Good Afternoon.
As virtually anyone on the internet who follows Scottish Football has come to realise, there is a reasoned and determined attempt at ignoring the content of the Charlotte Fakeovers files on the part of the mainstream print media— and indeed by the broadcast journo’s to an extent.
There is widespread speculation that the accessing of the information provided by Charlotte the Harlot was not all above board and the reluctance of the journalists to mention or comment on the documents, so far published on the internet, is often explained away by the lawyers allegedly advising that the content is tainted and so on.
That indeed might or might not be the case, and only the editors, lawyers, journalists and so on will truly know what their stance is on the revelations. Some will want the whole thing suppressed and others will be desperate to get into print, but thus far are frustrated in any attempt to do so.
However, as the documents do appear on the net only to be quickly followed by file disappearances and so on, there is an ever burning question which must be asked and thrown open to debate and argument.
The issue is not just how independent are the Sports Press in Scotland, but whether or not the relationship between certain sections of the press and Rangers or The Rangers is in fact lawful and deserving of football sanctions.
There is no doubt that many big businesses, local authorities and Governments use the services of PR firms and the likes to get information out to the public and to put their slant on any given situation. That is fair enough.
However, in recent days we have seen the release of documentation which, if accurate and true, shows that a leading Scottish PR company were specifically employed to place stories with the press which were designed to damage the reputation of, to embarrass or cause problems for certain other teams and personnel involved in Scottish Football.
Again I stress that all of this is subject to the caveat that what Charlotte is publishing may or may not be real and accurate. However, if what has been produced is in fact the genuine correspondence between the club and its professional advisers then that correspondence needs to be looked at.
The SFA and indeed the SPFL are the bodies that lay down rules which govern the conduct of clubs and their officers and employees.
So looking at these regulations let me just repeat some of them here:
Fisrt the rules of what was the SPL and which I presume are the rules of the SPFL:
A3.1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
A3.2 No Club, either by itself or its Club Officials, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage, belittle or discredit any other Club, the Company or the League or in either case any such other Cub or the Company’s directors, officers, employees or agents (which shall, for the avoidance of doubt, exclude supporters).
The SFA handbook at article 5 places obligations on members to observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play, and to refrain from engaging in any activity which would constitute a breach of sections 1, 2 and 6 the Bribery Act 2010.
The details of the Bribery act can be found here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/2
Basically, I think these rules mean that you cannot criticise belittle or try to damage the reputation of a club outwith the rules of the games and must at all times behave with integrity, in a sporting manner and with THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH!
The details,as released by Charlotte, show that there is at best a conflict of interests at times with various parties being both employed by the club and paid by radio stations or newspapers to comment on matters relating to all aspects of Scottish Football. As a member of the PR staff at Ibrox presumably such employees are paid to tow a certain party line when commenting in the media and so throw a spin on any given set of facts and circumstances that suits whoever is in control of Ibrox.
Further, it has been suggested that certain individuals acting in this way can also represent the views of for example Walter Smith — and so act as their mouthpiece if necessary.
Such practices may be unpleasant and undesirable but not necessarily against the laws of the game. It would just mean that the newspapers and broadcasters concerned cannot be regarded as independent or objective in their comments or views — they are merely towing an employers line. In short they are HMV— His Masters Voice!
Equally, we have seen supposedly independent journalists and editors referred to in such a way that it is clear they are being asked to spin news a certain way for whatever reason — including the suggestion that if they do not comply then some kind of action will be taken which the parties concerned would rather avoid — such as private matters becoming public.
However, of far greater interest is the suggestion that where necessary the newspapers or whoever will be used to spread negative stories about another club, its employees, directors or whoever.
Such a position may well amount to a breach of articles 3.1 and 3,2 of the SPL ( now SPFL rules) and against the principals set out in the SFA handbook.
Both the SFA and the SPL ( SPFL) has a press office and legal officers.
Both grant rights to broadcasters and journalists, and allow members of the press access to their officers and officials.
Both bodies are free to set out what is acceptable conduct on the part of clubs in this area…… and what is not!
Without even alluding to the detail of the Charlotte revelations, or needing to enquire into the details of the Charlotte documents, I would have thought that the governing bodies would be capable of issuing a formal reminder, to all clubs currently playing at any level in Scottish football, of the content of these rules and that any breach of the rules will not be tolerated.
Of course the matter becomes more convoluted if any officers of the SFA or SPL were involved in the employment of any PR companies or agencies on behalf of a member club and engaged in briefing any such agency about what to say when it comes to the affairs of other clubs. Surely you cannot have an executive officer of a governing body who is in any way linked to the employment of an agency which breaks rules on behalf of a member club?
However, few of these people ever appear on the airwaves to answer questions on a personal basis, and very few expose themselves to questions from the public.
However, many of the commentators and journalists named in the Charlotte documents are regulars on the airwaves and could, in theory, be asked whether or not they are no more than “Their master’s voice” as would appear to be the case if the Charlotte documents are in fact genuine.
If the Scottish Footballing Public are to be entrusted with the truth — and why shouldn’t they in this era of open and transparent football governance– then I think they are entitled to enquire direct whether or not the journalists, players, ex players,managers directors, broadcasters and governing body officials believe in articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SPFL rules and article 5 of the SFA handbook?
Oh– and maybe the same people could provide some practical examples of what they would consider to be breaches of these rules and what the appropriate sanctions might be?
Specifically– do the actions mentioned in the Charlotte documents ( if true ) fall within the football rules or not?
Or do the SFA and SPFL just ignore placed press releases and comments?
It would be interesting to know.
Well done to St Johnstone in making it through to the next round. Hopefully they can make it through the next one too.
Hibs on the other hand 😳
I have only been following the TSFM for the last few weeks and have been impressed by the analytical skills displayed by posters. Keep up the good work… Therefore I feel slightly intimidated in posting for the first time and fully expect to get a cyberspace slap and told to…. keep up!!! But who knows
LNS report 28/3/13 Page 7
[18] The Commission also referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the list of preliminary issues which had been before it at the preliminary hearing, to the effect that the SPL was, by its conduct, barred from seeking the imposition of sanctions, or at least of a particular sanction, in the event of a breach or breaches of the Rules being established. For the reasons given at paragraph [53] of our earlier written reasons, we reserved these preliminary issues to be reconsidered, if necessary, at a later stage. Mr Mure informed us, however, that they were no longer to be argued, so we shall say no more about them.
mmmmm….could someone put me right?? This looks as though the SPL had its hands tied from the outset. What does ‘by its conduct’ mean?
Sorry TSFM. Just noticed your “Do Not Feed” post.
That said, I am not a fan of that level of censorship. If gj wants to post, I’m more than happy to correct him.
(although I’ll steer clear of Charlotte’s stuff until I can view the material)
Perhaps you’d prefer that I’d kept to my prog 😉
[Moderation was a WP glitch m’Lord – sorry! But don’t give up on Hatfield & the North]
TSFM
My angle doesn´t suit your blog, I´m a troll ?
Fine, it´s your baw and I´ll leave but I find it ironic that you want the SMSM to be more objective, show less bias etc with a blog that doesn´t even practice what it preaches. This blog is not representative of Scottish football.
Lord Wobbly says:
July 25, 2013 at 10:44 pm
To be fair on TSFM not replying to a troll is not the same as censoring them.
Freedom of expression is important, however it does include freedom to ignore someone expressing themselves.
