Leaderboard

I think that's Zungu finished with us. He needed more time to deal with the physical side of the game, but generally, he's not shown enough to be given that time, and this breach is the nail in the coffin. I think the youngsters should be punished, but then given a route back. If Tavernier was injured, Patterson has really shot himself in the foot. When is Tavernier injured, to give Patterson a game? Karma.

Jones & Edmundson only sent on loan. so only short term. As fans it is easy for us to take the moral high ground and demand they be dismissed. As a corporation it is a little different as these are financial assets too (particularly Patterson), and we need every penny we can get. I am a believer in second chances so would be OK with them being suspended and fined internally (on top of their fixed penalties). Though I can see why people would want them sacked I don't necessarily agree with such draconian actions. I would be more concerned at Patterson's family deploying a cover-up story. What if the club took an "innocent until proven guilty" approach and allowed him to train and travel with the first team given what he and his family were saying ? That particular situation could have completely derailed our season. If he and his family are lying and covering up his whereabouts then the club should punish him to the fullest extent possible - which, I guess, would be sacking him - and in contradiction to what I said above. But lying like this, and potentially putting first team squad at risk of social distancing could have been catastrophic.

I think demands that any players breaching Covid restrictions are sacked are just daft. It sets a dangerous precedent (imagine if next time it was Kent, Morelos, Hagi and Barisic - would we want them all sacked?). It's economically silly (players are financial assets). The restrictions seem to have been made up on the spot by people playing a guessing game. They're young men, probably missing a bit of female attention - giving them a warning should be sufficient.

When you think that we have Davis, Jack, Kamara and Ofoborh in the summer, plus perhaps Kelly and Arfield or even Aribo, where would Zungu fit in? He might be a solid DM/CM, but due to lack of game time and adaption has probably not convinced many of us that he is one for the future.

These players didn't just breach their employer's rules on Covid. They're not just stupid, they broke the law. I find this really disappointing but not nearly as disappointing as it will be if Rangers doesn't ask these players to look for new clubs in the summer.

Surely it can only be 4 Rangers players. Zungu is here on loan, so is not our player. But if you count Zungu as being our player as he is registered with us as a loan player, then Mebude is not our player as he is at QotS on loan. I know it is being picky, but you know pretty well this is how it would be reported if it had happened elsewhere (if reported at all). I have zero tolerance for anyone going to house parties. There is no grey area. It's totally illegal, as well as being stupid, reckless, selfish and dangerous. I hope all players involved are sacked immediately. This isn't wee boys doing something stupid, like getting into a fight outside a nightclub, or letting off fireworks at a neighbour. This is a global pandemic in which the rules have been very publicly laid out. There are some concessions to football clubs to allow them to continue playing, but not for anything outside of matches and training. There has been plenty of warnings, and they seen how the careers of Edmundson & Jones were affected by similar actions, and we know all players were warned and made fully aware of the consequences of breaking the rules in this area. Yet these players showed they have no respect for our club, our management team, our fans (who have to abide by these rules and who have paid or a full season that we wont see), or for the nation as a whole. To me it wouldn't matter if it was these fringe players or our biggest assets, instant dismissal for gross misconduct for anyone going to a feckin party under these current restrictions.

I don't think we should use this as a vehicle to get rid of anyone as the rheptiles did with bolingoli, if he's not good enough, punt him for that, not because he's been stupid. A certain Geordie would never have had a career at Ibrox if we'd got shot any time he did something stupid, and many others like him. I agree with you regarding the youngsters, punish and see if they learn from their mistake. Young Nathan's family don't come out of this well, claiming he was at home when he clearly wasn't.

