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

    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.

    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
    Ex Ludo 2nd April 2019 at 13:44

    '….Can anyone confirm if clubs do actually store banners? It suggests some sort of collusion and a tacit acceptance of unwelcome messages being displayed on the banners.'


    I have vague memories that Celtic FC some years ago and   for reasons of their own  (relating perhaps to a wish to exercise control of content) might  have offered to store large banners. 

    I don't know whether they actually did, or if so, whether the offer was accepted . 


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Cluster One 15th November 2019 at 20:08

    '…A firm  suing Rangers following a shelved plan….'


    There is the SMSM at its best!

    Not a mention of 'breach of contract'.

    Oh ,no. A 'shelved plan!' A mere nothing that some wee company is making much of!

    Honest to God! Memorial walls is suing for a substantial some of money because TRFC is, they say,  in breach of contract. 

    in the same way  as Lionel Persey QC found them to be in the SDIR case.

    This pussyfooting about anything to do with 'Rangers' , the minimising and misreporting of the facts about anything to do with either RFC of 1872 or TRF of 2012 , marks the SMSM as perhaps the most untrustworthy aggregation of 'journalists' outside North Korea, China, and other such places where journalist means party propagandist.



    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    ulyanova 15th November 2019 at 22:33

    '..I wonder if there was a theory that 'purdah' rules during an an election would preclude a response from HMRC?'


    If  Llewellin thought that, he's even more of a dolt than I took him for!

    There was, is, nothing 'political' in terms of 'party politics' in Harra's  matter of fact statement of fact. 

    If Llewellin thought that HMRC could not defend itself against false accusations he's just a singularly uninformed eejit of a newspaper editor, and possibly a badly motivated one at that!

    HMRC should demand an immediate retraction of the falsehood.



    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Right! Not having received any reply from either of the two email addresses of the FCA, I have sent this email to the Clerk of the Treasury Committee.


    15 Nov at 22:18

    To: the Clerk to the Treasury Committee

    "Dear Gosia McBride,

    I  know  that the Financial Conduct Authority is not a Civil Service department and is therefore perhaps less under any obligation (other than those imposed by conventional good manners and custom)  to reply to individual members of the public than  is a regular Civil Service Department.

    I have a wee problem, though, that I hope you may be able to help resolve.

    Briefly, on 25 June I wrote to the CEO  of the FCA suggesting that the FCA may have  been in breach of its statutory duty in the matter of the authorisation of the Prospectus for an Initial Public Offer of a particular company.

    Since then I have received only one acknowledgement , to the effect that the FCA had no trace of my letters, and could I send copies, and carried with it the suggestion that if I were to use email matters would be speeded up.

    I promptly emailed copies of all that I had previously sent whether by Royal Mail or email.

    The forwarded email below is the tail  end of it, and brings us up to date.

    The FCA appears to be grossly inefficient in its routine administrative functions, or contemptuous of people who write to them or unwilling to reply to questions which seem to imply some fault on their part.

    I still have received no substantive reply to my letters/emails!

    Whatever the reason (and any one of the three possibilities I mention should be of some interest to the Committee) the FCA is ultimately accountable to Parliament (and the electorate) through the Treasury Committee.  

    It is on that basis I write to you to ask, please, that you pass this email to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee and/or direct to  the CEO of the FCA.

    Given that Parliament is presently suspended for the general election I thought it pointless to 'write to my MP' as I otherwise would have done . I suspect that he may have  other things to worry about.

    Yours sincerely etc etc"


    I forwarded only the most recent reminder that I had sent to the FCA, but that should provide enough general info.[I don't have a clue how to send an email chain, tried looking it up but couldn't find anything I understood. heart]

    The point in writing to the Treasury Committee clerk, of course, is that she will have to do something. She cannot deal conclusively with my email on her own authority. She cannot just bin it! She must either

    send it to the Chairman and do what he says ,which will be either to tell her to flog it straight off to the FCA- in which case the FCA will see that the Treasury Committee clerk will have it on record- or himself take an interest in the content and be curious enough to  ask a question or two.

    or, she herself will consider it to be simply a matter for the FCA, send it there, and tell me that she has sent it to them as being simply a  matter for them.

    Standard stuff. 

    But knowledge of the 'issue' is spread a wee bit wider!

    We'll see what  Gosia 's reply may be. ( Pronounced Gohsha, a Polish version of 'Margaret')


    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Bogs Dollox 15th November 2019 at 13:22

    '..raking over the coals only highlights the fact they were tax cheats.'

    And  they were sports cheats!

    Doing the taxpayer out of money is one thing and damaging to the whole of society in a sort of abstract, non-immediately personal way.

    Telling lies to the other football clubs which are their 'sporting' competitors (via at the very least lying to the SFA about the payments they were making to their players and concealing the 'side-letters' and possibly having lied to UEFA about the European licence some years before that) is far more personally offensive and insulting to me and the rest of us. 

    RFC of 1872 deservedly are in Liquidation.

    Meanwhile TRFC continues to live a sports cheating existence in  claiming such sporting merit as the club in Liquidation had earned. 

    They have not yet been sorted out for that. 

    And the failure to deal with that is, one suspects, the clearest indicator that our football governance bodies are themselves so heavily involved in the sports cheating that they are themselves sh.t scared to act as they should.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    I am by no means a dedicated reader of the business pages or the Financial Times nor have I been particularly interested in even my own personal tax affairs, so I may very well be off the mark, but I do not recollect ever seeing HMRC publicly assert the truth of their calculations in relation to a named tax-payer .

    Don't they usually say they never comment on particular cases? 

    Has new ground been broken here by HMRC ? 

    We should perhaps see a lot more naming and shaming of the low-life ,would-be high-living turds who cheat  us all. 

    And if any such have been honoured, we should see them as publicly dishonoured as certain bank chiefs have been dishonoured.