Re-Chris Graham. I have been an avid reader of Scotland on Sunday for many years, but during the initial Rangers crisis he was handed a column three weeks in succession by S.O.S to peddle his agenda, including the gratuitous mention of how close Stewart Regan and Peter Lawwell were rumoured to be. So I dropped the Sports Editor an e-mail and advised that while he was entitled to run the paper as he saw fit, I was unwilling to continue purchasing it if Chris Graham was allowed to continue such unsubstantiated, unchallenged nonsense. There were no further columns after that, and I suspect that was down to there being many more complainants than myself.
Why the media continue to indulge Chris Graham is completely beyond me.
I was a very nervous man the last 10 minutes of the St Johnstone game, well done and hopefully you can keep it going. Badgerbhoy says it all about the Hibs 😳 I never believed that Hibs could progress, they were lucky to get where they did last year to be honest, sorry Hibs fans.
leavesntrees says:
July 25, 2013 at 10:29 pm
0 0 Rate This
I have only been following the TSFM for the last few weeks and have been impressed by the analytical skills displayed by posters. Keep up the good work… Therefore I feel slightly intimidated in posting for the first time and fully expect to get a cyberspace slap and told to…. keep up!!! But who knows
LNS report 28/3/13 Page 7
[18] The Commission also referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the list of preliminary issues which had been before it at the preliminary hearing, to the effect that the SPL was, by its conduct, barred from seeking the imposition of sanctions, or at least of a particular sanction, in the event of a breach or breaches of the Rules being established. For the reasons given at paragraph [53] of our earlier written reasons, we reserved these preliminary issues to be reconsidered, if necessary, at a later stage. Mr Mure informed us, however, that they were no longer to be argued, so we shall say no more about them.
mmmmm….could someone put me right?? This looks as though the SPL had its hands tied from the outset. What does ‘by its conduct’ mean?
======================================
To be clear, Mr Mure was working jointly on behalf of Old Rangers & Sevco’s Rangers.
Charles Green claimed that the SPL had pressed for an arrangement with [old] Rangers whereby a number of titles should have been forfeited as part of the 5 way agreement. Thus, he claimed, a decision by the commission to strip Oldco of titles could not have been fair, since that outcome appeared to him, to have been pre-judged prior to the commission’s hearing.
Also, it likely to be relevant that Mr Green felt Sevco were coerced into signing over the Rangers prize money from the previous season that they had purchased from D&P.
The fact that Mr Mure had dropped his argument suggests that – by that time – he had knowledge that the one charge that could have led to titles being reassigned would not be pursued.
At least that is my take.
Not commented for a while, but my 2p on some recent posts.
Ecobhoy – I hear what you are saying about the economics of Scottish Football losing the finance associated with the team currently playing at Ibrox. There is a lot of money associated with the club from Govan.
However the question is – at what price?
RFC used their financial (and socio-political) clout to essentially rig the game for years.
Their abuse of the social tax system, dodgy dealings with staff employed by other clubs, placing of hired hands in the administraion of the national game… sorry, the list is genuinely too long to continue with – all of these activities served to completely distort and damage our beautiful game.
The club that committed these crimes against the sport is being liquidated and no longer has any role to play in our sport. Rightly so.
Of course, the vast majority of fans of the old club have seamlessly transferred their loyalty to a new club that looks awfully like the old one.
And that is the problem for me at least.
The new club is showing no sign of changing its mode of operation from the old one.
It starts by demanding to be recognised as the old club. I understand the emotional appeal of this for their fans. However in my mind this also asserts a continuity of identity with the old club that should be accompanied by taking on the burdens of association with a club the lied, cheated and swindled.
I have yet to see any concerted acknowldegement by the new club that past misdeeds were in fact misdeeds or that their is any intention of moving forward with a new purpose to become a club worthy of respect.
Nope. What we have seen has been bluster, bullying and immediate readoption of the WATP mantle.
The people running the club are united by a common feature – everyone of them has a history of dodgy dealings. The obvious characters here include people with long track records of improper financial dealings.
Just as problematic, however, is the continued employment of men liek Smith and McCoist, the so-called upstanding Rangers men. These are guys who were up to their eyes in EBTs, dodgy transfers etc etc.
Have any of them admitted to personal involvement in these issues? Have we heard an apology for the damage wrought upon not only Scottish Football, but also the club the profess to have loved?
If I was a Rangers fan (I am not) I would not be happy until these guys were shown the door and the club was being run by believable, trustworthy people. I would be demanding that the new club make a clear and unambiguous statement declaring a break with past business practises and embracing of financial fair play rules along side a determination to eradicate the unseemly socio-political baggage that dragged the old club so deeply into the mire.
Alas, I don’t think we can point to any of these things happening.
The Govaan club are well supported and have the ability to bring considerable amounts of money into the game. On this I can agree with you.
However, untils such time as they can demonstrate a commitment to move on from the foul behaviour patterns of the previous incarnation, I cannot agree that Scottish Football either needs or is better off with this club and any amount of money that they can bring to the table.
I would gladly settle for a Scottish Football scene that was financially poorer but could reasonably claim to have sporting integrity.
I am sure this will be written off by some as foolish romanticism.
Sure. I don’t watch football for the finances – I love it because of the drama and the potential for glorious victories, agonising defeats, unexpected triumphs and feats of unbelievable skill.
Rangers have and continue to damage all of those things.
Scottish Football needs a strong Raith Rovers (in honour of Turnbull Hutton – one of the few to publicly state the truth).
PS. No offense to Red Litchie – we also need a strong Arbroath
PPS. St Johnstone tonight – one of the great Scottish results in Europe.
greenockjack
GJ, keep up the good work. I think you’re asking sensible questions and trying to make others see where their support for their own team can sometimes blinker their reason and logic.
They might not like it, but they need to listen to you for integrity and neutrality of this site.
Regarding the on-going issues surrounding ‘The Rangers’; What is going to be the eventual outcome?
Serious question.
It is clear that the club is losing money on a weekly basis.
The ‘investors’ who bought the assets have no emotional tie to the club and want a return on their investment. Now have they had a return via the share issue getting both their initial investment back plus a financial bonus plus a large amount of shares?
If this is true it would mean that the money raised will run out sooner rather than later so what will the outcome be? With no access to a credit line the only option is for the investors to raise more cash to keep the club going by having another share issue. This is currently fraught with difficulty as surely audited accounts would have to be published showing the true extent of any debt. Any money coming from the parent company to the club to keep it going may also have a credit charge so the initial investors make yet another return.
Then there is the property. This could be mortgaged or even sold by the parent company to raise capital but if that transpired it would undermine the future sale of the club. Who would buy a football team with no stadium?
When the money runs out, as it surely will, what will happen? Administration 2?
This would be different from the Duffers as any money owed would be to the parent company and perhaps this is the final sting. Would the parent company then sell the club alone with a long term lease on the property? This is my belief and they will then continue to extract money on a regular basis and if so what extent will this have on the ability of the club to function.
There will be no miraculous move to England to enhance the turnover/profitability of the club. The club continues to live out with its means. The club lives in the cash starved environment of Scotland so has no opportunity to increase its turnover. The football authorities have simply kicked the hand grenade down the road hoping that they have passed it by before it explodes.
Meanwhile the UTTT may result in a reversal of the initial decision which could have consequences for previous players and directors alike. If this happens tongues may loosen. CF continues to tantalise and drip feed documents into the public domain. Several people claim to know devastating information but are unwilling to put anything into print. They even seem unwilling to say specifically why they cannot publish. Has a super injunction been obtained?