At what point can we say that there is a "clamour" for an Independent Public Enquiry? Only and independent inquiry on malicious prosecutions of Rangers administrators can have credibility by Liam Kerr Article from Saturday 13, February, 2021 https://www.thinkscotland.org/todays-thinking/articles.html?read_full=14442 LAST WEEK, Scottish Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser called a debate, demanding a public inquiry into the “malicious prosecutions” of two administrators of Rangers FC. In his opening remarks he used the word “incredible”. And the contents of the subsequent debate and contributions of members from across the chamber were truly incredible. The facts in summary are that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark were partners in the international insolvency firm Duff & Phelps and handled the administration of Rangers Football Club plc. They were later arrested on suspicion of fraud and on a Friday morning in November 2014, were taken from their homes in Chester, England and driven to Glasgow, arriving too late in the day to be able to appear in court – timing that they believe was deliberate. They were held in police custody until the Monday morning, left in cells without a mattress to sleep on and with lights burning throughout the night, and were checked on hourly as they were deemed to be on suicide watch. They were, in their words, treated as if they were terrorists. Until May 2016, the considerable weight of the Scottish criminal justice system was brought to bear on them. Yet those individuals had committed no crime, and nor was there a proper evidential basis for them to be indicted. Their detention has been deemed a breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. Their prosecution, it has now been admitted by the Lord Advocate, was malicious. The experience that those innocent individuals suffered was horrific and, understandably, has had a major psychological impact on them both. The Lord Advocate has admitted a “malicious prosecution”. It was not a simple human error, or an obscure legal mistake, or an error of evidence that suggested a need for individuals to be taken through a criminal process to establish their guilt or otherwise. In fact, our system of prosecution is admitting, unequivocally, that there was a malicious move to throw two innocent men behind bars and destroy their reputations. So what does “malicious” mean? The Lord Advocate gave a statement on Tuesday that such a prosecution can be “malicious” in law, but not have the requisite character of “malice” that the public might popularly think. Whether or not that is accepted, I am not convinced that a lack of “malice” means a lack of “criminal conduct” as the Lord Advocate seemed to suggest when he said that whilst there had been “significant departures from standard practice” he did not concede criminality by anyone in the Crown Office. In brief, malice is a personal act, and an organisation cannot be malicious. To draw his conclusions from the investigation that he instructed, the Lord Advocate must have identified one or more individuals with the requisite mens rea for the offence, to conclude that the prosecution was malicious. That is, per the dictum of Lord Justice Bayley in the case of Bromage v Prosser, “a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse”, which according to Quinn v Leathem, is “proof of malice”. So the Lord Advocate must have identified an individual who, in their duties, acted wrongfully and “intentionally, without just cause or excuse”. Misconduct in public office is a crime. The conclusion that there was no criminal conduct surely requires deep exploration by an inquiry, in order to retain public confidence, one would have thought. In any event, innocent individuals who were carrying out their job lawfully have faced prosecution not because of a suspicion that they had done anything wrong, but because of malicious intent by agents of the state. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been another instance of malicious prosecution in Scots law but, as Murdo Fraser put it, “we are still no closer to an explanation as to how and why those individuals became victims of a malicious prosecution; who authorised the action against them; or what the motivations behind that were”. What we do know is that Messrs. Whitehouse and Clark were awarded £21 million in compensation and a further £3m in legal fees as a result of their malicious prosecution. The Lord Advocate confirmed on Tuesday that those damages have been paid with a tax indemnity, meaning that, should Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs come against them for tax, the additional cost will be met by the Crown Office, potentially doubling the payout. The Crown Office could be forced to pay overall damages of up to £100m when all the cases are finalised. We do not yet know from which budget that money will be taken, but however the finance secretary chooses to do it, vital public spending of some description will lose out. So it is imperative we understand why this happened, who was responsible and how such grievous acts went unchecked for so long. But getting answers must be combined with ensuring that there is full public confidence in the prosecution system. On Tuesday the Lord Advocate told me in response to my Chamber questions that “in this case... the normal processes that are routinely followed in every High Court case were not followed, but the public should take reassurance… [that]… the prosecution system in Scotland is robust, fair and independent, and is one on which they can rely.” But he did not articulate WHY we should have such confidence. Certain individuals must have made decisions that meant the prosecution proceeded. We need to know who they are and what those decisions were, and those people need to be held to account for them. The public need to be reassured that what we have just seen can never happen again. The Lord Advocate told us there had been an investigation undertaken by a legal team instructed by him. Yet from the outside it looks like the Crown Office is marking its own homework. There will not be public confidence in any inquiry unless it is conducted externally and in public. During the debate, the Lord Advocate argued that it is premature to conclude that any inquiry need not be before a Scottish judge. I do not agree. Given that this all happened on the former Lord Advocate’s watch and now responsibility has been admitted by the present Lord Advocate, it is imperative that there are no questions around legitimacy and independence. The SNP Government argued that that an inquiry should await everything being completed in this matter. Again I argue that that view is not sustainable due to the the extraordinary circumstances and costs of the scandal. The public must have answers as to why malicious prosecutions were pursued in defiance of evidence. To fail to set up a full, independent and public inquiry conducted by a member of the judiciary from outside Scotland, without delay, would, indeed, be “incredible”. Liam Kerr is Shadow Justice Secretary and a Conservative & Unionist member of the Scottish Parliament for the North East.

