Comment on Dear Mr Bankier by LUGOSI.

    Portbhoy 13th December 2018 at 23:38

    I think I see a flaw in your question.

    "…honest answer, please."

    LUGOSI Also Commented

    Dear Mr Bankier
    Each time I read the word "boycott" I think the user should be obliged to reference the origin of the word and compare the facts then with the current case to show an equivalence.

    The word comes from Charles Cunningham Boycott; an English Land Agent in Ireland who acted in a certain way and those affected acted in a certain way.

    Following Sevconian genealogy, in which ancestry can be traced through your middle name, David Cunningham King has described the historical treatment of Boycott as Romish running dog lies, Chris Cunningham Graham has Ze List of haters and James Cunningham Traynor knows where we all live.

    Whether there is a boycott by the BBC or not I neither know nor care.

    What I do know is there is a Mo by me.


    Dear Mr Bankier
    I note that Barcabhoy and Homunculus are locking horns over Organised Crimegate.

    The matter may be resolved, up to a point, if the restricted shareholders, who may or may not be crims, sell to Mr King.

    That way the Authorities would only have to deal with one crim, with the bonus that they know who he is, they know where he lives and all relevant information about him is easily found in the many glowing reports about him in South African court decisions.

    My reading of GASH's evidence was he was saying that because RIFC had decided to shut down the voting rights etc. of a number of shareholders they didn't feature in any calculation because either the Offer to Buy wouldn't be made to them or an acceptance by them would be rejected.

    I think Lady Wolffe shot this bit of wishful thinking down by pointing out this would be beyond GASH's control.

    This is all subject to the timetabling laid out being kept to. Stranger things have happened but not many

    Dear Mr Bankier
    John Clark and easyjambo.

    Thank You.

    Having reread the postings of the last couple of days I have a question.

    Was there any evidence from Mr King which answered the contempt of court charge?

    There seemed to be a lot of chat about the history of the case; which in essence is that Mr King was told three?, four? times to get on with it but didn't and it would appear that on Friday both Lady Wolffe and the Takeover Panel's QC asked on a number of occasions what King and King's QC's line had to do with the price of fish.

    I haven't read anything which goes even close to addressing the putative lack of mens rea defence.

    Even if King makes the offer I don't see how this purges the contempt.

    I think (easyjambo can confirm) that King has already been told that not only is he liable for both sides expenses up to Thursday but there is a percentage uplift for the Takeover Panel due to novelty. Not a bill I would greet with alacrity and I doubt that King's can-kicking has been a financially shrewd one. I would hope that all bills are sent to South Africa and not South Govan.

    I think Mr King is what I once heard described as a Criminal Mindermast.

    It's actually the opposite of what he thinks.

    Recent Comments by LUGOSI

    In Whose Interests
    If anyone is looking for some light reading before the start of tomorrow's Supreme Court (with a bench of 11) I can recommend the Note which has been lodged on behalf of the successful party at the Court of Session.

    It can be found on the Twitter account of Jo Maugham QC: @jolyonmaugham although there's a link on James Doleman's Twitter account.

    You might think they would just point at the unanimous 68 page Opinion of the Inner House but you'd be wrong.

    I say light reading; it runs to 92 pages and apart from a couple of typos it doesn't miss and hit the wall. Parts of it wouldn't sound out of place if read in a Mel Gibson Braveheart voice.

    John Clark and EasyJambo can only dream of being supplied with background papers like this.

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Big Pink 6th September 2019 at 16:54

    Have you all left?

    Big Pink 8th September 2019 at 01:39

    Does seem spooky. Unusual and spooky.

    I can only speak for myself but recent/current events may be overshadowing football. For a couple of years we've watched POTUS and thought we've found someone who lies more glibly and more shamelessly than Dave "No Shares But Club Owner" King.

    Surely we can't lower the bar?

    "Hold my beer" said Boris.

    Boris has managed to out-Trump Trump and he's done it in days.