With regards to the UTTT I’m also confused as to why the liquidators, appointed by HMRC, would continue to appeal this verdict. I believe the appeal has been split into the constituent parts of MIH that were initially billed. It seems a clear conflict of interest for a liquidator to go to court to fight an appeal against the very organisation that had them appointed in the first place. But then again everybody else seems conflicted in this tawdry affair so why not them as well.
Well done St. Johnstone. Delighted for them.
justshatered says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:53 pm
Several people claim to know devastating information but are unwilling to put anything into print. They even seem unwilling to say specifically why they cannot publish. Has a super injunction been obtained?
==========================================
….maybe falling masonry? (with acknowledgement to whoever coined the phrase)
paulsatim says:
July 26, 2013 at 12:02 am
0 0 Rate This
justshatered says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:53 pm
Several people claim to know devastating information but are
unwilling to put anything into print. They even seem
unwilling to say specifically why they cannot publish. Has a
super injunction been obtained?
==========================================
….maybe falling masonry? (with acknowledgement to
whoever coined the phrase)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
😉
It’s that man Imran again!
Allenby Capital acted for internet investment company Jellybrook – owned by Jonathan Rowland, subject of yesterday’s CF revelation.
http://www.investegate.co.uk/article.aspx?id=201106060730018992H
justshatered says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:53 pm
Several people claim to know devastating information but are unwilling to put anything into print. They even seem unwilling to say specifically why they cannot publish. Has a super injunction been obtained?
___________________________________________________________________________________
My information is that there is no injunction of any kind. My sources suggest that the silence is down to fears of how the CtH information was obtained, and the lack of a public interest defence if publication takes place.
I trust my sources implicitly, but I cannot understand how this position is arrived at, because several weeks ago, they were made aware, as we were, of how the information was allegedly obtained. Additionally, a public interest defence is a subjective thing (I believe) which needs to be tested in a court. As far as I know, nothing of the kind has happened. Therefore it seems to us that the thing only boils down to whether or not the CtH info is authentic, or ……
Let me pose some theoretical questions and seek the assistance of our legal team….
If a person was to by chance, and due to the negligence of the original owner, come into possession of a package, or more specifically found sources of information which provided evidence of criminal or civil wrongdoing, does the original owner still have a valid expectation that the documents should remain confidential – or is the publication of such material legitimate?
If the original package included a key which opened up a locker containing further information, is the finder in breach of any criminal statute if (s)he uses that key to obtain the extra material?
For example, if I had written a letter to someone which contained evidence I had robbed a bank and the letter was delivered to the wrong person who immediately reported my crime, could I really sue the person who received the letter for a breach of confidentiality?
I could see the point of that if someone had stolen the letter from me, but that is not the question I posed.
Comments?
ptd1978 says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:50 pm
2 8 Rate This
greenockjack
GJ, keep up the good work. I think you’re asking sensible
questions and trying to make others see where their support
for their own team can sometimes blinker their reason and
logic.
They might not like it, but they need to listen to you for
integrity and neutrality of this site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Funnily enough, blinkered animosity towards a perceived rival can do exactly the same.
Finloch says:
July 25, 2013 at 9:04 pm
‘…..The Drum is just returning a favour for a mate at Mafia House.’….
—-
Thank you, Finloch.
I love this blog!
There’s aye somebody who knows the ins and outs of the connections between shysters and truth distorters.
Who would now believe a word of what ‘The Drum’ has to say about anything?
Just how deeply insidious is the influence of individuals who seemingly can control newspapers and ‘professional’ journals?
What are we up against here?
I wanted to leave a question on The Drum article but Comments are disabled.
Seems a bit vague: “Police” and “a Police spokesman”.
Would that be “Police Scotland” or some other force? Or just more spin?
TSFM says:
July 26, 2013 at 12:43 am
The following legal opinion rests on the scenario as you have presented it. To the extent that the facts are not consistent with this, legal opinion may differ;
The unintended person who received the information has no fiduciary duty to keep anything private and arguably has a legal duty to report the crime, such that if he didn’t report it, he could be liable for the consequences that flow from the criminal/illegal behavior of which he now has knowledge.
Also, it is a foreseeable consequence that when one parts with a package through delivery, mail, email etc, the package/information will wind up in the hands of an unintended recipient who will disclose or have an obligation to thereafter disclose the contents.
Keep the torch burning – “seek truth”
LW
Funnily enough, blinkered animosity towards a perceived rival can do exactly the same.
—————————-
Irony stii alive and well, Wobbly 😀
TSFM says:
July 26, 2013 at 12:43 am
———————————————————————————————————
Thanks TSFM. Great analogies that even a dunderheid like me can understand!
There seems to be ‘grey areas’ here, and we all know that some in this country just love ‘grey areas’ as an excuse for inaction when it suits. Especially the SMSM!
gedinte says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:45 am
===========================
Happy to leave the legal stuff to those who know.
I don’t think there can be any doubt the damage Charlotte has done to the media though, at least the print media. Those who are deemed to have sent the e-mails have never denied they are genuine, but have only made steps to prevent them being reported on the Internet. It is the potential for how much those people were actually controlling the print media that has caused the most damage. When we read of strategies re-negative stories about other clubs we can be in no doubt only one club was the target. I suppose we can have no issue with PR companies being employed to boost the image of their customer, but to also set out to damage the name of a main rival who has done nothing wrong is shameful.
For those on here who claim Celtic are not whiter than white it’s worth pointing out the following:
1. Celtic did not operate a widespread tax avoidance scheme which on appeal may show to have cost the public purse upwards of £50M
2. Celtic did not deliberately withhold their social taxes and national insurance contributions.
3. Celtic have not left a raft of creditors millions of pounds out of pocket.
4. The validity of Celtic’s licence’s to play in Europe are beyond doubt.
5. No evidence has been shown that Celtic were employing a PR firm which sought to discredit Rangers.
Those five points are facts, not opinions. If anyone has any evidence to counter point 5, then they should show it, but saying ‘they’re aw at it’ is not evidence. Personally I find it incredible that anyone should try and implicate Celtic in any of this mess.
Murray,Whyte,Green,The mainstream media,the Scottish football authorities,politicians etc etc.
I used to think my old dad was paranoid when he used to say,”you have to win by a knockout when you’re fighting these people”. I know now what he meant.Power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
gedinte says:
July 26, 2013 at 4:45 am
The following legal opinion rests on the scenario as you have presented it. To the extent that the facts are not consistent with this, legal opinion may differ;
The unintended person who received the information has no fiduciary duty to keep anything private and arguably has a legal duty to report the crime, such that if he didn’t report it, he could be liable for the consequences that flow from the criminal/illegal behavior of which he now has knowledge.
___________________________________________________________________________________
The primary reason given for non-publication of Charlotte by the MSM is that they suspect the material has been hacked. Charlotte denies this, but from what you say above, do the MSM people who believe the material to have been obtained unlawfully not have a duty to report it to the Police?
If so, maybe one of them has. Perhaps that is why the Police are now reportedly investigating Charlotte. Maybe someone in the MSM saw this as a possible way to breach the dam and get the material out by clearing CtH?
There are of course many ways for journalists to get to a story, that is assuming they want to…
There is information out there in the public domain – OK how it got into the public domain remains unclear but the fact that Charlotte’s twitter feed has over 10,000 followers directly and sites such as this one have disseminated the emails and documents to an even wider audience means that this infomation is out there. And even if you don’t want to run with uncorroborated information, you just go and ask one of the emailers or emailees was this mail genuine? Did you send or receive it? If there’s a response either way you can run the story and even if there’s a no comment, that can be reported on.