Is Zungu purely a loan with the option to buy, or a loan that will definitely turn into a buy, like McCrorie at Aberdeen was? Edit - just seen on the club website that it's an option to buy.

Average is giving them to much credit, they were pish....one way traffic from about 30mins in...sheep denied a penalty and Kamberi hitting the post.

Who lives in the bloody house,he/she should be hardest hit if one of our players.

spot on, writing people off for one mistake is mental. We would certainly never have won 9 in a row doing that.

The main thing now is to get the league won then the club can deal with these clowns personally I would like to get rid of them but we cant do that in case others make an arse of themselves

Anyone who has ever had to deal with employment law will know that you can't sack anyone "immediately", there are stringent processes in place that must be followed or you leave yourself open to a claim for unfair dismissal. Disciplinary proceedings may have been instigated but as SG stated, this is now (rightly) an internal matter.

Absolutely no chance Zungu was going to be challenging Jack for his position. His loan deal wouldn't have been extended, covid breaches or not. He hasn't done enough to warrant a permanent deal unfortunately

most of them marry hairdressers

i don't see how any punishment can be handed out given the celtc players went to the pub in Dubai and nothing was done. If any are Rangers should appeal and make this point.

Interesting little bit on last night's wireless they were talking about how smart most football players haircuts are a bit like Mrs. Sturgeon so it looks like they are all breaking covid rules

Yes, our best hope is to get our retaliation in first then there would be no reason for the authorities to take further action.

We all know it's going to be interesting (if that's the right word) to see how this is handled by the authorities compared to other breaches. Celtic and Aberdeen both had a £30k fine (£8k up front and the rest suspended) for breaches in September. But those were breaches of Football rules, not legal breaches. To my memory there was no punishment handed down to the players involved (officially at least, we know Bolingoli was moved on shortly after). I suspect penalties here will be harsher, how long until certain elements start talking about points deductions and the like? A move to prevent internation travel for footballers (which would only affect Rangers, thankfully we play Antwerp away first tomorrow so may be too soon to put that in place and force us to forfeit, but again I wouldn't put it past some to try such a move. The club will have to be quick to respond to any attempt at heavy handed punishment given that imposed on other clubs (Duffy??) None of which suggests that the 5 involved have been incredibly stupid and should be punished in an appropriate manner. Legal fines at a minimum and a suspension handed down to them, I'd like to see the club get ahead of disciplinary proceedings and issue a lengthy suspension to all of them so that when the inevitable SPFL suspension comes up, we've already dealt with it internally. Should they be moved on? The precedent was set with Edmundson and Jones so I suspect they may be, Patterson in particular will be a shame to see go if he does, but there is an argument to be made that they've made a very serious error of judgement, but if they can learn from it and make the right noises (and supporting actions) there may be a future for them here... The Patterson situation looks very worrying though with a coverup story, could be more to come on that as well...

