Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by John Clark.

     I've been re-reading Lord Malcolm's September 6th 'opinion'


    He referred to previous authorities, and cited one authority ( in the case of guy done for reset) in which is expressed  what I hope and believe is the truth about our legal system:

    "Lord Guthrie expressed the view that the arguments addressed 
    in support of these pleas raised “questions of importance in constitutional law and in the 
    law of reparation.  It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add that, although the pursuer admittedly 
    comes before the court with his scutcheon liberally blotted, and invokes the aid of the law 
    which he has frequently broken,
    his case must be considered as raising questions of 
    principle, and as if it were presented by an innocent citizen who had been unwarrantably 
    imprisoned following upon proceedings which were a nullity.”

    That is, even a guy with a criminal record and no regard for 'the law' is absolutely entitled to be dealt with fairly under the law.

    I, of course, have my own opinions about Duff and Phelps and the whole 'saga' ( including my opinion about the whole feckin shambles that the COPFS made of their 'prosecution'. In truth, I would nearly be ready to believe the unthinkable- that the shambles was engineered!)

    But that's just me and my 'prejudices'.

    But I take comfort in the fact that whatever the court case and however badly, insincerely and incompetently presented, the Court will deal with it as presented, strictly in accordance with law and legal precedent.

    And I find it interesting that today the Court asked that 'authorities' outwith the USA and Canada and the Uk should be included in the list of 'authorities' to be adduced by parties for the Hearing in September.








    John Clark Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Cluster One 3rd April 2019 at 06:58

    "..New “Res 12”, website.



    Thank you for that important link, Cluster one.

    I have said before that I was not and am not one of the 'Res 12' group, but I am wholeheartedly behind them.

    The authors of this thoroughly researched and excellently drafted and presented account of what the Res12 issue is all about are to be congratulated and applauded. 

    No one reading that account could honestly assert that  there are not major questions to be asked of the behaviour of the now dead RFC , its owners and directors, and of the SFA.

    One can very well understand the anger many people feel at:

    the point blank refusal by the SFA to have the matter fully and independently investigated, and the suspicion that this raises as indicating that they fear what may emerge from an investigation

    the meek acceptance by Celtic plc that  they and their shareholders may have been cheated out of millions, and their readiness to kick a shareholders' AGM-resolution into the long grass rather than insist on a full investigation .

    And one can very well understand why a reference to the COPFS/Police Scotland seeking a police investigation into criminality is being held as a backstop.

    I am quite ready to believe that the apparent success of the dirty work involved in the granting of the UEFA licence to an unentitled club encouraged  black hearts and dishonest minds some years  later to believe, smugly, that they could get away with the utterly disgraceful 5-Way Agreement.

    Scottish Football supporters owe it to themselves to try to save Football in Scotland by getting to the truth. And a thorough reading of   https://www.res12.uk/     will convince them of that fact.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    finnmccool 2nd April 2019 at 16:49

    '…That is the problem that the SFA created when they failed to censure Gerrard over his referee comments and rescinded Morelos's red card..'


    The SFA, by cobbling up the 5-Way Agreement to accommodate cheats lost all moral authority, and has  several times been given the finger with impunity by the chairman of RIFC plc. 

    The SFA supped with the devil, and is now seen for what it has become- in  effect, a bent cop, with no moral authority over the baddies they so eagerly aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet in the deceit of the Big Lie.

    (As for BBC Scotland, I wonder whether Chris McLaughlin's recent promotion was the beginning of an attempt to appease TRFC Ltd by discreetly removing McLaughlin from the list of reporters who would be sent to Ibrox , thus giving in to TRFC ?)


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    paddy malarkey 2nd April 2019 at 16:26


    The link has this:

    "Rangers: Ryan Kent offered ban for lashing [ my bold]out at Celtic captain Scott Brown

    Rangers' Ryan Kent faces a two-game ban after being charged for shoving [ my italics]Celtic captain Scott Brown.

    Footage showed the winger, 22, lash out at Brown in the aftermath of James Forrest's late winner for the hosts at Celtic Park on Sunday."

    What kind of garbage reporting we are now getting from BBC Scotland!

    There is no way Kent's swing at Brown could be construed as a 'shove' , and it was some crass idiot of a sub-editor who let such a contradictory report leave the keyboard.

    Recent Comments by John Clark

    In Whose Interests
    Big Pink 15th October 2019 at 23:35

    ' John C
    Sadly the BP residence is leasehold '


    Jings, crivvens and michty me! broken heart


    In Whose Interests
    Homunculus 15th October 2019 at 20:46


    *September 19 2019

    Metro Bank has warned it could face a “significant” bill after regulators widened their investigations into a £900 million accounting scandal'

    Metro announced in January that they had "adjusted the risk weighting of certain commercial loans secured on commercial property and certain specialist buy-to-let loans that had the combined effect of increasing our Risk-weighted assets"

    As I understand it, the amount of capital and cash reserves a Bank is required to keep on hand is closely related to the risks that are attached to their varied types of assets. And, it seems, it's the bank itself that decides what level of risk there may be!

