0
    0

    Comment on In Whose Interests by John Clark.

    al62 6th November 2019 at 17:21

    '… is suggesting a crowdfunded judicial review of Doncaster’s conferring of old Rangers’ titles on the new Ibrox club…'

    ++++++++++++++++++

    I've been trying to read up a little on 'judicial review'.

    Taking Lord Drummond Young's opinion , expressed en passant during the Inner House hearing of HMRC's appeal against the Lord Ordinary's decision in the EBT case, that while it is normally  only public bodies whose decisions are 'judicially reviewable', the decisions of private organisations can sometimes be looked at by the Courts I searched for cases where a private organisation's internal decisions had been subjected to Judicial Review.

    Up popped the Tommy Sheridan case. To my surprise, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission [SCCRC] seems not to be a 'public body' . 
    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2019csih23.pdf?sfvrsn=0

    Nevertheless, Sheridan got his 'Appeal' against rejection of his 'Appeal' to the Lord Ordinary of the rejection of his complaint  [there is no statutory right of appeal ] against a decision of the SCCRC, heard by the Inner House.

    The Inner House's judgment is interesting

    "Delivering the opinion of the Inner House, Lord President Carloway, who sat with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young, said Mr Sheridan had failed to appreciate "the limitations under which the court operates" when asked to review the decision of a specialist body such as the SCCRC. There was no statutory appeal process and review could only be on "conventional grounds of illegality". (my bold) His allegation of error of law was little more than "a contention that, having regard to a string of documents in connection with [News Group's] illegal or improper activities, the respondents' decisions were wrong", in circumstances "where no such error is visible".

     I read that as indicating that where a private organisation( e.g a sports  or social club committee or a governance body of, say, a chess association or a gym club etc )    has made a decision which is on conventional grounds 'illegal' then the decision may be open to Judicial Review.  

    Now, when it comes to something that is 'conventionally illegal', where would the SPL/SPFL   be in having used its powers to confer on a newly created club the sporting honours and titles fought for and won on the sporting field over a period of 140 years plus  by a sports club that had ceased to exist as sports club

    Especially when there are some grounds for thinking that in doing so the purpose might possibly have been to help a newly created plc (which was acquiring that new club) launch its IPO ,in the 'Summary' of which the claim, in the minds of many people,  was made at least implicitly  that the  new club was/is that very ancient and superbly successful 140+ years old club, in order to (some would say) mislead potential investors!

    On the face of it, it seems to me at least that there may be something plainly illegal in all of this: a potential abuse of power to further a potential material financial gain. 

    But what do I know?

    Personally, I would keep 'judicial review' in reserve, and go for police investigation into Res 12 for starters. broken heart

    And take it from there. 

    ps. I would imagine that a continuing 'plain illegality' situation would not be time-barred.

     

     

    John Clark Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    Corrupt official 12th November 2019 at 04:31 

    ',,,   In law, that was also registered into Sevco "ownership", after a long unexplained delay.   '

    +++++++++++++

    I posted about this some time ago, expressing the view that Sport Scotland  seemed suddenly to realise that the legal entity to which they had given a good few quid of our money had ceased to exist except as an entity in liquidation, and therefore that thee was  no legal obligation on TRFC Ltd to pay any heed to the conditions that had been imposed.

    Hence we had that very late transfer of the 'RFC of 1872' obligations to TRFC Ltd.

    SportScotland showed themselves up as being suckers ( or succulent lamb eaters) in thrall to the 'establishment club' who for about two years had swallowed the SFA/TRFC lie that SevcoScotland?TRFC was the RFC of 1872 which had received the money.

    Some dozy people are damned lucky not to have lost their jobs over that episode, in my opinion, whether for turning a blind eye or for downright incompetence.

     


    In Whose Interests
    paraniodbyexperience 11th November 2019 at 15:53

    '..why the Celtic board would be involved in this. '

    +++++++++++

    Why else but to help sustain the lie that there is still a marketable 'old firm' comprising two old clubs who made their money by cashing in on politico/religious sectarianism in spite of the fact that it is recognised in the 'recordal'  SevcoScotland/TRFC is NOT the Rangers of 1872 

    Greed has caused CFC plc to sell its soul without a blush , pretty much as the SFA/SPFL sold the soul of Scottish Football integrity to a miserable wretch.

    Brother Walfrid will be turning in his grave

     

     


    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 11th November 2019 at 00:21

    "@JC 

    I believe a certain James Spence did opt to tell the truth ,"

    +++++++++++
    Yes, indeed, and honour to the man-and also to Mark Daly and Chris McLaughlin who quite possibly have suffered for their attempts to be properly objective as sports journalists.

    The important thing is that the bulk of sports journalists and pundits try to ignore the plain truth and thus betray their partisanship and any concept of journalistic integrity. And in so doing, shame themselves .


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    bordersdon 5th September 2019 at 11:27

    '…Yes the duopoly is back!..'

    +++++++++++++++++++

    A duopoly, certainly. But a duopoly with a new club replacing the Rangers of 1872.

    Sadly, I feel it is to Celtic FC's eternal shame that  they too  put 'profit' above truth and honour.

    The failure by them to have the RES 12 issue dragged screaming and kicking into the full light of day, and their readiness to accept the 5-Way Agreement that allows a new club to masquerade as an old club and claim that forever disgraced club's sporting achievements while simultaneously disowning any of the liabilities of that forever disgraced club, marks the current Celtic Board as men of less than principle, willing to be yoked for filthy lucre's sake to what I would describe as a parcel of real bad rogues, and willing to allow the Board of the SFA to lie brazenly and avoid independent investigation.

    UK national politics has its Rees-Moggs' and Boris Johnsons. 

    Scottish Football has the equivalents.

     


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    I have had to get to the public library in order to post. 

    If I can post this from the library, it means it's my pc/mouse that's at fault and that means a trip to PC World. (I was half-hoping the fault was elsewhere and would be fixed sooner or later)

    Here goes!


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    This is a test post :I have had cursor problems for nearly two days! 


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Cluster One 23rd August 2019 at 07:09

    '..The wee red book 2012-2013.When they had to print the truth.'

    ++++++++++++

    Ah, dear old Club 12! 

    What a panic there was at that time, that induced a bunch of small-minded 'small-to-medium business' owners to stain their consciences with a sordid lie  that makes a mockery of Sport and the concept of Sports 'governance'.

    I note today, incidentally, that the SPFL has appointed a law firm to its panel of legal advisers. It would be nice to think that Doncaster was looking for advice on how to untangle the wretched 5-Way Agreement and restore sporting honesty to Scottish Football.

     


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    macfurgly 22nd August 2019 at 23:37

    '..The reports in the Record and the Sun were both under the byline of James Mulholland, and were virtually identical.'

    ++++++++++++++

    Were they in any substantial way contradictory of anything eJ and I reported ?