Comment on Bad Money? by John Clark.

    Today's proceedings in Court-room 6, Parliament House.

    Before Lord Bannatyne,

    David Grier v Chief Constable

    Mr Smith QC for the Pursuer, David Grier

    Mr Duncan QC for the Defender (The Chief Constable )

    Mr Smith QC : My Lord, at the previous hearing 5 points were identified for action.

    These were: the need to identify the issues;the date for a hearing [Proof?];the question about Lord Mulholland; the report should be issued [?]; and the disclosure of documents. I shall deal with them in that order. I should add that another point is to be considered, the request that the Pursuer should specify the documents.

    Lord Bannatyne: Has a joint statement been provided…?I think it would be helpful ..

    Mr Smith : I agree.. I'm sure a draft joint statement of the issues  could be prepared…I think that could be done very quickly.

    Lord Bannatyne: Within a week..? 

    Mr Smith: Yes, m'Lord. I think my Junior has been ..[lost the rest]

    Lord Bannatyne: Within a week? …. 

    Mr Smith : [mumble']………

    Lord B: within hours?

    Mr Smith: ………. [mumble] … to procedural..

    Mr Duncan: I would ask that we keep a decree motion as a backstop, and I invite your Lordship to ordain ..

    Lord B: Can I leave it to Parties to arrange a date?

    Mr Smith:…..further specification of various matters, Scott Schedule questions…

    Lord Bannatyne; It's worthwhile….on the issue of causation and what your approach is? Can I leave it to you to set out a factual and legal note, re witnesses.Are there statements already?

    Mr Smith: I would prefer a detailed submission. If m'lord makes an order that I should answer…[missed the next bit] ..and it could end up that I am accused of not answering a point and therefore not being able to get summary decree..

    There are untrue statements made by two principals, Robertson and [Neil?]

    Lord B: I'm sure these points will arise very shortly…Can I speak to Mr Duncan…Mr Duncan, do you accept what Mr Smith says?

    Mr Duncan: No. Issues 3 and 4 (that it was the police driving the prosecution ) and (2) the seriousness of the allegations of criminality on the part of the Police)

    Lord B: How could this have got o a proof?

    Mr Duncan: Exactly. Pursuer had not a single witness. In my earlier submission at para 10 my friend avers that the Crown Office relies on the police. I couldn't take those non-specific averments and would like to know the basis for these averments. If there  is no evidence to support these averments, then we're back to how to proceed.

    Lord B: I wonder if.. how would it be if I ordain Mr Smith to deal specifically with each of the questions at 9 and 10 of your Note. If I say he has to deal with those points, does that deal with the issues? Then summary decree is the best way?

    Mr Duncan: As long as I have the opportunity to respond in writing m'Lord?

    Lord B: Yes, yes of course. If Mr Smith sends a note, you reply, he can amend, and you might revise yours, so that I have a complete idea of what I need to consider.

    Mr Duncan: That would be helpful. It would need more than one day.

    Lord B: Yes

    Mr Duncan: Yes.

    Lord B: This seems the best way. It means I have a full idea. So, do you agree 2 days, Mr Smith. I know that both Parties have their diaries electronic. 20th and 21st of August fit in?

    Mr Duncan: No.

    Lord B: 21st and 22nd?…….And Mr Smith, could you lodge note quickly..

    Mr Smith: As regards ordaining us to answer certain points, I wouldn't want that to mean that I couldn't later…

    Lord B: I wouldn't treat it like that. Mr Duncan?

    Mr Duncan: I broadly agree.

    Mr Smith: On the point of the Scott Schedule, at para 13 (a) (b) (c) and (d), the search of 100 000 emails, we saw Robertson's search was answer to identity of a person named by Robertson and no answer to the identity of the wife of [ lost that! But I think it might have been a sheriff].

    What's the [basis of?] …I'm advising the Court that in the Whitehouse case there is reference to something the Chief Constable knows. If your Lordship wants to know more the first thing is to require the Defender to answer the other matter about Lord Mulholland, and my observation at the previous hearing. It was said that Lord Mulholland personally directed the investigation, and that “we[the police] were 'just obeying orders'.”

    But Lord Mulholland had given a precognition that he did NOT do so, and COULD NOT constitutionally do so.

    This is not going away, the question of Lord Mulholland, m'Lord. All we get from the defender is 'we don't agree with anything that is not in the pleadings'

    Mr Duncan ( jumping to is feet); My Lord that is simply incorrect!

    Lord B: Can I let Mr Smith…?

    Mr Smith: I was accused of behaving outrageously….

    Mr Duncan: I cannot accept allegations against Lord Mulholland.

    Lord B: Can you go outside, gentlemen, and see if you can agree, avoid an unedifying argument…?

