Comment on Bad Money? by John Clark.

    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?

    John Clark Also Commented

    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!

    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
    Just to give some very brief account of how Mr Fairlie continued last Thursday:

    Thursday 12th September: (following on from eJ's report on the earlier part of the morning)

    Mr Fairlie QC for Mr Clark:

    asked for recall of the Lord Ordinary's decision and substitute proof [ed: a Proof hearing?]

    said he aligned himself with Mr Dunlop's presentation of the Whitehouse case (unless something new emerged with which he disagreed), and said he would leave it to Mr Dunlop to address the common law position while he, Fairlie, proposed to address the Article 8 issue.

    The background to the Clark case was the seizure of documents which the police had been told were subject to legal professional privilege. There had been months of discussion between the Crown office and the legal advisers of Duff and Phelps. By November of 2014 no consensus had been reached,

    In a meeting in November, the Crown said Clark would be arrested. At no time had the Crown intimated that Clark and Whitehouse were suspects.

    In the Lord Ordinary's summary judgment it is recorded that “the decision to place him[Clark] on the first Petition was to serve the ulterior and improper purpose of… and the second Petition was served to gain time”

    Averments were made about an email from a Fiscal to others of the Lord Advocate's staff. A quote from that email is: “ .we are confident about Whyte, Withey and Grier…” This could be taken as an acknowledgement that they would be confident in time”. Only six days later the arrests were made, suggesting an ' improper purpose without probable cause.'

    The concerns expressed by Mr Moynihan [QC for the Lord Advocate] appear to have no relevance to 'improper purpose without proper basis', and there is no concern about the 'chilling effect' unless there was an 'improper purpose which equates to 'malice'-all that the Lord Advocate needs to do is to tell his deputes and officials NOT to act maliciously! [ed: “ In a legal context, a 'chilling effect' is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction']

    In relation to Article 8, Mr Fairlie handed up a copy of the Guide to Article 8, which he referred to.It is not binding, of course, but it gives an up-to-date summary on protection of 'individual reputations'

    Mr Fairlie then discussed several European Court judgments –Denizov v Ukraine,Jishkariani v Georgia. These address issues such as unfounded allegations of criminal conduct, the degree of seriousness of damage to reputation depending on the 'status' of person making the allegation [eg, if a Minister of state makes an allegation , that is serious. How much more serious if allegations are made in formal Court documents, the hypothesis being that the charges are without foundation?

    Mr Fairlie noting that Mr Moynihan accepted that 'reputation' fell within Article 8, but not where there were criminal allegations, and expressed his surprise, because it suggested that a section of society cannot get the benefit of the Convention , such that a 'lay-about' [ed: a word used by Mr Moynihan] could not get the benefit of Convention rights. No examples were cited: and secondly, it ignores that Article 8 is routinely used in domestic courts in defamation cases.

    If the European Court recognises that unfounded accusations are capable of being included in Article 8 then the impact on reputation is a consequence where there is a serious negative effect on private life, for example, financial consequences for family, business relationships and the individual's reputation.

    Mr Clark falls into this consequencew-based situation.

    [ All along, of course, each of the judges asked searching questions [ ed: they know their stuff!] For example, among many questions asked,Lady Dorrian asked about 'Facebook' defamation ; and whether the Icelandic case was relevant,and Lord Carloway referred to Denizov and asked what if you don't have a professional reputation?, and whether allegations have to be unfounded to meet the Article 8 criteria.

    Mr Fairlie made answer to all questions by reference to the cases cited and the 'guide'.

    Mr Fairlie also mentioned that the Gilberg (?) exception in Article 8 is not relevant in this case. The exception is where one's own actions (in committing crime) have given rise to the damages claim: in this case the allegations were made for ''improper purpose and without probable cause'

    After some more rather abstruse (to me) questions (e.g from Lady Paton about whether there was any dove-tailing between common law and the Convention), questions that Mr Fairlie fielded well, Mr Fairlie finished .

    After lunch, he did not need to continue,and Mr Dunlop  began his response to Mr Moynihan's arguments on common law.






    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 14th September 2019 at 00:46

    "Not having received any acknowledgement from the CEO, I wrote to the Chairman."


    Just for fun, here is what I wrote:


    Mr C Randell CBE,


    The Financial Conduct Authority,

    12 Endeavour Square,

    London E1 1JNDear Mr Randell,

    I have read the “Financial Conduct Authority Annual Report 2018/19 for year ended 31.3.19”

    I note that in your foreword to that report you remark that “Change is here to stay for all of us, so the FCA must change too.”

    May I suggest one simple, inexpensive change that you might consider bringing about?
    It is a change that you can effect in about five minutes of your time!

