Printable View
Remember him? He struck me as a dodgy geezer at the time but I see he's received a grovelling apology from the Lord Advocate for wrongful prosecution:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57384080
Duff and Phelps got a similar apology last year I think. Not a good look for the Crown Office.
I realise this isn't strictly football related so if it's better placed on the Holy Ground then no problem.
Jeez. Some hefty bills for us tax payers here.
I think an inquiry would be welcome. How come we end up lining these guys’ pockets?
Cause we had Lord Advocate and a Solicitor General who were political lackies rather than competent at their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
Old boys club fleecing the public purse.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
James Wolffe was far from being a political appointee.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I thought the Lord Advocate was appointed on the recommendation of the First Minister? From what I recall, that's been the reason there have been calls to change the appointment process in order to prevent accusations of political favouritism.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wolffe
James Wolffe is part of the Scottish Government
James Wolfe is not responsible for this fiasco his predecessor isQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibbyfraelibby
Does he have another reason for resigning from the job of top legal wig in Scotland ?
Mulholland. Now a High Court judge.Already running for cover saying”it wisnae me,I was just the man in charge”.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibbyfraelibby
He was a nasty asset strpping *****bag wrecking ball businessman but nothing he did was criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
It was madness trying to prosecute him.
How do you work that out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
I'm not sure about madness, but it was always going to be difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMurdoch
Complex fraud cases are notoriously difficult to bring to any sort of acceptable conclusion. Part of that is down to the lack of specialist knowledge within the justice system, and then there's the problem of presenting a case to a lay jury.
I agree with what you say about CG's character, but I'm still to be convinced about the criminality aspect. The RFC liquidators also had issues with how that whole thing was managed, hence the current case against Duff and Phelps.
It is utter madness to allow a jury made up of random members of the public for complicated cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Spend millions of pounds on building a complicated intricate case and then have to present it to a jury, a number of whom, don't have the mental capacity to understand it.
I never did read up about this case and therefore don't know the ins and outs as you do.
However, my reading of the situation is that David Murray was the big villain in all this. He allowed a massive debt to build up at Rangers. Eventually realised he couldn't sort it.out and that he needed out before the house of cards inevitably fell. What he needed was a patsy and he found his man in Craig Whyte.
Whyte held out just long enough for David Murray to escape into the sunset and for the dust to settle before the collapse happened.
Charles Green etc simply saw lots of money to be made by flipping Rangers with their massive support so stepped in. Once in he started asset stripping and making deals which were poor for the future of the new club but were big earners for him and others e.g. a tied in deal with Sports Directs Mike Ashley was the worst. Appalling deals like this would eventually cost the club a fortune to get out of. That was a moral fraud or as businessmen call it........business.
The only real fraud I see is by David Murray. Horrific debt accumulated whilst he was owner. Selling the house of cards to Whyte should not have allowed him to escape resposibility. I find it hard to believe what an easy ride Rangers supporters have subsequently given Murray. He got out the car, took the handbrake off and sent the club rolling down the hill to it's death. Charles Green just got in there and hoovered up as much money as possible from the wreck before it became too hot and he had to get out.
The only possible fraud is whether there was collution between Murray and Whyte. What sane businessman would have taken the club over when the saw the level of debt and tax liability.
I thought it was linked to the handling of the harassment claims against SalmondQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
There's also the question of the moral (if not legal) fraud perpetrated on the creditors by Green and Duff and Phelps.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMurdoch
Murray Park is no longer named after him, think the Rangers supporters hold him responsible
So many things are issues of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Criminals and businessmen are often to be found hiding behind their lawyers and the semantics of the law.
The phrase i see used all the time currently by oily bustards is
"I did nothing illegal" or "my client did nothing illegal"
I think David Cameron used that to cover his recent immoral behaviour.
A phrase used to cover a raft of reprehensible behaviour.
I always used the following barometer for my behaviour at work
" is what I am doing fair"
That kept my conscience clear.
Not a phrase familiar to the likes of Charles Green.
That's pretty small beer given everyone else was prosecuted and chased endlessly by angry mad Rangers supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Pretty sure it's a similar situation with the attorney general in England.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
There was a lot of debate during the Salmond/Sturgeon saga (part two coming to court at a yet to be confirmed date :rolleyes:) about whether being head of the crown office can sit comfortably alongside being the government's chief legal officer. I do think there's an argument for the roles to be split.
As for the 'Rangers' case, I note that Wolffe acknowledged that the prosecution of Duff and Phelps as being "motivated by malice". What does that actually mean?
It doesn't mean what you and i would expect it to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
There is another thread on hibs.net discussing it after the apology was made, from memory it's on the Holy ground part of the forum..