    Mr Duncan: I have no more to say. I cannot accept these averments.

    Mr Smith [moving on] : M'Lord, on the issue of disclosure of documents, we will park the question of the 100 000 emails [I didn't catch the rest]

    Lord B: Mr Duncan, can you come back to your para 9(b)-can you undertake to advise Mr Smith?

    Mr Duncan: [ missed exactly what he said, but it was about which version of whatever}

    Lord B: The iteration of the Scott Schedule as identified as the most up-to-date with the amendments to it made by Mr Smith today.



    Summary decree motion on 21st and 2nd August,

    detailed note within 7 days, 14 days for Mr Duncan to respond, 7 further days for amendment.

    Would Parties put documents that are to be relied upon by them into a single paper, one singe bundle. And a list of case references, and a Note from Mr Smith on 10(8)(d)?

    Mr Duncan: Could we make it 14,14 ,7 and 7, m'Lord? That would give me more time immediately I return from holiday.

    Lord B: Very well. Is there anything else parties wish to raise? No?

    Then thank you, gentlemen.

    The Hearing began at 12 noon, and finished at about 12.50.

    James Mulholland , journalist, was present [ no connection to Lord Mulholland!]; and two holiday makers from Australia were the only members of the public present other than me.

    John Clark Also Commented

    Bad Money?
    easyJambo 7th August 2019 at 00:06

    '..then they collectively control 81%, so more than enough to vote through anything they want.#


    I thought I had seen a reference in something from the TOP to the effect that the concert party could not use the additional shares they were allowed to obtain to increase their voting power or some such. I didn't understand it then ( couldn't really see how they could be denied the voting rights attached to the extra shares) and am probably mistaken. . Any recollection?

    Bad Money?
    'Disgraced MP struck off as Solicitor'.(page 13 report in today's print version of 'The Scotsman')

    Why was she struck off?

    Oohhhh? because she had been convicted of lying to the Police/CPS to try to escape a speeding conviction.

    Question: what might happen were a solicitor in Scotland to be publicly belted in a Judgment by a High Court of Chancery Judge for telling an untruth  in  written submission to the Court aimed at misleading the Court? 

    One wonders!

    ( and one wonders again at a little additional piece to the report: the Solicitors Regulation Authority had asked for £22,762 costs of their strike-off action. They were awarded £6,562 -because the Chairman of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had "anxiety about the number of hours that have been claimed" [40 hours]

    Surely our solicitors do not deliberately overclaim ( or lie!) or even make honest mistakes on such a scale in calculating what work they have done?


    Bad Money?
    What is it about people in the world of finance generally and any relationship with factual truth?

    Here is a statement I just came across this morning. It is in the business magazine insider.co.uk on 29/05/19. Ken Symon (reporter) cites it as a quotation from the lips of one Ken Pattullo, of Begbies Traynor (Scotland)LLP:

    " “The huge waves caused by Rangers’ administration and subsequent journey through the tables have now settled down, [my italics] and to some degree have contributed to benefiting and stabilising other clubs.”

    What kind of 'insolvency' practitioner' can Mr Pattullo be, I wonder, if he doesn't know his arm from Liquidation, and fondly imagines either that a liquidated football club can exist in Scottish Football or that a new club founded in 2012 and admitted for the first time to the SFA in 2012 can be the very same club that even now is awaiting final dissolution by Companies House?

    I do not think I will be recommending Begbies Traynor LLP to anyone as any kind of expert company.

    [I'm not gong to waste time checking if there is any relationship between the 'Traynors' or the 'Pattullos', other than a shared capacity to deny a plainly obvious fact:that RFC of 1872 was Liquidated, and did not make any kind of 'journey through the tables'.]

    Honest to God!

    Recent Comments by John Clark

    In Whose Interests
    Big Pink 15th October 2019 at 23:35

    ' John C
    Sadly the BP residence is leasehold '


    Jings, crivvens and michty me! broken heart


    In Whose Interests
    Homunculus 15th October 2019 at 20:46


    *September 19 2019

    Metro Bank has warned it could face a “significant” bill after regulators widened their investigations into a £900 million accounting scandal'

    Metro announced in January that they had "adjusted the risk weighting of certain commercial loans secured on commercial property and certain specialist buy-to-let loans that had the combined effect of increasing our Risk-weighted assets"

    As I understand it, the amount of capital and cash reserves a Bank is required to keep on hand is closely related to the risks that are attached to their varied types of assets. And, it seems, it's the bank itself that decides what level of risk there may be!

    So, an official in my bank might decide that the risk of lending me £100M  to allow me to buy Big Pink's Lanarkshire mansion to support my plans for making money by renting it out to fabulously wealthy football players is no risk at all: because the money will come in, I shall pay off the loan and interest thereon no bother.

