Comment on Dear Mr Bankier by John Clark.

    Seeing that there's not much happening on the blog today, can I go a little off topic as I sit here savouring a Fat Yak [tastes as good as I remember]?

    This afternoon  , while down the local park with the granweans, I fell into conversation with another pair of grandparents, similarly minding their grandchild. 

    It turned out that he had been a linesman , and had been running the line in games that Frank Haffey had played in (in whatever Aussie league that was) and had on one occasion at least had to flag the referee when Haffey repeatedly crossed the 18 yard line holding the ball.

    It also turned out that he had been an acquaintance of Willie Wallace, and I was able to tell him that 4 years ago I had had several pints with Wispie in O'Malley's bar in Brisbane, and that Willie had been in Glasgow not that many weeks ago.

    The chap I was talking to was a Londoner who had emigrated to Oz in 1967, and has a son and grandchildren now domiciled in England, as well as the other grandchild he and his wife were with today.

    It further turned out that that granddaughter there in the park was the primary school sixth year who was my granddaughter's school 'buddy' when she was in Prep last year.

    It is these little serendipities that add to one's life experiences in a wonderfully positive way!






    John Clark Also Commented

    Dear Mr Bankier
    It's what, half-past one-ish p.m in Edinburgh? 

    Lady Wolffe will presumably by now have been informed by whoever keeps the diary of 'deadline' dates as to whether King has obeyed her order to the satisfaction of the TOP.

    When will we, the 'public', hear whether the Court has been given the two fingers or whether King's legal bods have prevailed upon him to obey?

    I am agog with excitement!!!. 

    No, really, I expect some fudge, some work-around, some 'arrangement' will have been reached under which King will have generously agreed to accommodate Lady Wolffe and the TOP in the interests of moving on, having made his point etc etc etc.


    Dear Mr Bankier
    joes11 17th December 2018 at 09:27

    '….Is it possible to have information about the response, if any, that there has been to these questions – if not in detail, perhaps even a general indication of where things have now reached? '


    Somewhat related to your post, here am I in Australia, joes11, wishing to ask whether Mr Bankier has replied to my letter to him. I am conscious of the possibility that he may have replied since I left on my travels, and his reply may be lying on my hall floor as I write, so I would like to know for sure. 

    But, by geez, these guys don't half make it hard to communicate with them: there is no email address given on the Celtic plc website even for any PA  that Mr Bankier may have, never mind an email address for the  Chairman himself. 

    So I cannot simply email to ask whether a reply has been made, and if so what were the terms of that reply: and if not, whether I am to be favoured with a reply at all!




    Dear Mr Bankier
    sickofitall 16th December 2018 at 07:47

    '…Have they complied with the court orders yet'


    Patience, sickofitall!

    The deadline was 5.30 pm on a Friday. The Court of Session is not open for business for another 19 hours or so as I write.

    So Lady Wolffe will not officially know whether the TOP has confirmed that King has done to their satisfaction what she ordered him to do.

    And I'm with eJ in his observation that Lady Wolffe made it abundantly clear to King he has to pay heed, and careful heed, to the terms of the order.

    If Lady Wolffe does not tomorrow morning have written notice from the TOP that King had by 5.30 pm on last Friday met to their satisfaction the terms of the order then King is in soapy bubble.


    But my fear is that the TOP itself might too readily accept some token compliance, rather than nail the guy. Remember, the TOP is made up of guys who are themselves 'money men' operating in the market: and a bit like, say, the members of the SFA, will not want to push 'principle' too far. 

    I came across this quite interesting piece



    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'.