or less "Because they were guilty as sin, fully expected to be found guilty and were deliberately attempting to frustrate justice". I guess it's up to you, which story you believe. Like I say, the case delivers a verdict upon whether HMRC can prove the case they're making. The question What actually happened - well, that's an entirely separate issue.

Maybe so! After all, if a tax-free, million-pound lump sum that never needs to be repaid can be a "loan", we're surely in a world of such uncertainty that nothing is what it seems. Free your mind, Neo.

Oh, sure. I'm just pointing out that their Lordships who found in your favour were lawyers, whereas the one who found against you - and who seems to have found Rangers totally guilty of operating a massive, deliberate tax fraud - appears to be an expert in exotic tax evasion schemes. Again, we have to note that this changes nothing. Clearly the two judges were convinced by Sir Dave's lawyers' "Oh aye, these are those kinds of loans that never have to be paid back, everybody's heard of them," patter. It's just interesting to see that the actual expert on tax evasion on the panel is calling a spade a spade in the very bluntest terms, while the lawyers accept that a spade may possibly, if you look at it with your eyes screwed up, be a precision instrument for the removal of subterranean artifacts, or a toothpick.

Interesting point that I wasn't aware of, that hasn't been raised in other media I've seen... "In a 145-page report, the judgment of Kenneth Mure QC and Scott Rae, solicitor — if not tax expert Dr Heidi Poom — was that: ‘The payments are loans, not earnings, and so are recoverable from the employee or his estate". Which means: the two lawyers who found in Rangers' favour thought the "loans" scheme was just on the right side of the law, that they were only partially guilty of dodging tax, and that the club was extremely reluctant to co-operate with investigators. The tax expert who found against them said (and I paraphrase) that the whole scheme was a massive and obvious scam clearly aimed at intentionally ripping off the taxpayer and that the club dodged, ducked, dived, weaved and generally did everything within its power to avoid justice. It changes nothing, of course - the verdict stands regardless. Nonetheless, it's an interesting point to bear in mind if you're interested in discovering what actually happened rather than what HMRC were able to prove in court. The case, of course, adjudicated on the latter issue, rather than the former.

Lunatic paranoia about sinister ethnoreligious elites ruling the world in secret - it's all fun and games, until somebody invades Poland. They used to make some fairly striking posters about this stuff, back in the thirties.

A quick Google for "Rothschild Zionism" in commas should reveal the kind of weird and creepy patter you're pushing here, if anyone cares to look. I suggest the site owner takes a look, puts two and two together and boots this guy off to gabble about Jewish space lizards with likeminded lunatics elsewhere. I won't say anything more about it, since it should be a pretty straightforward case, unlike the one we were previously enjoying talking about.

See the "smiling Abu Qatada leaves court" thread for you talking about "filthy, unscrupulous" "Rothschild" types "pulling strings... Behind the scenes" in case verdicts. One of many examples of a weird and extremely whiffy fixation, in recent weeks. You know what you're about, pal. If the Mods fancy poking through your posting history, they will too.

You may be right - certainly gives the SPL an excuse to sh*te out of seeing justice done. That said, there's at least one judge on the panel and tax laws don't overlap much with SPL rules. I'd expect the panel to take a very dim view of these "loans", to start with.

If any Mods are watching, you might want to launch this geezer. Keeps havering about Jews and "the Rothschilds" secretly being in charge in a bizarre and disconcertingly Naziesque fashion. You wouldn't stand for this constant crowbarring of Muslims or Catholics into every thread, and his Hebrew fixation is giving me the boke. Highly sinister. Better to get rid, I reckon.

Six Feet Under.