I am reminded of the famous David Mellor/Antonia de Sancha “Chelsea strip” story – a fabricated embellishment that it was impossible to comment on without leaving yourself open to further questions. So if you weren’t wearing a Chelsea strip Mr Mellor what were you wearing when you had s€x with the actress that wasn’t your wife? It’s up there with “when did you stop beating your wife?”
The fact that no journalist – including, sadly, the likes of Tomo – has bothered to take this on, says to me that they don’t want to. This is, IMO, a more important story than who David Mellor shagged. 🙁 :slamb: 🙁
On the subject of unintended recipients of letters – isn’t it an offence to open a letter not addressed to you? Would the same law apply to emails or has there been an updated law passed?
Jockyboy, I hope you’re wrong. The optimist in me hopes that Tomo and others are quietly logging all the info and are awaiting some missing pieces to emerge, from Charlotte or other to then ‘go to print’ so to speak. On a related matter, I have read loads about juicy new contracts for the Sevco puppets in the admin machinery, but I have yet to read who at the SFL/SPL will lose their jobs as a result of the merger. This may be significant as I would wager all playoffs will be generous and conditional on a gagging order, we all know how dangerous whistle blowers can be ;).
If the SFA are in receipt of public money, would the five way agreement and other nuggets of information be available through FOI?
helpmaboab says @ 7.58
…and the boxer Henry Cooper reckoned that, to get a points win in Italy, he had to knock his opponent out!
upthehoops says:
July 26, 2013 at 7:43 am
(SNIP)
When we read of strategies re-negative stories about other clubs we can be in no doubt only one club was the target.
(SNIP)
——————————————
really?
What about placing stories in the media to unsettle players – rumours of other interested parties, player being unhappy with contract, dropping stories of potential interest from Rangers in signing the player on a bosman – essentially tapping up other teams players. Placing stories of Rangers interest in a player – thus forcing the price up for other interested parties
Pretty sure many clubs will feel wronged by rangers “hunting” of their players
jockybhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:52 am
On the subject of unintended recipients of letters – isn’t it an offence to open a letter not addressed to you? Would the same law apply to emails or has there been an updated law passed?
=======================================================================
I know this might sound strange but the duty of Royal Mail is to deliver all mail to an address and not to a named recipient. Obviously misdeliveries take place and these are often opened in error because the ‘wrongful’ recipient thinks it’s for them so there isn’t any intention of doing anything dishonest in opening the letter.
Wrt emails I have often wondered whether the clauses tacked on to the end threatening fire and brimstone should your eyes even inadvertantly glimpse the contents can actually bind a third-party who receives it accidentally often through the negligence of the sending party.
If so has it been tested in court and is there a defence if no financial gain was sought and what part would a public interest defence play.
I mentioned a few days ago the possibility of widening this story by using media trade mags and The Drum has done just that. Perhaps where we should now be heading is to all the civil liberties groups asking them to propagate the basic issues of the CF material – not in any detail about the rights and wrongs of the Rangers case – but in defence of our right to know as a society when Football Authorities, the Media including PR companies, and professionals from many different professions appear to be up to their neck in actively preventing Free Speech.
It could also start a support mechanism if CF were to be dragged in chains before a court – however, much like Labour’s Falkirk affair I believe that wiser counsel will prevail and someone will whisper the erudite words in the ear of the Police Scotland Boss: ‘Whitraf*ckdyaedthinkyirplayinit?’
There is no way can they allow this to get into the public domain through a court case. It’s really fascinating how the USA can’t keep Snowden out of the news but here in our wee Scotland we have no difficulty in keeping people in the dark – what an indictment on our country.
I really am thinking a precis of the important Freedom of Speech and Civil Liberties issues involved here sent to every single interested group and MP will see a surge in exposure and add to an irresistible demand for action and publication.
TSFM – if in USA (I assume CF is not in Ecosse), the law is that if I get a letter in my mail box and is addressed to my neighbor, if I open it then it is a federal offence. Even in UK it is not legal to do so….however I agree with you that it is not Jack asking the police but someone wanting to use the information and having the police perhaps confirm the source for them first………
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?120214-Received-a-letter-our-address-but-someone-else-s-name
“as confirmed in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
It is an offence to open, destroy, hide or delay any post that is addressed to someone else.
Post cannot be opened if it is to the addressee’s detriment and without reasonable excuse.
Reasonable excuse is not defined by the Act.
An example of a potential conflict is if a landlord opens a previous tenant’s post in order to trace them.
Post cannot be opened if someone knows or reasonably suspects the post has been incorrectly delivered.
It is also an offence to divert someone’s post in order to intentionally delay them from receiving it. An example of this could be where a person re-posts documents or cheques to delay the addressee from acting upon them.”
Why were old rangers using the media to aid them, what where they scared of?
Why are Sevco using the media, what are they scare of, surely there is nothing to fear after death? Surely you cannot die twice?
You cannot help but believe all CF contributions are true for the simple reason that the SMSM are more than happy to help sevco in any way they can as with the former Govan club.
Time for a change and I look forward to the day when I will purchase a newspaper again, (may be a while) but I can wait.
jockybhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 9:52 am
There are of course many ways for journalists to get to a story, that is assuming they want to…
There is information out there in the public domain – OK how it got into the public domain remains unclear but the fact that Charlotte’s twitter feed has over 10,000 followers directly and sites such as this one have disseminated the emails and documents to an even wider audience means that this infomation is out there. And even if you don’t want to run with uncorroborated information, you just go and ask one of the emailers or emailees was this mail genuine? Did you send or receive it? If there’s a response either way you can run the story and even if there’s a no comment, that can be reported on.
============================================================
There are a million ways of skinning a cat and of course a good journo knows every one and a few more as well 😉
It can be done by not using the CF documents but just the knowledge gained – take the SPL debacle from October 2011 on. All that requires to be asked of Doncaster is why certain decisions were taken by a journo who isn’t dependeny on crawling to the Football Establishment for a story.
What does Doncaster do: No comment, tell the truth or lie but knowing all the time that if he lies there is the CF material. I would think if he lied then it becomes a matter of Public Interest to use the CF material in view of the position he holds within Scottish Football.
It’s just so simple – and if the CF ‘card’ is played then Doncaster can simply be asked whether the documents are genuine representations of SPL minutes and documents – what does he do? Refuse to answer.
I don’t think provenance is any longer an issue with CF and if it is how it was obtained then obviously that has a tipping-point as to when public interest takes precedence and IMO we have passed that point some time ago.
Slight change of tack for a minute. An interesting post about the effect, or non-effect, of the silent, stay-away type of football protest. It’s obviously by a slightly dejected Hibs fan the morning after, but he makes a good argument for action in order to bring about change. It’s a subject that surfaces here from tme to time, usually regarding the SFA and other bodies.
“… I have often wondered why the fans accept all of this. The fanbase of a football club can make a difference for the better. In numerous continental leagues, I have seen supporters coming to action when their club was going the wrong way. This action does not necessarily mean violence (which I endorse in no way). Chants and banners, as well as statements of a supporters association, can influence the media to put the pressure on people that fail to perform, which more often than not leads to their departure. Surely, angry crowds aren’t always right. Yet, there would have been few continental European clubs in which Petrie would have been allowed to remain working at the club. And in this occasion, few people would have doubted that the angry crowd was wrong to turn against him. Perhaps it is the situation with the Old Firm, which have a bad name because of the action of their supporters, that has made Scottish football fans come to associate to active supporters with Old Firm troublemakers? Other than that, I cannot understand why they act as sheep that let their club go to ruins.
