Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?

By

I can’t help but wonder if the Tom English article …

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

I can’t help but wonder if the Tom English article is driven by a resentment of the role RTC played in showing up the severe failings of the MSM in Scotland? For sure there were moments when contributions to the blog strayed but Tom English gives the game away when he comments on how:

“the blog slowly metamorphosed into a nasty anti-Rangers, anti-media rally”

To me the thrust of the blog was a critique of the financial mis-management of Rangers. It was how I and thousands more, found out how serious the problems were for the club. If I was a Rangers fan it should have led to a serious critical look at how the club was being run, if not on RTC then elsewhere. Instead there seems to have been an alarming reaction of anger with the messenger rather than serious analysis on any Rangers forum of their financial mis-management.

But I’m sure the “anti-media” bit is what has upset the MSM fraternity. RTC provided a far more reliable source of facts and analysis of the facts than the succulent lamb brigade. That is the real story here. How RTC together with a few others including Mark Daly and Alex Thomson have shown up the failings of the Scottish football MSM. What a surprise that I won’t get a serious analysis of how the Jabbas of this world look to spin every story to suit their agenda in the Scotsman (or will I Tom?)

No one is perfect. A degree of hubris did creep in latterly in the RTC blog. But it was a critical element in an “Arab Spring” in Scottish football. Our perception of the Scottish MSM and Scottish football authorities has forever been changed this year. There is no doubt that the information available through internet forums and discussion of it gave voice to the Scottish football fans and forced the clubs to respond and not accept a planned stitch up that would have seen Rangers straight back in the SPL.

The very fact that we won’t read proper analysis of the facts that emerged in the FTT in the MSM should be all we need to convince us to continue to look to the internet, to bloggers and forums, for the facts and a more balanced analysis of them. RTC had a large role in bringing about that shift. The Orwell award was well deserved recognition for it. So thanks RTC for your courage in bringing us the truth.

As for Tom English, well I look forward to reading his comments about other football forums if he thinks RTC, one of the most restrained and intelligent forums I’ve ever read, was nasty!

Taysider Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
Apologies in advance for the length of this, but there is something about this FTT decision which to me looks unusual.

The length of the decision itself is striking at 145 pages. But what also catches the eye is that the majority decision comes to an end at page 59! The dissenting decision begins on page 60 and ends at page 145, that is 85 pages compared with only 59 for the original decision. How does that compare with your typical FTT decision?

Dr Poon’s dissenting opinion is so long because she not only has a different interpretation of how the legislation applies to the facts, she also cannot subscribe to the conclusion reached by the majority
that: (page 60)

‘we are unable to make further Findings-in-Fact in support of there being an orchestrated scheme extending to the payment of wages or salary absolutely and unreservedly to the employees involved’

A critical role of the FTT is the findings of fact that support their decision. If their decision is appealed to the Upper Tribunal, that body’s role is essentially to decide whether the FTT decision was wrong in law. They are not a fact finding body and the facts they will rely on in determining whether the FTT decision was wrong will be those found in the FTT decision.

Here is what Dr Poon says, bottom of Page 60:

“A body of evidence that is not narrated in the majority Decision, which seeks to give a judgment in principle on the efficacy of the trust arrangements as a tax avoidance scheme, is of critical relevance in forming my view of the transactions in their real terms. On the whole, in my quest ‘to find the realities of the arrangements that were agreed’ [Lord Morris], I place more reliance than my colleagues do, on the
documentary evidence. As regards the oral evidence, so far as the corporate witnesses and the trustee representative of the Appellants are concerned, their Witness Statements convey to me an element of choreography, perhaps due to the active involvement of counsel in their preparation. More specifically, I have reservations about the credibility of certain witnesses, namely, Mr Red, Mrs Crimson and Mr Scarlet. The oral evidence has already been narrated in the majority Decision, and the Respondents’ major concern is noted (para 152 MD) regarding ‘the English practice (followed here) of Counsel drafting the initial form of Witness Statements’. In making my extra findings-in-fact, I have accorded greater coverage therefore to the admitted documentary evidence as providing a more realistic record of the nature of the transactions. Obliterated in some instances and by no means complete, nonetheless the documentary evidence that spans over a decade provides a
contemporary record of the transactions as they happened at the time, and affords an
account of the true intention and role of the participants in the scheme.”

To summarise, she placed greater weight on the documentary evidence over 10 years than the witness statements for the reasons she gave.

Key issues to me are:

1) How unusual is it for a dissenting opinion to not only give reasons for dissenting in terms of interpretation of law but also interpretation of fact and at such length, 62 pages of fact (pages 60 – 122) compared with 40 pages (pages 4-43) for the majority opinion?

2) Why did Mure and Rae decide they could not make further findings of fact on the evidence that Dr Poon refers to between pages 60 and 122?

3) In any hearing at the Upper Tribunal, is it open them to consider both the evidence supporting the majority decision AND the evidence supporting the minority decision?

4) The evidence supporting the minority decision would for sure not be available to an upper tribunal and the public without the dissenting opinion, that is all the evidence between pages 60 and 122 where Dr Poon found documentary evidence that supported her findings as to the “realities of the arrangements that were agreed.”