    So the amount that my bank has to keep in cash to cover the risk of me defaulting in my repayments of the loan is nowhere near enough to cover its ass if I do default, and if an unrealistic valuation of BP's mansion had been decided on( deliberately or not) to allow the bank to lend me the £100M.

    I assume therefore that the FCA investigation is into the question of whether there were very naughty deeds of minimising 'risk',thus leaving oodles of cash free for other purposes [not necessarily for illicit purposes (such as lining the pockets of individuals in making sweet deals for clients and themselves)], but consequently exposing the bank to the danger of not being able to meet its own liabilities if the estimates of risk were badly unrealistic.

    I attended a trial once, a number of years ago, where a guy who hadnae two pennies to rub together and had had to 'borrow' money from a guy who had been accused of fraud, testified that he , a finacial consultant,had writtten a 'letter of comfort'  as to the accused's financial standing and probity, to those who were thinking of lending the accused a substantial sum of money!

    That episode (on top of the RBS Goodwin ,the knight stripped of his knighthood while other knights  seem to be exempt from public censure and keep their 'honour' in spite of spitting in the eye of the Monarch by practicing deceit upon Her tax assessors and gatherers) causes me to laugh at the sub-species of human being such people are, hold them in absolute contempt, and wish them every failure financially-and gaol if appropriate.

    Naturally, I pass no comment on the situation at Metro Bank, who swear to cooperate fully with any investigation into the £900M blackhole.

    And, of course, I fully accept that I am not anything other than a questioner

    as well as being someone whose own experience tells him that bodies such as the SFA and the FCA appear not to like  questions being asked of them!

    I am  beginning now to think that I have grounds for asking my MP for some help in getting the FCA to reply to my query about their authorisation of the IPO Prospectus.

    But that is for another day.


    In Whose Interests
    I jetted in this morning from Newark Airport, after a couple of interesting and enjoyable weeks in Pennsylvania, and it's good to be back in the same time zone.

    Section A3 of the Take-over Code [  the full text of the code is at this link  http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf?v=1Apr2019] describes the companies, the transactions and persons who are covered by the Code.

    My reading of that section is that the cold-shouldering of a director or a company is only in relation to those transactions that are in connection with a take-over bid by one company of another, or by the directors of a company trying to get an increased control of the company by the issue of shares.

    That's disappointing, because I would wish that anyone 'cold-shouldered' should be seen as being an utter pariah, completely excluded from using any financial services in connection with his business or operating in any commercial business whether as owner or director.

    Reading the Code is not easy for people like me who  knows hardly anything about Companies and shares and the 'market' , so I may be wrong in my reading of the Introduction, Section A3.

    But I think that whatever we think, the people who move in that world of business and shares and take-overs crap themselves at the prospect of being 'cold-shouldered'- so it must have some significance as a penalty, branding the person as an untrustworthy person in whose good faith one would be a mug to rely on in any business connection.

    Further, it seems clear to me that  even to sit round the same Boardroom table with a person ordered by the FCA to be 'cold shouldered' would suggest that one is of the same low-life stamp of lying, untrustworthy business man.

    Perhaps the RIFC plc Board members have thicker skins than I?



    In Whose Interests
    Homunculus 13th October 2019 at 21:31

    '.. Maybe Rangers would be as well if things had been done properly.



    All legal truth and sporting truth and practical reality and Liquidation-precedent were on the side of the Governance body.  RFC of 1872 had died, as other football clubs had done, but rather more shamefully and in disgrace.

    But it's certain that few 'old Rangers' fans would have been permanently lost if the SFA had insisted that CG's new creation could not be allowed to make the ridiculous claim that it was the 'old Rangers'.

    There was undoubtedly a partisan desire on the part of the SFA Board strong enough to make it prepared to throw out sporting integrity, truth and common sense and create a monstrous lie under the specious pretence of the  supposed commercial interests of the game!

    The questions raised by the Res12 issue and the refusal to have that thoroughly and independently investigated reinforce the suspicion that the SFA was not only corrupt in the matter of the Liquidation and its consequences, but had already been corrupted by sliding monies to the ailing RFC of 1872, monies to which it was in no way entitled, some time before.

    It is now simply the case that the Governance body simply cannot get itself out of the mess its cowardice and partisanship created.

    It must come clean and face up to the truth openly and honestly, come what may.

    In Whose Interests
    Which is the more grave offence-to break the 'non-statutory' rules of the TOP, as Mr King did, or for a lawyer declared by a judge to have lied in Court?

    The TOP has taken action against King but only after a lengthy period. Will it be a similar length of time before any body (eg the Law Society of Scotland?) or even the Courts take action against the lying lawyer?