… Hibernian fans in the last couple of years have stated on many occasions “that they protest by staying away”. Leaving their seat empty they regarded as the best way to show they disagree. Surely it is not. The media does not pick it up, and Petrie bluntly states on the website that if those people do not come back he cannot buy new players, thus putting the responsibility for the club’s demise at the (very) silent “protesters”.”
The complete, rather lengthy post is here (first one on the page by Cruoninga):
http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/204164-what-is-wrong-with-hibernian-fc/#entry7561256
Exiled Celt says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:27 am
=================================================
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is the law governing the use of covert techniques by public authorities. It requires that when public authorities, such as the police or government departments, need to use covert techniques to obtain private information about someone, they do it in a way that is necessary, proportionate, and compatible with human rights.
This doesn’t afaik apply to the CF situation.
The Act which certainly used to apply, although it might have been consolidated in a new one, was: Post Office Act 1953 and Sections 52 – 56 are possibly most applicable. However that isn’t how CF got the material so a bit academic.
As I stated earlier: The duty of the Royal Mail is to deliver to the address on the envelope and not to any named individual at that address. Even ‘Signed For’ mail doesn’t need to be signed by the named recipient but can be signed by any adult present in the household when the item is delivered.
If a new entity can claim ownership of the 140 history of a another entity, then is it not the case that CF is just maintaining the princple that if you say you now have in your possession certain historical information, certificates, awards etc then the new ownership cannot and should not be challenged 🙂
greenockjack says:
July 25, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Slim,
Without getting into that old debate, I´ll say one thing.
When the two clubs come to play a football match again, those in positions of power at your own club will disagree with your present stance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apologies for the diversion but I read the above exchange this morning following a completely unrelated conversation last night that I thought I would share. I was speaking to an agricultural friend who had been to see his lawyer who he also regarded as a friend. The lawyer pointed to a cartoon on his office pin board and said he’d put it there just for my friend coming in. The cartoon had two farmers fighting over a cow. One has the cow by the horns pulling for all he worth. The other has the cow by the tail, pulling for all he is worth. Meanwhile the bloated lawyer sits underneath, milking for all he is worth!
I just can’t quite put my finger on the connection between the two events though 😀
Anyhow, back to getting CF onto Jackie Bird’s desk. Keep up the good work all.
Smugas
Anyhow, back to getting CF onto Jackie Bird’s desk.
———————————
😯
That does sound like something the BBC will frown upon.
I know there are a lot of supporters of Scottish teams, who never want to see The Rangers (in any guise) back in the SPL (whatever its guise). I know there are a lot of fans of Scottish football teams who wish the very worst of ill will, upon The Rangers, and those fans have their own personal reasons for harbouring such intense sentiments. That is their prerogative and beyond judgement before considered reflection. I can’t speak for any of those who hold that, or a diametrical, view-point, I can only speak for myself and before I continue I’d like to nail my colours unequivocally to the mast… I am a Celtic Supporter who (with caveats) would like to see a Rangers team competing at the highest level in a principled league where individual glory comes at the cost of equality for all.
We are all aware of the misdeeds of the club formally known as Rangers. There is no point in repeating them ad nauseam. It is purely academic whether it was deliberately twinned with their misdeeds, whether it was a calculated, defiant and contemptuous shield to deflect criticism of their misdeeds, or whether it was just a by-product of their moral and ethical famine, whichever, but somebody spawned, then fostered, what appears now to be an ineradicable ideology of ‘cultural’ entitlement; which along with their history appears to have been bequeathed from the liquidated club to its successor. This hubris is best exemplified in the much vaunted mantras of: “WATP” and, “nobody likes us we don’t care”. Such boasts are viewed by many as collective character traits of a support that shuns social responsibility and is a stranger to remorse; a support that translates saying, “We’re sorry,” as either a sign of weakness at best, and/or an unconditional surrender at worst; in short, to apologise is to admit guilt. (Now somewhere in my memory I’m sure I heard an apology from both Ally McCoist (post Lord Nimmo Smith finding Rangers (In Liquidation) Guilty, and Malcolm Murray pre The Rangers (In Limbo) being granted a licence to play, though I’m sure, from memory, neither was devoid of equivocation or deflection. I’ve yet to hear a single Rangers, or The Rangers, supporter admit to wrong-doing instead citing dubious tribunal decisions as vindication of their behaviour. Such disdain for apt contrition should be stigmatised to the hilt, but ne’r a word of reproach is written or heard.
From several conversations, this attitude of arrogant righteousness, as opposed sincere humility, and the collective refusal on the part of Rangers (IL)/The Rangers to accept culpability and accountability, is seen by many as the highest barrier to forgiveness and reconciliation. For me this apparent intransigence is a response to cowardly governance and unfathomable manipulation of the rules by the SFA as evidenced by transferring the licence to play, from a club in liquidation to an unqualified new club, the ramifications of which will resonate with discord and dismay for decades, if not generations, to come.
Some accused Rangers (IL), and now accuse The Rangers, of indulging bellicose superiority as part of their clubs fabric and offer this as an obstacle to their inclusion. Whether true or false, no matter how concerning it may be to some, a physiognomy resembling regimented and agitated skinheads is not against any rules and hence it is not a valid stick with which to beat them. Others accused them of being xenophobic and I do have empathy with that particular assessment but I’d rather not counter their brand of xenophobia with mine own, lest one becomes the grosser manifestation of that that he despises. Rangers, in either guise, only got away with what they were – allowed to get away with – and it should never be forgotten which authority sanctioned it and who held office at the times, to be distracted by irrelevances is to do your core values a disservice. Those who have used and abused you the most have done so with a blazar for skin and Machiavellian craft over pugnacious bullying.
To my mind, only one club in Scotland, one house, comes out of this on-going debacle with their honour intact and that is the one SFL club that voted that The Rangers should’ve been banished to the juniors, to begin again to earn the right to play in the top leagues. Now if that had happened, I would have watched with interest, and a degree of anticipation, the progression of The Rangers through the leagues (still with the caveats in place though). However, it did not happen, and The Rangers cannot be held accountable for their extreme, and inexplicable, good fortune. With the decision to grant The Rangers a licence the word integrity was torn from the SFA’s charter and replaced with tolerance; albeit a delinquent tolerance of the delinquent. Further, and most disturbing of all, the SFA, and other authorities, and I include the Scottish media en masse in this, have endorsed the guile of deceit as a means to a celebrated, and historical, end. That is what I find most repugnant – the authorities, with their actions, their inactions, their fear and their prejudices, have consciously promoted the concept of win at all costs and damn morals and ethics. Cheats will prosper and cheating will be rewarded – what a lesson for our children to absorb, digests, and indulge. What are we teaching our children? What are we allowing our children to be taught? The future social services will be most burdened by what has been sanctioned.
Subsequent to the above, The Rangers were born again having divested a bundle of social and private debt. They have now, whilst contesting the third tier of football in Scotland, amassed the second biggest, and second most expensive, squad in Scotland, at a huge monetary cost. Whilst doing so, and enjoying their gifted status, impoverished creditors of Rangers (IL) watch on with dropped jaw dismay as the anorexic settlement fund is further diluted because Rangers (IL) continue to fund futile, on-going legal, and liquidation, objections and obligations.
