Comment on Bad Money? by John Clark.

    '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?


    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?
    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!

    Bad Money?
    Ex Ludo 5th August 2019 at 22:34

    '..I sense another summit on the horizon.'


    Ah, yes.Probably.

    And what will it be but  another bumping of the gums of gutless members of the football establishment whose commitment to the Big Lie renders them utterly untrustworthy and devoid of any kind of moral authority , in conjunction with  politicos (even more untrustworthy by definition!), and with a wholly partisan, monocular SMSM  ready to misreport if need be?


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    In Whose Interests
    Higgy's Shoes 19th September 2019 at 12:57

    "Thomas Meunier and Juan Bernat capered through the open savannah that archaeologists believe was once populated by the Real Madrid midfield"


    That quote is worthy of the late Cyril Horne and Ian Archer.

    As for Aidan (I think that is the spelling) O'Neill QC I had the pleasure of sitting a few feet from him when he delivered the 'incontinent mendacity' observation.

    In Whose Interests
    easyJambo 18th September 2019 at 22:21

    '.. I don't believe that Hearts needed a DOF role..'


    eJ, I have only the vaguest notion of what a Director of Football is, or what his 'powers' are.

    Isn't  CL merely an employee? As 'sackable' at the Board's pleasure as Caldwell today or indeed any football manager?

    Or does being a 'director of football' give him the status and voting power of a Board member holding a significant number of shares?






    In Whose Interests
    Quote from O'Neill QC: "the mother of Parliaments being shut down by the Father of Lies" in his closing speech at the Supreme Court , a few minutes ago.

    In Whose Interests
    Higgy's Shoes 17th September 2019 at 12:51

    '.. RIP Bobby Prentice. ..'


    I've just watched that wonderful clip, and called Mrs C in from whatever she is watching on TV to see it.

    Wasn't that kind of dribbling skill, leaving defenders for dead, what most of us as kids ( well, of my generation anyway)would have wished to possess? The other guys that won the tackles and got the ball free to you to allow you to run were absolutely necessary, of course.

    But the  thrill of it all, as you cut your way through lumpen challenges, and avoided being scythed down and being able to get your shot in! Nothing to beat it!

     Or so I am told, I myself never having really been anywhere near achieving anything like that level of skill. (Well, okay, okay, okay! I was never even sure of being picked for the second eleven  even in primary school!)

      But that wee clip epitomises what the sport of football is all about. (including suspect refereeing decisions!)broken heart

    In Whose Interests
    One trivial thing I noticed in the Court proceedings today , and also last week in the Court of Session, was the use of the word 'electronic' by Counsel when referring to non-paper 'documents' that they wished the judge(s) to look at.

    Perhaps eJ might keep me right, but up until last week's hearings, I think that Counsel and the Bench just used the word 'digital' to distinguish betwen the 'electronic' record ( most of the judges I've seen use whatever they're called- I-pads or whatever, only two that I have seen still depend on folders of paper documents); so you would hear Counsel say something like 'in Volume I, page 10, my Lord, digital ,xyz'.

    I wonder whether at some UK level an understanding had been reached that the word 'electronic' rather than 'digital'  should be used as standard terminology?

    Of course, it is a little known fact that I have been known to nod off in the Court of Session, and maybe the use of 'electronic' has been the vogue for some time and I haven't noticed!

    Given that to me 'digital' conjures up long ago images and sounds of hospital beds and plastic gloves being snapped on , I'm rather glad if its use in Courts has been discontinued!angry