You would hope that one day the cost for the tax payer will be made public, i.e. the cost it took HMRC to keep the EBT case up, chase it through the courts, go after administrators et al. The possible net gain for HMRC from BDO would be also interesting.

The difference is stark. On the one hand there's Humza Yousaf, embodying every ounce of SNP ethos - tribal bigotry, shallow conceit and low grade ignorance. On the other there's Liam Kerr, a solicitor of repute and intellectual rigour (I ken fine because he was my solicitor). And the one who could no more have written that article than flown to Jupiter sits as Justice Secretary of Scotland. Such is the shithole we now live in.

have my doubts Zungu was ever going to stay.

Not often I'm described as a journalist (thankfully) but have been in Voetbal Primeur today. You are too modest; be thankful, and take pleasure that they did not describe you as a 'Football Writer', which would consign you to the green wheelie bin of useless and partisan bastards that is, largely, the sporting press in this country. Below is something from your competition. Note that the RA manager is called "Franky" (with a 'Y', granted but it is the Flemish variant). Spooky, or what? On the bases that there is no such thing as coincidence, and that the public has a right to know, I have to ask: Did you dazzle on the wing for the Belgian National XI in the 1980s? ‘Little Prince’ Franky Vercauteren seeks glory against Rangers Ben Palmer Wednesday February 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/little-prince-franky-vercauteren-seeks-glory-against-rangers-59w53z5pb Royal Antwerp are not to be underestimated when Rangers face the Belgian side tomorrow in the Europa League. In the group stage, they finished second to Tottenham, but beat Jose Mourinho’s side when they travelled to Belgium on matchday two. Trouble off the pitch Although the club endured a turbulent winter, they sit second in the Belgian top flight, 13 points behind Club Brugge but four ahead of Genk. At the end of December, Antwerp lost their manager, Ivan Leko, who was tempted by a lucrative offer from Chinese side Shanghai Port just six months into his tenure. He was replaced by Franky Vercauteren, a former Belgian international known in his homeland as “The Little Prince of Astrid Park”, the home of Anderlecht, who are Antwerp’s biggest rivals. One of his first jobs in charge was to deal with the fallout of a publicity stunt by striker Didier Lamkel Zé, who turned up to training wearing an Anderlecht strip in an attempt to force through a move to Panathinaikos. He apologised and remains at the club but is suspended for the meeting with Rangers. Recent form Antwerp come into this one in reasonable form. They have lost only once in their past seven outings, winning five. If Steven Gerrard was looking for a gauge of Antwerp’s level then he would have got it at the weekend when they drew 1-1 with Standard Liège, who Rangers beat twice in the group stage but faced stiff competition from in both fixtures. Antwerp did score a last-minute winner against Liège but it was disallowed for offside by VAR, a decision that was lamented by Vercauteren. Injury concerns up front Antwerp host Rangers while having to contend with a number of injury issues. Congolese striker Dieumerci Mbokani, once of Norwich and Hull, is set to miss out with a calf issue and third-choice forward Felipe Avenatti looks most likely to start up top. The Uruguayan arrived on loan from Liège last month and came off the bench in both of their matches against Rangers earlier in the competition. He has scored just three goals in 17 appearances this term, with two of those coming in the Europa League qualifiers against minnows Bala Town and Vojvodina. Midfielders Faris Haroun, once of Middlesbrough and Blackpool, and Alexis De Sart and Jean Butez, the goalkeeper, are all also out. Refaelov poses threat Their danger man is Lior Refaelov, the attacking midfielder who is their top scorer this season with 10 goals in 34 appearances. The diminutive playmaker is comfortable with both feet and his low centre of gravity can make him difficult to tackle as he shields the ball from defenders. Lack of clean sheets Antwerp are not the most resilient in defence. Of the top four teams in Belgium, they have conceded the most goals (36 in 27 games) and have failed to keep a clean sheet in their last three matches. Last summer, they signed Iranian goalkeeper Alireza Beiranvand and the 28-year-old had to bide his time after moving from Persepolis, where he was briefly a team-mate of Anthony Stokes. He made his debut last December in a 2-0 defeat to Tottenham but it was not until January that he nailed down the No 1 jersey and he has kept three clean sheets in eight appearances this year. Before moving to Europe, Beiranvand was considered one of the best shot-stoppers in Asia and was the first footballer from Iran to be nominated for an individual award at the Best Fifa Football Awards in 2017 when he finished joint-ninth in goalkeeper of the year. European history This last-32 tie is the furthest Antwerp have gone in continental competition since 1993, when they reached the final of the European Cup Winners’ Cup and were beaten by Parma at Wembley. Last season, they reached the playoff round of the Europa League qualifiers, which was their first European campaign since 1994/95. Manager’s glory days Since retiring in 1993, Vercauteren has been around the block, managing ten different clubs. A dazzling winger, he shone for Belgium at the 1986 World Cup when they recorded a fourth-placed finish in Mexico and was nominated for the Ballon d’Or in 1983. His managerial career has had ups and downs, winning two league titles with Anderlecht and another with Genk but in the past decade he has managed in the United Arab Emirates, had a two-month spell at Sporting Lisbon and stints in Russia and Saudi Arabia. Vercauteren and Antwerp’s glory days may be behind them but he will be keen to show that they are both still capable of making a mark at the top level.

