Of Assets and Liabilities

Avatar By

John clarke says: Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55 4 1 …

Comment on Of Assets and Liabilities by Livia Burlando.

john clarke says:
Friday, November 2, 2012 at 13:55
4 1 Rate This
I think this link will confirm my general description of the QC for Collyer Bristow.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Um, this line of discussion was mildly amusing until now but this link is going too far. The woman turned up to do a job for heaven’s sake she doesn’t deserve to be subjected to this.

Recent Comments by Livia Burlando

Scottish Football and the case for a Bismarck!
michaeljamesroy:

Update on the charity affair
Rangers Charity Foundation

It would seem OSCR aren’t in any rush.


Everything Has Changed
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45

The reference to Armstrong was an analogy, not a comparison. Analogy is useful to understand and explain by reference, it isn’t supposed to prove or demonstrate anything. If it’s not useful to your understanding of why there is a difference between the two cases, then discard it.

The factual part of my point – systemic, sustained and deliberate versus unique and accidental – remains.

shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 08:45
Can I just say, I was willing to accept the ruling if they were to be stripped of titles why is nobody willing to accept it in reverse?

First, some posters here are willing to accept it – they have used words like reasoned and balanced. Not many, though. There were some posters who said, on Wednesday evening, that LNS was a fine upstanding judge who could be trusted to do the right thing. You could address that question to them. Those of us who gave an cynical laugh at that ludicrous notion, really don’t have to accept his bad, dishonest, corrupt judgement.


Everything Has Changed
shield2012 says:
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:32
On one hand people are saying TRFC should have been treated the same way as Spartans, but on the other, they are saying how it was a disgrace that Spartans were expelled from the Scottish Cup. Also, nobody is calling Spartans cheats.

Could that be considered a contradiction?
………………………………………………………………
Not really. Rangers are analagous to Lance Armstrong – systemic, deliberate contravention of the rules, know in every (other) sport as cheating. Spartans are more like Alain Baxter – an accidental error put them outside the rules, and they had to take the consequences.


Everything Has Changed
2) Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the
Scottish Premier League (“SPL”) and the Scottish Football Association (“SFA”) as
forming part of the players’ financial entitlement and as agreements providing for
payments to be received by the players

But

non-disclosure [did not] have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible
to play
………………………………………………………………………
How did he get from statement 1 to statement 2?

He should just have said:

“Those side-letter arrangements were required to be disclosed under the Rules of the
Scottish Premier League (“SPL”) and the Scottish Football Association (“SFA”) as
forming part of the players’ financial entitlement and as agreements providing for
payments to be received by the players

but I’ve decided it doesn’t really matter that they weren’t”

Must be my lack of a fine legal mind.


Everything Has Changed
Livia Burlando says:
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 11:25

Anyone still think Lord Nimmo Smith is an upstanding judge who would never be allow his fine legal judgement to be sullied?
====================================================================
I think perhaps we should wait to see the detailed statement before deciding on decrying anyone either professionally or morally. And just for the record, I am happy to say that LNS has a good legal brain and reputation and will have called the decision in line with his understanding of the applicable law & regulations and the evidence submitted along withf the other two members of the Commission.

I agree we should proably wait for the detail, but your reasoning is circular. It basically goes ” A clever man with a good reputation made this judgement therefore it must have been made in accordance with clear legal thinking and nothing else, and it must be a correct decision.” I don’t think that’s a valid arguement at all, not least because his reputation before today doesn’t include the judgement issued today.

In other words, good reputations can be lost.

But I’ll withdraw.. until after noon.


About the author

Avatar