    Big Pink is correct about spooky and unusual but it's nothing to do with posting on here. It's spooky and unusual to hear about Tories who have been booted out or resigned being referred to as the Good Guys who are looking after democracy, who are following their consciences and are acting in the national interest. A quick skim through the 21 MPs booted out during the week would not throw up a history of Good Guys. I don't think any of them has done other than consistently act and vote in a narrow, self-serving fashion which hasn't given two hoots for democracy, conscience or national interest. You don't have to go further back than last night to find a Conservative MP resigning from the Cabinet and leaving the Tory Party for what seem to be being touted as laudable reasons. Even if you were unaware of Amber Rudd's views and history 5 minutes on Google would inform you on what she cares about what the people think, what she can and can't do with a seemingly clear conscience and the specific part of the nation she thinks has more of an interest than the rest.

    The current playing fast and loose with the law, facts and how you treat the public could have come straight out of the SFA/SPFL/MSM playbook. Anything goes so long as mission accomplished. Time will tell, in both cases, if we get the right outcome.

    In the meantime to keep a grip on sanity I suggest reading the parody Sweary Bercow Twitter account. Mr Bercow, even with his own flaws, may become the Tory who stopped or possibly ended the Tories.

    Spooky and unusual but not a worry.

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Is anyone allowed to report unsourced UEFA decisions?


    As a reward for acting like normal human beings on one occasion in a mere 329 years The Rangers may sell an extra 3,000 tickets for their next home European fixture.


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Isn't there yet another staunch Court Hearing today?

    Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd?

    You've got to love that "The". You've got to be sure you're suing the proper party. You'd look silly suing Rangers Football Club Ltd or A Rangers Football Club Ltd or Any Rangers Football Club Ltd.

    From memory the Referee is Bannatyne, Lord, so the Court should be fully aware of the history of at least one of the parties. There is the potential for confusion if it is thought that the dispute concerns a Wall as a Memorial to a misfortune in 2012. To be consistent the dispute should not be about A Wall; it should be about The Wall.

    Hopefully there will be no traditional singing from the The Rangers end of the Court.

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    In the less than two days since the UEFA "bombshell" disciplinary decision (which would have been no "bombshell" at all to the The Rangers officials who would have been informed of the citing within days of the match in July) I've read and heard some of the most dishonest, disingenuous, misguided and delusional tosh the quality and integrity of which is rapidly approaching "Club dies/Haud oan, naw it disnae" proportions.

    If one were to believe press, radio, online fora and the The Rangers support utterances you would be left with the impression that there was an open question as to what singing was and was not acceptable.

    You can have your own opinion on the Walls of Derry and whether or not such a song has anything to do with football. Such is not the case with the Walls of William.

    It is over ten years since William Walls v The Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock [2009] HCJAC 59 in which the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary exocetted the suggestions that singing about Fenian bastards and FTP was not sectarian and that the Famine Song was not racist. I paraphrase but the Opinion of the Court was: Aye they 'ucking are."

    It is noteworthy that in the Walls v PF Kilmarnock case a notable absence in the repertoire was the always popular The Billy Boys; a charming ditty about murdering Roman Catholics. Had it been included presumably the conviction at Sheriff Court level would have been appealed on the ground that singing about being up to your knees in Fenian blood is merely a reference to bloodletting, an accepted medical procedure in the Seventeenth Century.

    Fanciful? Perhaps, but not any more fanciful than the actual proposition advanced in the Appeal Court (Findlay QC) that the Famine Song should be equated with God Save The Queen and Flower of Scotland. Unsurprisingly GSTQ and FOS was met with GTF.

    It's doubly fortunate that TBB didn't feature as in addition to the intrinsic problem of defending its content a couple of years earlier (2006?) UEFA had expressly banned it.

    We are where we are but nobody can say it is a surprise. For years if not decades this day was coming. Now those in positions where they could have done something, or anything, about it have to have their feet held to the fire (unless this would be contrary to a tradition which has to be staunchly defended).

    In no particular order the SFA, the SPFL, Police Scotland, clubs' inhouse stewarding, clubs' supporters associations and the goverment, both at national and local level, require to have a stated position on this question and further require a stated policy of what action will be taken.

    All reasonably minded people, whether they follow football or not, are entitled to know what kind of society they live in. If it's a society that is going to allow this type of behaviour, with the occasional interference from pesky outsiders, to continue those reasonably minded people would be forgiven if they took the view:

    Racism? Sectarianism? Offensive Behaviour?-

    Surrender? No.