It's a relief to hear that Tav is fine.

Zungu, Dapo, Kinnear, Patterson and Bassey are all isolating.

Indeed it will. I strongly suspect that the whole Rangers' fiasco, when uncovered and made clear, will figure in textbooks, lectures, tutorials, and workshops, for the edification and instruction of aspiring lawyers, accountants, tax inspectors (and not forgetting the Comptrollers of Kerrydale Street), for some years to come.

Applause.

That was the story, but who knows? It did seem to be put in a genuine way when I read it.

From today's Times: A further report on the dripping roast of the Rangers' Administration by one James Mulholland....surely no relation to the erstwhile lord Advocate and malicious prosecutor of the innocent? Next off the bench, and hoping to bank more than three points, is David Grier, of Duff and Phelps. The current Lord Advocate, Woolfe, seems to have been, at least, attempting to clear the hospital ba', passed to him by his predecessor, Mulholland. While failing, and falling short of the Goldson Standard, he has yet to be classed alongside the Bogside Baresi. The learned referee, Lord Tyre, while declaring that there was no reasonable cause to tackle Grier, suggests that VAR is required to determine whether this prosecution of Grier, of Duff and Phelps, was actually 'malicious'. We await the second leg. Grier seeks a modest £5M from the Crown Office, and £2 from Poileas Alba (plus fees and expenses) for the usual reasons. ‘No reason’ to charge Grier in Rangers case James Mulholland Wednesday February 17 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-reason-to-charge-grier-in-rangers-case-9nsp7vgh0 A judge has concluded that there was no “probable cause” to prosecute a business expert for his alleged role in the sale of Rangers football club, paving the way for him to pursue a compensation claim. Lord Tyre ruled that prosecutors had no legal basis to bring David Grier to court after an investigation into business activities at the club. Grier, 58, managing director at the multinational business services company Duff & Phelps, was acting as administrator of the club when he was arrested. He was cleared during an investigation into how Craig Whyte, a businessman, bought the Glasgow club. Lawyers acting for James Wolffe, QC, Scotland’s lord advocate, had argued that Grier’s £5 million compensation bid should be dismissed and claimed prosecutors were entitled to conclude that Grier was guilty of wrongdoing during the business deal. However, Tyre’s decision allows the latest compensation claim connected to the scandal to continue. In a written judgment issued at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday, Tyre wrote that there was no “reasonable cause” to prosecute Grier. However, the judge said that Grier’s legal team still had to prove at a hearing later this year that the prosecution against their client was conducted maliciously. Grier is suing the lord advocate, claiming that prosecutors had no evidence to justify him being arrested and charged. He is also suing the chief constable of Police Scotland for acting unlawfully when he was arrested during an investigation into wrongdoing at Rangers. He is seeking £2 million in damages from the force. The legal actions stem from a police investigation surrounding Rangers’ financial position during the past decade and the sale of the club to Whyte. The cases brought by Grier come after admissions made by the Crown in another case brought by two businessmen, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark. Prosecutors admitted that the pair were wrongfully arrested and charged. The men later received a settlement of £10.5 million each. Their legal costs, thought to total £3 million, were also paid. Grier said: “I welcome Lord Tyre’s clear and comprehensive judgment. He has confirmed what I have known from the very beginning — that there was never a proper basis to prosecute me. “The focus of the court case now moves to consider the issue of malice . . . In a number of related actions the Crown has already conceded the prosecution was malicious.”