Until they find the courage to appropriately redress their shames, I find my empathy for their plight evaporating; however, I never discount the axiom that Rangers (IL), and The Rangers now, both unfairly profited, and profit, by the accommodation of authority and the indulgent silences of purportedly – good men of offices the length and breadth of the country. My caveat to Rangers being forgiven, and reconciled, is that they desist with their leveraged march to glory until they pay – in full – all outstanding private debts owed by Rangers (IL). As for the social debts, well those they’ll never be able to redress but a wee acknowledgement and a sincere and humble apology would go a long way to future social harmony. It might even cost them a few titles being stripped from their history but I personally don’t give a toss for that anymore.
I apologise if I have not articulated my feelings coherently in this post, but I sense that a lot of anger and angst is being misdirected; that is of course just my perception and my opinion. To my mind, it is not Rangers and their distressed fans – solely – who are the biggest defamers of the Scottish game, it is instead the SFA and the malleable media who have shamed Scottish football the worst and who are responsible the most for all the mistrust and pessimism that permeates and torments the national sporting psyche. I appreciate that others may not share my views.
Quote from Kitalba: The Rangers cannot be held accountable for their extreme, and inexplicable, good fortune.
You kidding? Just by magic the SFA/SPL/SFL etc (all staffed/headed by ex RFC men) just ‘happened’ to grease the wheels of fortune. You are seriously suggesting that RFC (deceased) were passive in this and not actively touting for a more lucrative league? I was Black Bishop on RTC blog but someone beat me to it for that name here so I didn’t sign up. But I pop in from time to time and your post took my breath away. So much so that I actually registered.
I respect your right to your views. And your right to post it. But I am flabbergasted at the delusional nature of your post. The subtext seems to be you cannot blame the fans. Of course you can. The RFC fans bought the fairytale from every dodgy owner they had: Murray, Whyte and Green. And they are continuing to do so. For example, I cannot believe Chris Graham’s focus on CFC considering the dire straights his new club are in. They don’t want to know the nitty gritty, another ‘saviour’ will be along to redeem them when the next chancer departs. They are still locked in a cycle of Old Firm blame and deflect – which was par for the course in the old days. Newsflash Chris et al: the old days are gone. RFC are no more. Liquidated. Fight for your new club. Fight to make sure it survives. Fight to ensure financial probity by producing the overdue accounts. Don’t waste your time fighting old, imaginary rivalries. The Old Firm is as dead as RFC. It takes two and one of them is no more.
HirsutePursuit says:
July 25, 2013 at 11:01 pm
To be clear, Mr Mure was working jointly on behalf of Old Rangers & Sevco’s Rangers.
Charles Green claimed that the SPL had pressed for an arrangement with [old] Rangers whereby a number of titles should have been forfeited as part of the 5 way agreement. Thus, he claimed, a decision by the commission to strip Oldco of titles could not have been fair, since that outcome appeared to him, to have been pre-judged prior to the commission’s hearing.
Also, it likely to be relevant that Mr Green felt Sevco were coerced into signing over the Rangers prize money from the previous season that they had purchased from D&P.
The fact that Mr Mure had dropped his argument suggests that – by that time – he had knowledge that the one charge that could have led to titles being reassigned would not be pursued.
At least that is my take.
============================================================================
Thanks …..eyes now open. 😳
Hearts: Lithuanian court declares parent company UBIG insolvent
http://bbc.in/13hSIXu
Spivco:
Campbell Ogilvie was re-elected the president of the SFA, how many clubs in Scotland, acutely aware of their individual fans reservations, actually made an effort to stop this from happening?
Rangers do not run Scottish football though quite a few Rangers supporters hold office of sway. No obvious effort is made to restrict this apparent imbalance. That is not the fault of Rangers.
Regards the fans…You allude to a sub-text that I never considered or tried to convey.
Also, I never once referred to the Old Firm; I didn’t acknowledge it prior to Rangers going bust and I don’t acknowledge it now.
kitalba says:
July 26, 2013 at 11:43 am
======================================================
A lot you have said I wouldn’t disagree with. However I wonder if you could more fully explain the comment: ‘ Rangers (IL) continue to fund futile, on-going legal, and liquidation, objections and obligations’ unless the comment only refers to the fairly understandable attitude of most creditors although possibly that wouldn’t include HMRC.
ecobhoy
Rightly or wrongly I was of the impression that the cost of liquidation will come out of the kitty and if Rangers (IL) if they contest and or appeal any HMRC appeal decision, then that too will come out of the kitty. I’m happy to be corrected on that.
Auldheid says:
July 25, 2013 at 5:59 pm
“With the radio phone in season about to befall us perhaps it raises an opportunity to get CharlotteFakeovers name and material into wider public consciousness via the airwaves.”
————————–
I think your suggestion on how to structure a call to a football phone in has much merit. I would offer a possible additional strategy. Don’t mention CharlotteFakes at all. Say something like “a friend of mine has been involved in some internet research and…”. Then choose your topic. Perhaps and even broader speculative approach could be adopted as a supplementary question. ‘What if’ scenario’s. What if Rangers(IL) EUFA licence criteria was suspect, could the panel suggest how the SFA should deal with the matter? Or. How would the panel feel if it was revealed that a PR form had been placing negative stories about another club. The possibilities are endless and the potential fun limitless. It’d be like writing up your Christmas list for Santa. I can feel the panelists squirm just at the thought of it.
As you say Auldheid, even the ridicule of potential sources becomes a story. No publicity is bad publicity.
ecobhoy says:
July 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“The big problem I find with some posters is a conflation with what they want to be the case and what actually happens and the LNS Decision has proven to be a classic of that genre. ”
————————-
I think this is a persuasive interpretation but I’m not sure it captures the full intent. People can have a lucky guess. The more you investigate a subject then the less guesswork is necessary and the more educated your opinion becomes. However I don’t think this is a linear function whereby you get closer and closer to the truth the deeper you get into the wood. Sometimes stepping back provides a good perspective of what is under examination.
Jim may have reacted emotionally to your analysis but I think this is as valid a response as taking a detailed forensically analysed point of view. It may be less likely to hit the mark but human beings have a range of innate senses that help them divine information even when the fine detail eludes them. Sometimes you just know something is wrong though you may have difficulty in expressing your reasons in words. Just because you can’t explain your feelings doesn’t mean you don’t have feelings.
So though I felt Jim was rather intemperate I think he was reacting using the information he had already absorbed. Just because someone else has absorbed more information doesn’t give them the right to assume superiority in an argument. If that were the case the world would be run by academics.
Bus Wars – Aberdeen raise the standard
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3331579#.UfJZvgQif2E.twitter
ABERDEEN FC players will be travelling executive class when they go to away games in the new season.
Their new £375,000 14-metre Elite coach, supplied by North-east firm Central Coaches, is top-of-the-range.
It has been converted to meet the needs of the players, who are among the most travelled of the SPFL clubs.
The coach contains 37 aircraft-style leather seats and seven tables.
kitalba says:
July 26, 2013 at 12:53 pm
ecobhoy
Rightly or wrongly I was of the impression that the cost of liquidation will come out of the kitty and if Rangers (IL) if they contest and or appeal any HMRC appeal decision, then that too will come out of the kitty. I’m happy to be corrected on that.
======================================================================
I think you are right that liquidation costs will be met from any assets held or recoverable although I don’t know that an HMRC preferred Liquidator would be legally able to appeal against an HMRC UTT award if successful. But it raises a possibly tricky question that if the HMRC fail at the UTT and appeal to the Supreme Court can Rangers (IL) accept defeat and if they did so doesn’t that destroy any legal basis for HMRC to claim they had won their ‘test case?’.
