Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?


Much as I’d like to see an appeal and I’ve …

Comment on Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show? by thebasharmilesteg.

Much as I’d like to see an appeal and I’ve said as much several times over the last 24 hours, there may be one reason why HMRC might not appeal and that is because it might create the wrong precedent.

I started my professional career working for a government dept responsible for enforcing a particular piece of legislation. Although we prosecuted for non-compliance regularly, when we lost a case appeals were not common. HMRC have lost a case at the lowest level. It creates no precedent. On the same evidence another tribunal might find for HMRC unanimously. If they take another 10 cases and win 7 that’s a good result for them. If they go to appeal on this one, they risk losing it and thus can’t take any of the 10 – they lose them all without firing a shot.

I suspect there will be long and hard look at this case before they decide to lodge an appeal. Don’t expect a decision soon.

thebasharmilesteg Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
The wording on the BBC site is –

“A man has been arrested in connection with allegations that offensive material had been posted online relating to the Rangers tax case.”

I wonder if it was one of the posters from Rangers Fans Forum who was quoted on here yesterday?

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Sorry, lost last para.

It should read, It has also been conveniently forgotten that they lost the Wee Tax Case and by Whyte’s own admission traded while insolvent and withheld payment of NIc and VAT. Which, irrespective of guilt or innoence is hardly a record to be proud of.

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Following what seems to have been a perverse judgement there’s been a lot of discussion over the past 48 hours about institutional bias in the legal system. I stand by my comment yesterday that such conspiracy theory is far -fetched, that judgements that fly in the face of good sense are pretty common in my experience and that 3 QCs automatically equals three sets of fees, er, I mean 3 different opinions.

However if there is an area where there is clear institutional bias and maybe even a conspiracy to hoodwink the public it must be in our mainstream media. Apart from Tom English has any journalist tried to properly examine the verdict and accurately report its findings? Even English’s piece is merely limited to criticism of Murray for not coming clean sooner. Has anyone put their head above the parapet and said Rangers were broke anyway with or without the tax case when all in sundry were bleating about a “Scottish Institution” being brought down by that evil taxman?

I look in vain for any analysis which states quite simply,

“Rangers appealed on 30 individual cases, were cleared on 25. They were not cleared on five of the cases submitted and another 30+ on which they did not appeal. Money is still owed to the taxman by the defunct club and possibly also the players.”

And I haven’t seen a single reference in MSM to the smoking gun paragraphs –

“Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. …Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers … Rangers could have sought a ruling from the SFA or SPL about disclosure of side-letters but, clearly, they had chosen not to do so. There was a conscious decision to conceal their existence,…”

The man (or woman) in the street who takes his news at face value from the MSM has been completely deluded. Not one of the Govan apologists who trotted out statements yesterday was challenged or asked a difficult question. Their statements are accepted at face value without comment or challenge.

So MSM journos, enjoy your succulent lamb last night? You really are a disgrace to your profession. Whatever happened to true investigative journalism ? Nixon would still be in the White House if you lot had worked for the Washington Post.

No wonder people who want to know what’s really going on get onto the Internet and track down sites like this or RTC.

And a final thought. It was never a matter of Rangers being presumed guilty by we the internet bampottery. Guilt and innocence are criminal law terms, the Tax Case was a civil matter. HMRC had already held Rangers liable to the tax bill, they had appealed to firts Tier Tax Tribunal. H

Recent Comments by thebasharmilesteg

Spot the difference?
How does one report a perceived offence under the Insolvency Act?

Let’s say I became aware of someone taking up the post of Director, or having a substantial influence on, a successor company bearing an almost identical name (let’s call it “newco”)and involved in the same trade as a company which has gone into liquidation (let’s call it “oldco”) when that person was a Director of the oldco right up to the point of liquidation.

There have been many posts on here stating that this cannot be done without the leave of a court. How does a concerned citizen then report this. Who is the enforcing authority?

Spot the difference?
It’s the club that has to have the Nomad.

Does it? Is a Nomad a speciality position coach or a physiotherapist?

I thought it was a public limited company listed on the AIM market that had to have a Nomad.

Silly me!

I obviously know nothing and have been getting my club and company as confused as Neil Doncaster does.

Spot the difference?
If the coronation in absentia goes ahead tomorrow the Blue Brazil fans have a great opportunity on Saturday –

“Who’s your Nomad, who’s your Nomad,
Who’s your Nomad, Mr King?
Ye havnae got one, ye havnae got one,
Yer not an FPP, Mr King!”

Spot the difference?
All the talk of King (and if he does so much jetting could he come and jet the moss off my drive?) and FPP tests, AIM rules etc has ensured that a statement today by the world’s second greatest football administrator, Mr Doncaster, seems to have passed us by without comment. So I will make one.

Here’s the great Neil in the Herald on the subject of summer football, just opposite an interview with ‘well’s Alan Burrows where he (Burrows) makes encouraging noises on this subject:

“Summer football is seen as an impractical suggestion because of the length of the Premiership season, to need to avoid a clash with World Cup and European finals every two years and the desperate shortage of available dates because of Uefa’s insistence that top flight domestic games are not held on the same midweek nights as Champions Leagues (sic) ties.”

So let’s just think for a moment about these points in turn.

Length of the season – If there are twelve clubs in the league, fixtures will occupy the same number of weeks whether played over summer or winter. Summer football would mean fewer fixtures disrupted by bad weather, frozen or waterlogged pitches.

Clash with World and European Championships – well Neil we have to qualify first. How long ago did we last do that? If we do qualify there can be a work around, other Northern European nations seem to manage. Maybe it’s time we imported some administrators from there, at least they may have a “can-do” attitude.

Clash with Champions League ties – just tell me how many Champions League matches are played in May and June? Even by April and May it’s the quarters and semis, surely that leaves as many midweeks free as unavailable. Once again less need for re-arranged fixtures, so less need for midweek games anyway.

I wonder if Mr Doncaster has ever sat in the South Stand at Pittodrie in December or January, shivering through a 15 minute half-time (I don’t remember voting for that one either). It must be nice to sit in the Director’s box in your sheepskin coat and go down to the Board Room for tea and a sandwich halftime. In exchange for his salary, expenses and hospitality at the expense of the paying spectator, all he can come up with are pilot schemes for alcohol and standing, even then admitting that won’t make much difference. Sorry, isn’t he the man who is employed to make a difference?

The arguments for summer football are well known so I won’t repeat them here but what chance have we got with attitudes like his?

Spot the difference?
upthehoops says:

February 2, 2015 at 7:59 pm
Looks like Stuart Armstrong and Gary MacKay Steven will both be Celtic players tonight. There will be arguments about weakening the opposition, but at least the money stays in Scotland.

Obviously the Parkhead bench must be getting cold again.

Meanwhile according to Auntie Beeb “Rangers are hopeful of concluding loan deals for four Newcastle players before the midnight transfer deadline in Scotland. Gael Bigirimana, Haris Vuckic, Kevin Mbabu and Remie Streete are the players involved. Newcastle owner Mike Ashley has recently agreed to lend Rangers £10m.

And half a team by the sound of it…”

About the author