Perhaps if they say nothing publicly, it'll prevent the SFA etc getting involved. They seem to be taking the Shane Duffy approach of "he tested negative and that's all we'll say on the subject" following his early return from Dubai and lack of subsequent lack of shielding.

We don't know for certain that theyve done anything tho. All we know is Police Scotland confirmed 10 fixed penalties were handed out when they broke up a "gathering" early Sunday morning at an address in Glasgow. Anything further is just hearsay at the moment.

Not on Twitter and would love to enter comp.

I should add that the graphics are really smart.

Enter me too please. Hope they do XXL...

They should actually make the beer......

Same for me as well! Would love to enter. Thanks!

Social media's a no no but would like to enter. Thanks

Ah! Thanks! # Mr. Gullible!?

we can now win the league without scoring another goal. 9 0-0 draws does it.

Turn away now Rousseau...… effectively.... if we are undefeated in the remaining 2 OF games this season.... we only realistically need 2 more wins. Celtic can amass 91 points. If we draw twice in the remaining OF games they can only get to 87 points. If we draw those two games we would be on 81 points. So 6 points (given our superior goal difference) should be sufficient to win the league.....

Below is Mr Alex Massie from today's ST. "Like Gaul, Scottish football is divided into three" , he says; he should have added that one part behaves with considerable gall, and has done for, oh, most of its existence, I should think. Perhaps you know which part I mean. The piece adds little to our understanding, but is another voice looking for a formal Inquiry. One thing he has missed, and it is, to me, a rather significant point: Whitehouse and Clarke never got to court. The Crown Office capitulated , and this, on a claim of 'malicious prosecution', a charge which is almost never brought, and which requires any pursuer to clear a very high bar, or series of bars. They 'won', not on a balance of probabilities, therefore, but on a higher standard of proof, which adds weight to the case for a full and frank, and independently chaired Public Inquiry. Alex Massie: The Rangers case should not be a political football Malicious prosecution of the club’s administrators must be investigated Alex Massie Sunday February 14 2021, 12.01am, The Sunday Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-massie-the-rangers-case-should-not-be-a-political-football-5v5gg8fp0 Like Gaul, Scottish football is divided into three. Broadly speaking, one third of the country follows the royal blue of Rangers, a further third the green of Celtic, while the final third wishes to have nothing to do with either Glasgow powerhouse. As such, any difficulty endured by either half of the Old Firm is a matter of some satisfaction, and plenty of joy, for as much as two-thirds of those who follow Scottish football. Neither Rangers nor Celtic make for sympathetic underdogs, which may help to explain why so little attention, comparatively speaking, has been paid to one of the greatest scandals in modern Scottish legal history. It might be further admitted that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, formerly the Duff & Phelps administrators steering Rangers through insolvency and liquidation in 2012, are not necessarily the kind of individuals whose hard-luck stories tug on public heartstrings. But even administrators — even those involved with Rangers — deserve justice. Instead, Whitehouse and Clark were subjected — for reasons that remain mysterious — to what the lord advocate now concedes was a “malicious prosecution” conducted without anything even approaching “probable cause”. Not a blunder or an oversight or a mere mistake, entered into regrettably but honestly, but rather a deliberate and unconscionable attempt to destroy the livelihoods and lives of two wholly innocent men. Again, the reasons for this persecution remain swaddled in mystery but the outcome is clear: Whitehouse and Clark have each been awarded £10.5 million in damages as well as £3 million in legal costs. Should the taxman demand his share of the damages awarded, the Scottish government is committed to meeting those costs, too. And since five other related cases are still pending, there is every possibility the final bill to the state for this fiasco could easily roar past £50 