I have forgotten what’s in the kitty anyway and it may be if BDO aren’t successful in recoveries that creditors won’t get anything back anyway or, at best, a few pennies in the £.
But I suppose it was more your use of the word ‘futile’ I wondered about as this is one of these situations IMO where is is difficult to anticipate what the end results of a forensic investigation by BDO might be able to recover especially as I have little faith in the administration process followed by D&P.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 26, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Bus Wars – Aberdeen raise the standard
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3331579#.UfJZvgQif2E.twitter
ABERDEEN FC players will be travelling executive class when they go to away games in the new season. Their new £375,000 14-metre Elite coach, supplied by North-east firm Central Coaches, is top-of-the-range.
It has been converted to meet the needs of the players, who are among the most travelled of the SPFL clubs. The coach contains 37 aircraft-style leather seats and seven tables.
==============================================================
I assume it will also have an integral sprinkler system. Obviously Aberdeen FC have a lot to learn in the World Record stakes by not realising you have to add leasing/interest charges to the actual cost price to have a £500K + coach.
And I can see a lot of controversy over whether Aberdeen hold the ‘Most Travelled’ record :slamb:
Forgive my ignorance but would an appeal against a UUT decision not be made to the Court of Session for a Scottish case, and any subsequent appeal made to the Supreme Court.
Phil Mac tweeted a link to this via twitter. Finally, the CF taboo subject mentioned!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jul/26/data-protection-rangers?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/jul/26/data-protection-rangers?
Perhaps a slither of light begining to shine in the media about this ugly shambles. I wonder what problem’s Charlotte is having with posting thing’s just now, I know many still don’t trust completely, but the establishment has her firmly in there sights. I only wish her luck and hope she exposes them all.
I’m pleased that the CF story is now in the UK mainstream.
When Roy Greenslade writes about a media issue it IS mainstream.
The Scottish media can now start to write around the subject-I certainly will.
Phil what sort of tactics will we see the Police employ over this matter? And if as expected Charlotte is oversea’s will this allow a full investigation?
Castofthousands says:
July 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm
===============================================
If any poster has a problem with anything I have stated and doesn’t wish to discuss it publicly then I am quite happy to do so through PM and I won’t call on the services of a PR agent.
I attempt not to personalise issues although being labelled a troublemaker or similar, a troll, and – God Forbid – Jabba in disguise stretches my patience and good nature somewhat.
You have made an assumption and publicised that a non-personalised statement by me applies to another poster. That is up to you but I’m sure you don’t really expect me to respond. Just for the record I referred not to an individual but to ‘posters’.
As to posters being emotional in their posts well I know of few football fans who aren’t emotional about their sport so I have no problems with a fact-based argument being delivered with emotion.
As to your remark: ‘Just because someone else has absorbed more information doesn’t give them the right to assume superiority in an argument.’
I trust that is not aimed at myself as one thing that life has taught me is that as soon as you know ‘absolutely’ that you are right and everyone else is wrong then you usually get a BIG surprise 😮
I would suggest that there are much more important things to be discussed here and achieved than whatever is bugging you on this issue. In fact isn’t this the second time you have raised it?
Guardian piece strikes me as classic two-can-play-at-that-game, with the perverse irony being that it leans heavily on the much criticised Drum piece discussed earlier. Too many insiders, former colleagues, unnamed spokesmen and in-the-know individuals for my liking
We can safely assume this one is not a JI plant however purely by the failure to describe Craig Whyte as “Disgraced” former owner.
TSFM says:
July 26, 2013 at 12:43 am
“If a person was to by chance, and due to the negligence of the original owner, come into possession of a package, or more specifically found sources of information which provided evidence of criminal or civil wrongdoing, does the original owner still have a valid expectation that the documents should remain confidential – or is the publication of such material legitimate?”
—————————–
Not a legal but always willing do indulge in potentially informative speculation.
I think the metaphor is useful in making accessible parallels between the new fangled and untested internet law and the law we have become familiar with over decades. However I think focussing in on certain elements might be advantageous.
If, as very strongly suspected, Charlotte the Hero commandeered CW’s e:mail address then there are at least two ways this could have come about.
1. CW didn’t pay his bill on time and left himself vulnerable.
2. CW discarded the e:mail address but failed to advise his colleagues.
I am minded to go for option 1. newtz has already provided a detailed methodology were an e:mail addressed that was on the verge of lapsing could be commandeered using available internet tools. If this were the scenario then it is not quite the same as having a package arrive at the wrong address. It might be more like taking up residence in a new dwelling and receiving the previous occupants mail. The previous occupant has left themselves vulnerable by not taking steps to prevent this eventuality but from a gut feeling point of view, it is a bit disingenious for the new occupant to open their mail.
Having said that, in a criminal proceeding findings need to be beyond reasonable doubt. I have received mail in the past and opened it only to realise it was in fact addressed to my neighbour. So there might be all sorts of arguments employed that might make it difficult to prove criminality. Not impossible but fraught with problems.
If, as I suspect, Charlotte did make an intentional grab for CW’s e:mail address, then the accidental element is less convincing. I think the parallel might be more with an investigative journalist sting or a police operation. There is a prior suspicion that some kind of illegality is taking place. So the investigator devises a method whereby they might aquire incriminating information. I think the judgement would be that the information obtained would need to be of sufficient significance to justify the methods used in obtaining it. The only way to determine whether the public interest threshold had been reached would be to test the case in court.
I think the principle employed by the law would be that any new ‘unioverse’ would be judged in a similar fashion to the existing one. I had reason to do a bit of legal reading concerning e:mail privacy at work and the parallel of what conventions applied with respect to telephone usage were adopted. A whole new raft of laws will not be written to take account of the new internet uiverse, instead existing laws will be used as a basis for making these novel judgements. That is why the parcel analogy is useful though not a tight fit.
Someone has to be willing to put their neck on the line and risk legal action to test whether the public interest is viable with respect to Charlotte. Its not clear whether the current silence is due to sound legal opinion; the danger of falling masonry as the establishment crumbles; or just a bit of old fashioned human cowardice.
One thing for sure that is for every 99 cowards there is at least one hero. You just need one media outlet to back the outsider knowing that if it wins then there are big rewards. History is full of individuals who felt their actions heroic but bit the dust in ignominy in an attempt at vainglory. Howevere heroes live long in the memory and there is within any tribe that genetic disposition to take the ultimate risk.
Death or Glory.
@smugas
Yes you can.
Some of the speculation on here about the Drum piece on CF was risible.
JI had no hand act or part in the creation of that piece.
However, I can’t be more forthcoming than that, so don’t ask me.
Tif Finn says:
July 26, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Forgive my ignorance but would an appeal against a UUT decision not be made to the Court of Session for a Scottish case, and any subsequent appeal made to the Supreme Court.
=======================================================================
You may well be correct but I thought that as HMRC wasn’t a devolved department then appeals from a UTT would go straight to the Supreme Court. If anyone knows the answer they will probably let us know.
@smugas
I spoke with the unnamed insider a few minutes ago.
He is very real.
You either believe Roy Greenslade’s copy or you don’t.
He does have a rather solid reputation for veracity does the professor.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm
@smugas
Some of the speculation on here about the Drum piece on CF was risible. JI had no hand act or part in the creation of that piece.
=====================================================================
I argued yesterday that it didn’t suit JI for the story to run because he loses control and if it ended in court, which I doubt, then the info becomes privileged at least to a qualified extent. All his activities would have been to stop publication not through anything to do with Rangers but because of the threat and damage posed to his own interests.