    So, an official in my bank might decide that the risk of lending me £100M  to allow me to buy Big Pink's Lanarkshire mansion to support my plans for making money by renting it out to fabulously wealthy football players is no risk at all: because the money will come in, I shall pay off the loan and interest thereon no bother.

    So the amount that my bank has to keep in cash to cover the risk of me defaulting in my repayments of the loan is nowhere near enough to cover its ass if I do default, and if an unrealistic valuation of BP's mansion had been decided on( deliberately or not) to allow the bank to lend me the £100M.

    I assume therefore that the FCA investigation is into the question of whether there were very naughty deeds of minimising 'risk',thus leaving oodles of cash free for other purposes [not necessarily for illicit purposes (such as lining the pockets of individuals in making sweet deals for clients and themselves)], but consequently exposing the bank to the danger of not being able to meet its own liabilities if the estimates of risk were badly unrealistic.

    I attended a trial once, a number of years ago, where a guy who hadnae two pennies to rub together and had had to 'borrow' money from a guy who had been accused of fraud, testified that he , a finacial consultant,had writtten a 'letter of comfort'  as to the accused's financial standing and probity, to those who were thinking of lending the accused a substantial sum of money!

    That episode (on top of the RBS Goodwin ,the knight stripped of his knighthood while other knights  seem to be exempt from public censure and keep their 'honour' in spite of spitting in the eye of the Monarch by practicing deceit upon Her tax assessors and gatherers) causes me to laugh at the sub-species of human being such people are, hold them in absolute contempt, and wish them every failure financially-and gaol if appropriate.

    Naturally, I pass no comment on the situation at Metro Bank, who swear to cooperate fully with any investigation into the £900M blackhole.

    And, of course, I fully accept that I am not anything other than a questioner

    as well as being someone whose own experience tells him that bodies such as the SFA and the FCA appear not to like  questions being asked of them!

    I am  beginning now to think that I have grounds for asking my MP for some help in getting the FCA to reply to my query about their authorisation of the IPO Prospectus.

    But that is for another day.


    In Whose Interests
    I jetted in this morning from Newark Airport, after a couple of interesting and enjoyable weeks in Pennsylvania, and it's good to be back in the same time zone.

    Section A3 of the Take-over Code [  the full text of the code is at this link  http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf?v=1Apr2019] describes the companies, the transactions and persons who are covered by the Code.

    My reading of that section is that the cold-shouldering of a director or a company is only in relation to those transactions that are in connection with a take-over bid by one company of another, or by the directors of a company trying to get an increased control of the company by the issue of shares.

    That's disappointing, because I would wish that anyone 'cold-shouldered' should be seen as being an utter pariah, completely excluded from using any financial services in connection with his business or operating in any commercial business whether as owner or director.

    Reading the Code is not easy for people like me who  knows hardly anything about Companies and shares and the 'market' , so I may be wrong in my reading of the Introduction, Section A3.

    But I think that whatever we think, the people who move in that world of business and shares and take-overs crap themselves at the prospect of being 'cold-shouldered'- so it must have some significance as a penalty, branding the person as an untrustworthy person in whose good faith one would be a mug to rely on in any business connection.

    Further, it seems clear to me that  even to sit round the same Boardroom table with a person ordered by the FCA to be 'cold shouldered' would suggest that one is of the same low-life stamp of lying, untrustworthy business man.

    Perhaps the RIFC plc Board members have thicker skins than I?



    In Whose Interests
    Homunculus 13th October 2019 at 21:31

    '.. Maybe Rangers would be as well if things had been done properly.



    All legal truth and sporting truth and practical reality and Liquidation-precedent were on the side of the Governance body.  RFC of 1872 had died, as other football clubs had done, but rather more shamefully and in disgrace.

    But it's certain that few 'old Rangers' fans would have been permanently lost if the SFA had insisted that CG's new creation could not be allowed to make the ridiculous claim that it was the 'old Rangers'.

    There was undoubtedly a partisan desire on the part of the SFA Board strong enough to make it prepared to throw out sporting integrity, truth and common sense and create a monstrous lie under the specious pretence of the  supposed commercial interests of the game!

    The questions raised by the Res12 issue and the refusal to have that thoroughly and independently investigated reinforce the suspicion that the SFA was not only corrupt in the matter of the Liquidation and its consequences, but had already been corrupted by sliding monies to the ailing RFC of 1872, monies to which it was in no way entitled, some time before.

    It is now simply the case that the Governance body simply cannot get itself out of the mess its cowardice and partisanship created.

    It must come clean and face up to the truth openly and honestly, come what may.

    In Whose Interests
    Which is the more grave offence-to break the 'non-statutory' rules of the TOP, as Mr King did, or for a lawyer declared by a judge to have lied in Court?

    The TOP has taken action against King but only after a lengthy period. Will it be a similar length of time before any body (eg the Law Society of Scotland?) or even the Courts take action against the lying lawyer?