million and towards £100 million, the price of a CalMac ferry in old money. From which you would think that, even in Scotland, someone must be held responsible for what is, by any measure, a grotesque abuse of state power. It says something, however, that such thoughts may be reckoned optimistic. Speaking in parliament last week Rona Mackay, the SNP member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, accepted the “hugely regrettable” nature of this case but insisted, remarkably, that “we move on and lessons have been learnt”. Doubtless there is a need for a fuller, public and judge-led inquiry but this should not be confused with any sense that any individual has done anything wrong, let alone any expectation that anyone might be held accountable for a fiasco almost everyone agrees is almost unprecedented. I am not sure that will suffice. Newspapers are not protected by parliamentary privilege so the precise terms in which Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins attacked Frank Mulholland, the former lord advocate responsible for chasing Whitehouse and Clark, cannot prudently be repeated here. Even so, one need not be a lawyer to think it extraordinary that a malicious prosecution can happen almost by accident. And yet this appears to be the case. According to James Wolffe, the current lord advocate, however the “legal test” for a malicious prosecution” can, in certain circumstances be met even though no individual had malice, in the popular sense of a spiteful motive”. His acceptance of liability “did not depend on any individual being malicious in that popular sense”. Perhaps not, or at least not in a strictly legal sense. But the alternative is scarcely more cheering, for if the Crown Office has not acted maliciously, in the popular sense, it has plainly acted with extraordinary incompetence, again a term used in the popular sense. “Hopelessly inadequate but not motivated by malice” does not seem a watertight defence. In parliament, Wolffe insisted “the seriousness of what happened in this case should not obscure the truth that, day in and day out, Scotland’s public prosecutors … fulfil their responsibilities with professionalism and skill”. They have, he says, “a justified reputation for fairness, integrity and independence”. Well, yes, doubtless so, but apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play? Since it is a matter of record that Crown Office officials boasted of their determination to “nail the Duff & Phelps people” someone has to be responsible. Rare as this case may be, the suspicion gathers that there is something profoundly wrong within the prosecution service. Incompetence may be preferable to corruption, but the fact that the latter has even been mentioned is proof enough of malaise within the Crown Office. Remarkably, if revealingly, lawyers for Whitehouse and Clark have claimed that meetings to discuss the case chaired by Mulholland went unminuted. Or, at the very least, any minutes have not been released. If so, if confirmed, that is worth more than a raised eyebrow. Once again, where is the accountability and how could anyone sensibly think that a prudent basis upon which to proceed? As Scottish politics is as tribal as Scottish football, I imagine some will be tempted to look at Murdo Fraser and Tomkins harrying Wolffe and note that not only are they each supporters of Rangers, they are also — much, much worse than even that — both Tories. This being the case, their anger and their concern may be dismissed as being of little consequence and occasioned by nothing more than the usual partisan spite evident in such matters. This would, I suggest, be a profound mistake. For this is not in truth a particularly sectarian — in a political sense — scandal. It ought to concern anyone interested in the better governance of the country and anyone who thinks public servants ought to operate within the law. For if the malicious pursuit of Whitehouse and Clark is not a criminal matter, what can be considered such? And if it is a criminal matter, someone must be responsible. Instead, and despite the near unanimity in the legal profession that this is a scandal of shocking dimensions, the government’s line appears to be that, however unfortunate it might have been, there is no sense in which anyone can really be considered responsible for it. How can that possibly be good enough? @alexmassie