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
monsieurbunny says:
Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 09:24

“So (and again the more expert will no doubt correct me, in fact please do if I’ve gone wrong here) surely this must mean that they “won” a lot of these cases because the evidence was hidden or destroyed by people at MIH or Ibrox? And if that’s correct I’d say that just as we can look at a legal case and see for instance a guy got off because witnesses myseriously didn’t turn up and we are entitled to draw our own conclusions, we can look at all this lost evidence and wonder how many cases MIH/Rangers would have “won” if it had been available.”

If you are talking rubbish then I’ve been thinking it as I’m wondering about exactly the same point. Is it the case that after years of obstruction a police raid reveals side letters in files they seized but no such letters appear in files provided, in which case what reasonable inference surely can be drawn from that? As someone queried earlier, isn’t there a case for Mr Red to answer under the terms of S.50 TMA 1970?


Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
It looks to me, from the dissenting judgement, that the decision is a classic example of form v substance. There was sufficient in the wording used around the making of the “loans” to support a legal argument of a theoretical right of repayment, supporting Mure and Rae’s majority decision.

The substance or commercial reality though was that in practice this right would never be enforced and where employees needed additional reassurance that the right would not be enforced, Rangers gave them an indemnity against the repayment. “To date, no loan repayment has been enforced.” Dr Poon has looked at how the scheme was intended to operate, hence her different verdict.

It may be seen as a victory for some very clever, very highly paid tax lawyers but for those who cling to old fashioned notions like justice is best served by being done and seen to be done, it’s a disaster.


Recent Comments by Taysider

History, Neighbours and Made Up News
I’m usually in lurker mode these days but I’m puzzled by this Barton story. 
If I was working for any self respecting media organisation, especially one allegedly national and objective, then I would be wondering why has this story appeared in the newspapers now, who is responsible for it being leaked and what is their objective in doing so? 
I’d also observe that based on recent precedents (see examples in BBC article, link) Barton should surely be expecting, IF guilty, somewhere in the region of a six match ban, three or four of which would be suspended.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37416523
Instead Radio Shortbread, based on the postings here, is busy already deciding the fate of the guilty (allegedly) one. I write based on postings here as I stopped listening a while back. Maybe one or two others have done the same.


Journey’s End?
Incidentally rest assured that any decline in season ticket renewal at Celtic will be put down to the fans voting on the future of Deila by the MSM. Of course that could be true. But I’d be astonished if Res 12 gets any mention as a possible factor!


Journey’s End?
BIG PINKAPRIL 19, 2016 at 08:54 39 8  Rate This 
The successes Rangers have had on the field of late have seen SFM numbers down. In fact, and worryingly for the future of SFM, over a third of our monthly subscriptions have been cancelled in the last two months and our daily traffic has reduced by a commensurate 35%.
—————————-
BP
I’d echo the comments of others on here that the decline in SFM numbers (fact) may not be an outcome of The Rangers recent success on the field (conjecture). For many if that club have won the Championship with the best team and without the benefit of financial doping (which I hope is true) then fair enough. I think it is at least as likely that there is a sense of fatigue with the continued strategy of the MSM, authorities and clubs to ignore and attempt to marginalise those who have justified ongoing concerns at the governance of our game given the events of 2011 / 2012. The recent torrent of MSM propaganda which would suggest that Scottish football is all about one rivalry with all other clubs just so much blank canvas on which to paint blue and green brush strokes doesn’t really help and indeed ignores and is an insult to the many positive aspects of what many would see as something of a renaissance over the last few years.

If what we have seen over the last four years is a war for the soul of Scottish football, it may be tempting to be concerned with the current position, but we need to take a long term view. Some battles will be won, some not. It may be that Resolution 12 is too technical to galvanise a large number of supporters of all clubs in the way the blatant attempt at re-writing the rules in 2012 so that a form of a liquidated club could be in the top flight was. But given that we KNOW the authorities have a bias towards special treatment for those that that they see as the essence of what Scottish football is all about, that we KNOW the MSM including the BBC are lickspittles to that agenda, then the role of those who continue to independently and objectively scrutinise is all the more important. Whatever the outcome on Res 12 there will be other issues. If any club is again intended to benefit from the largess of authorities more concerned with what they consider to be important instead of the fair application of the rules we have to be ready. The MSM are in decline. This is the age of the bampots.


Look Back to Look Forward
I see Livingston FC have had to apologise after a quite shocking 10 post on their official twitter feed!
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/livingston-fc-apologises-for-rangers-twitter-gaffe-1-4091035
I’m not clear what was more offensive, the suggestion that second tier rules would accommodate the needs of Sevco (by re-scheduling the final game for tv) or mis-naming of Sevco as “The Rangers.”
It is extraordinary the contrast between the MSM triumphant return propoganda stuff and how a low profile tweet on the feed of a second tier club can lead to such a rapid retraction. It’s a funny old world.


Look Back to Look Forward
JOHN CLARKMARCH 23, 2016 at 17:20
No I didn’t hear that JC. I find that periodically I change station or turn the volume down almost as a reflex action. 
Not surprised by the anecdote of course, that is “well behaved” journalists getting the juicy stories along with the juicy lamb! As for Kenny Mac becoming a journalistic truth seeker, well I guess anything is possible but I won’t get my hopes up! 02


About the author