I also pointed out that often an enterprising journo will ‘engineer’ a police investigation as the way to run a story which they otherwise have difficulties in breaking.
Ecobhoy:
I think circa 5.5 million was the kitty for Rangers creditors. I believe Duff and Phelps were paid circa 2.7 million for six months administration. I don’t think this was deducted from the 5.5 million. Duff and Phelps handed over to BDO on the 31st October 2012. I have no idea what their charge out rate will be but they have now been on the job for nine full months.
Spivco:
You took part of a sentence and para-quoted me as such:
” The Rangers cannot be held accountable for their extreme, and inexplicable, good fortune.”
To put the para-quote into context the preceding, and following sentences, – in full – should be considered. I wrote:
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
July 26, 2013 at 10:20 am
============================
I take your point. I was referring to the material Charlotte released which alleges Rangers PR were actively encouraging sections of the media to dish the dirt on Celtic.
It is a good point you make and I do recall in the days of the unlimited Bank of Scotland overdraft every time a player made a name for himself it was not long until Rangers were being linked with him in the media. Having said that I take my hat off to the likes of Jim McLean, who refused to be bullied by Murray and his media pals and extracted £4M for Duncan Ferguson. On the flip side what did it matter to Murray? It was the Bank’s money and it would never have to be repaid.
Turning up the heat
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 35m
@GreensladeR Happy to discuss the acquisition of the data. Drop me a line. Pity @IsabelOakeshott is more loyal to Jack than truth #PoorVicky
ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:23 pm
I was just taking it to be a jurisdictional thing rather than whether or not the tax was a devolved issue. As the Court of Session is the appelate Court for civil matters in Scotland I thought that it would go there from the UTT, whichever party loses.
Like you say I’m sure someone will clear it up.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/234176-rangers-unable-to-field-four-signings-as-trialists-before-end-of-embargo/
Rangers will not be able field a number of summer signings as trialists ahead of their registration embargo being lifted on September 1.
Manager Ally McCoist has confirmed that Arnold Peralta, Steven Smith and Richard Foster will all have to wait to make a competitive appearance for their new club.
The three have been recruited on free transfers but as their last clubs were all based outside of Scotland, the Scottish FA are not able to request international clearance for them to feature as trialists.
Rangers will have to wait until either a prospective Ramsdens Cup quarter-final on September 7 or the Second Division game with Arbroath at Ibrox on September 14 to field any of the three, by which point they will be registered players.
Nicky Law, Cammy Bell, Nicky Clark and Jon Daly will be able to play as trialists in league matches, and in the first round of the Ramsdens Cup, before September 1.
Rangers can field two trialists in league matches up to a maximum of three times. Two trialists can also be fielded in the Ramsdens Cup first round match with Albion Rovers on Sunday.
Ok, I’m losing the plot now. I understood the “The Drum” was described as one step down from the sunday mail or words to that effect. Like Eco I couldn’t see the point of a pro rangers plant.
Sorry Phil the professor’s piece is unsourced plot engineering at its finest, with control (of the issue) being wrested from the original Drum piece just as eco forecast – BUT – its a plot that we all wish to follow in the absence of any credible arguement why crucial evidence appeared to be being simply ignored. I just hope that corners haven’t been cut that would make any evidence inadmissable or some such. The bad un’s here are somewhat adept at finding legal escape pods. IMHO.
Rangers will not be able field a number of summer signings as trialists ahead of their registration embargo being lifted on September 1.
Manager Ally McCoist has confirmed that Arnold Peralta, Steven Smith and Richard Foster will all have to wait to make a competitive appearance for their new club.
The three have been recruited on free transfers but as their last clubs were all based outside of Scotland, the Scottish FA are not able to request international clearance for them to feature as trialists.
Rangers will have to wait until either a prospective Ramsdens Cup quarter-final on September 7 or the Second Division game with Arbroath at Ibrox on September 14 to field any of the three, by which point they will be registered players.
Nicky Law, Cammy Bell, Nicky Clark and Jon Daly will be able to play as trialists in league matches, and in the first round of the Ramsdens Cup, before September 1.
Rangers can field two trialists in league matches up to a maximum of three times. Two trialists can also be fielded in the Ramsdens Cup first round match with Albion Rovers on Sunday.
I see yet another reasonable and interesting, yet off-message contributor has been deterred from posting, and that my old accuser BarcaBhoy has returned with accusations of deflection and denial.
To call GreenockJack a troll is to indicate an utter misunderstanding of what a troll is.
Anyway, enjoyed kitalba’s post. Lots of good stuff from Charlotte lately. Hope the SMSM breaks its vow of silence soon.
Castofthousands says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:17 pm
CF material
=======================================================
I think you are right that a lot of concepts which apply or can be applied to internet-based media comms are grounded in postal and then cable precedents and legislation.
In very broad terms Data Protection legislation seems geared towards information held by companies/organisations on individuals. I know that the act has a section dealing with hacking of info from outwith the organisation holding it but I don’t feel that covers CF.
Also a lot of other legislation like RIPA seems to deal mainly with data in transit through the system which has left the sender and not yet arrived at the in-box of the recipient and it appears mainly to do with official surveillance. There is a Commissioner for the Interception of Communications but again I doubt if this relates to CF.
However, if the email has landed in the recipient’s in-box without being previously intercepted is there any legal difference as to whether it has been read or not by the intended recipient before someone else then re-sends it without permission from the original sender/recipient. And then what if one gives permission and one doesn’t – and what about ccs or bccs do they have any rights? Is permission legally required and is it a criminal offence to resend without permission?
There is a reasonable piece about snail mail being delivered to someone other than the intended recipient at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3687109.stm Although snail mail I think some of the concepts will apply to emails.
Of course in the case of CF and the info contained in the emails if it is so vital to the parties involved why didn’t they encrypt it and not send it in plain text?
ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:11 pm
“I would suggest that there are much more important things to be discussed here and achieved than whatever is bugging you on this issue. In fact isn’t this the second time you have raised it?”
————————–
I’m just trying to make the point that an emotional response may have as much validity as an intellectual one. The difference being that you can’t necessarily write an emotional response down. This obviously gives the intellectual response an advantage as its logic can me made manifest.
Your analysis and diligence are valued. My point is that the blog benefits from both emotional and intellectual responses. The guy with the map and the compass will help navigate many of the pitfalls we might be subject to. However sometimes it is necessary to draw on the gut instinct that tells you something isn’t quite right. By offering validity to both these strategies I think the arguments can be forwarded more robustly.
This is now the third and last time I will post on the matter. I felt that Jim Larkin had been a bit intemperate concerning his earlier response toward you. I thought I recognised the nature of the impasse. It was not my intention to create a further impasse.
Well Roy Greenslade’s piece has done pretty much what i was suggesting – by commenting aboutthe story and not the emails etc, the story gets taken to a broader audience. Will anyone pick it up now?
#notholdingmybreath
Tif Finn says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:37 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 2:23 pm
======================================================
I’m not taking this as gospel but the Herald carried this:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-tax-ruling-appeal.20117644
If there is yet another appeal after the UTT hearing, the case will go to the Supreme Court
ecobhoy says:
July 26, 2013 at 3:04 pm
“There is a reasonable piece about snail mail being delivered to someone other than the intended recipient at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3687109.stm ”
————————-
From the link the following caught my eye :
“…The Act goes on to say: “A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.””
‘Without reasonable excuse’ was the pivotal phrase. If Charlotte legitimately commandeered CW’s e:mail account and believed he was engaged in fraudulent activity, would this constitute ‘reasonable excuse’?