    It requires nothing other than that you ask your CEO, Mr Bailey,

    -to respond to my letter to him dated 25th June; or at least acknowledge receipt of the reminder I sent to him which he received ( good old Post Office tracking!) on 30th July! and

    -to put in place a simple administrative mechanism that will ensure that letters from folk who take the time and trouble to write to the FCA are at least acknowledged!
    It's such a pain,as well as being the mark of a rude indifference,when an individual or a company or a public body does not acknowledge receipt of a piece of correspondence from any quarter.

    When that piece of correspondence is alleging some serious fault on the part the organisation to which one has written one's suspicions are aroused that the organisation is unwilling to consider the allegation, wishes not to open any can of worms and hopes by simply ignoring the allegation that it will somehow just go  away.

    I hope that as well as securing for me an acknowledgement from your CEO you will have a wee look into the matter raised in my letter to him.

    Yours sincerely,

    That , I confess, was probably unfair, if Mr Bailey did not in fact receive my letter and reminder because I had put a partially wrong postcode on the envelope.

    And what I am really saying here, I think, is that the whole SDM/Rangers saga  has made me ultra suspicious of anything and everything that any organisation says.

      I am ready now from the off to assume that 'organisations' of any kind will lie; that spokespersons and PR people will always be ready to lie, if occasion demands.

    I believe that the SFA has lied, and continues to lie. I believe that the BBC shares in that lie. And, of course, I believe that the SMSM happily propagates a particular lie.

    And in a way that was foreign to me in a previous existence, I am ready now to challenge anyone who is or may be a lying bast.rd.

    In which connection I read with some amusement that the big Murray development plan for Gogarburn near Edinburgh airport is facing difficulties.

    There is the Royal Bank man stripped of his knighthood, and calls for that (to me,irritating) Boycott to be stripped of his.

    And there's SDM. 

    Enough said.


    In Whose Interests
    I said the other day that I would try to get my kind of Court report of the Whitehouse & Clark damages cases done yesterday. Fat chance of that, I now realise. The kind of notebook I generally use is the kind styled 'shorthand reporters notebook' .There are about 25 lines on a page. My  barely legible scribbles from the start of the hearing at 10.30 on Tuesday until conclusion at 4.00 pm on Friday cover 65 pages.

    If I tell you that my notes are not only very hard to read, but are so scant as to require a great effort to make sure that I have properly understood what I was recording.(you think at the time that a couple of words or phrases will bring back to memory a  whole elaborate five minute disquisition!)

    I began earlier today to type up my notes as from the beginning. I have reached only page 8 of my notes!

    eJ's excellent summary took us up to lunchtime on Thursday. I think that I should just have followed on from then, and leave the earlier days for later.

    I'll do that. But not tonight, except to say that Mr Fairlie referred to averments having been made about an email from a fiscal to others of the Lord Advocate's staff.

    He said "The terms of that email   ..there is a quote from that email: "we are confident about Whyte, Withey and Grier…" This could be taken " Mr Fairlie  said, "as an acknowledgement that they would be confident in time [about other 'suspects'] And six days later there were arrests.!..  . This, I suggest, suggests that there was an improper purpose without probable cause"




    In Whose Interests
    And I wonder: has there been any action taken against a lawyer that was publicly outed as having lied to the Court?

    How would you or I find out, against that protective , selfserving barrier that the legal profession has set up?

    Isn't there some journalist out there prepared to ask?

    It's a simple enough question: what happens when a company secretary who is a lawyer, is said by a judge to have been economical with the truth in Court?

    We have  a Court that has said that the feckin Prime Minister lied!

    And there's not  cheep in the 'papers' about a relatively insignificant wee company secretary of  a lawyer having lied in Court!

    Aye, man, it fair makes you wonder.broken heart

    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 13th September 2019 at 21:31

    '.. I would be surprised if he hasn't had some payoff even if it's for a non disclosure agreement deal.'


    One of the many problems that RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd have is that their very existence is predicated on untruth.

    Charles Green did not buy the Rangers of 1872, but founded a new club entirely.

    The football club whose shares were bought by investors in RIFC on the basis of the IPO prospectus was the new club which was admittted to the SFA in 2012, not the 'the most successful club in the world' ,as the Prospectus implied.

    I mentioned months ago that I had written to the CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority about my belief that they had failed in their statutory duty when they approved the prospectus issued on behalf of the IPO made by RIFC.

    Not having received any acknowledgement from the CEO, I wrote to the Chairman. Not having received any acknowledgement from him I sent a reminder using Royal Mail tracking.

    I got a  letter back from the 'Customer Contact Centre' dated 6 September and received by me on , I think, on Tuesday 10th.

    This letter said that they could not find my letters, and could I send a copy of what I sent.

    I emailed on Thursday all the letters I had written to them. 

    I await a reply.

    And in the interests of absolute truth, I have to say that I had put a partially wrong postcode on the envelope of both my initial letter and reminder, so perhaps the delay is my fault

    But whatever the reply, at least the CEO and the Chairman know that RIFC plc is the holding company of a football club created in 2012, and not of 'the most successful football club in the world'.