D'Artagnan

1. It appears to makes an assumption that all members of the Rangers community, particularly the more high profile members of that community, are aligned with British Nationalism/Loyalism/Reacionary Politics & hatred of the SNP etc and thus unprovoked abuse should come as no surprise ie almost akin to guilty by association. 2. It completely disregards the diverse nature of our support in terms of political allegiance - which was well illustrated in the Book Born Under a Union Flag.

Would it be an Oliver Twist moment to suggest all of it ?

Good Lord RPB - that is just mentalist - something of a quantum leap of extraordinary proportions. I take it you never read Born Under a Union Flag?

Let me assure you RPB, I have no misunderstanding on the role of the PF

Exactly. I couldn't really care what is on the front page of the papers - surely getting to the truth about what transpired at our club is the absolute priority.

If for example we take the crime of the rape of a man by another - that was not formally recognised under the old Sexual Offences Act, however it is with the passing of the Sexual Offences (Scotand) Act 2009. Therefore it would be competent for an individual to be tried for a historic offence of this nature, despite the relevant legislation not being in existence at the time of the crime. That is the point I was making to you. However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted - its the utter hypocrisy of the SNP position over this matter. I think the de-selection of O'Hara woud have sent out a message which was consistent with the legislation they are determined to enforce. Furthermore I would disagree with you completely regarding Fiscals - to suggest that they are not interpreting the law, merely prosecuting on instruction is complete nonsense given the vagueness of the legislation itself. That vagueness within the legislation is one of the main areas of criticism. At some point, either the Fiscal's service themselves or the Police, who act as agents obo of the Fiscal, have interpreted that the term "hun" falls within the scope of this legislation - hence the subsequent prosecutions. This is further backed up by 26th Of Foot's recent suggestions that Mullholland has instructed both the PF's service and the Police, that he will no longer entertain prosecutions for use of the term. I dont think any of us are in any doubt whatsoever what the entailment of this instruction will be with regard to future crime pattern analysis relating to Sectarian Offences. Do you honestly believe that the term "hun" is just a collective name for Rangers supporters and is in no way sectarian or attempt to de-humanise our support ?

Dearie me RPB - you are getting yourself in something of a pickle over this. Its not that the original conduct was" legal", just that that the legislation which deals with such conduct was passed after the event. Do you think NBM are being "disingenuous" ? http://nilbymouth.org/resources/history/ Or the Fiscal's who successfully sought and secured prosecutions for this term ?

Thats a dangerous logic to offer as some kind of defence for his action RPB. Given that many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed. I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regrad to O'Hara. Furthermore, despite the presence of the relevant legislation, I dont recall its absence preventing Donald Finlay being hounded and lambasted as a "bigot"

I suppose it sums up the mentality we are dealing with, when two sets of supposedly grown up adults forego the many possibilities and wonders the internet has to offer, and instead use it as a platform to hurl hate filled abuse at one another in the form of delightful expletives such a “hun” or “******”. I’m sure that’s not what Leonard Kleinrock nor J.C.R Licklider had in mind when they first tantalised the world with talk of an “Intergalactic Computer Network” But as if the sight of these intergalactic keyboard warriors was not bad enough, last week saw a further unedifying dimension to this battle – a blanket bombing of hypocrisy and double standards. The revelation that SNP Candidate for Argyll and Bute, Brendan O’Hara had used hate speech on a message board to describe Rangers supporters was accompanied, of course, by the almost mandatory “apology”. Amazing how remorseful such individuals are when they are exposed. I’m sure Scott Lamont was equally remorseful, but that didn’t stop him receiving a 4 month jail sentence for singing the Billy Boys. So much for the European right of “equality before the law” Orwell it seems was correct – “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others” But the actions of the prospective candidate for Argyll and Bute, pale into insignificance when one examines the actions of the political party he represents. A party who commandeered a bulldozer to drive their much criticised anti-sectarian legislation through Holyrood, continue to endorse a candidate who engages in the type of hate speech they sought to criminalise. If Carlsberg did hypocrisy they would probably be a poor second to the SNP. (I only use the word “probably” to retain the sentiment of the original Carlsberg advert) On Rangers message boards across the internet the forthcoming election has generated considerable discussion. To the ridicule of others, some fans have suggested voting in keeping with their football allegiance, with the critics suggesting such action is ludicrous. Is it really any more ludicrous than voting for a party who endorse a candidate guilty of hate speech against our club? Such action certainly appears to contain elements of the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas. The simple truth is that the SNP’s anti-sectarian bill is a complete and unmitigated disaster irrespective of its apparent selective application. Or to quote Sheriff Richard Davidson’s legal description – “mince”. http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/dundee-sheriff-criticises-anti-sectarian-legislation-1.82470 Some argue further suggesting that it has been more of a hindrance than a help in tackling the problem. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/407619/Anti-sectarian-law-has-failed They were well warned but clearly such warnings went unheeded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8763546/Tom-Devine-SNPs-anti-sectarian-bill-is-a-disaster.html In fact when one considers the list of persons giving evidence before the committee, and their subsequent opposition to the Bill, one wonders if anyone was actually listening to the evidence presented by the various invited contributors. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14800819 Perhaps even more sinister is the silence of one of our country’s most eminent authorities on the subject of sectarianism – Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen University. In his book “Independence of the Scottish Mind” author Gerry Hassan interviews various Scottish commentators including Peter Jones of the Scotsman/Economist. Jones discussing the subject of sectarianism remarks: “I mean Steve Bruce will now not talk about the subject at all’. Hassan wrote a few lines later: ‘What is relevant to this discussion is that Jones felt Bruce was “silenced”. One has to ask the question why and by whom a Professor, backed up by academic research, and who presents a far more positive image of our country than those who for political capital, tarnish her with the label of suffering from a “secret sectarian shame” is effectively silenced? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/24/scotland-sectarianism-research-data And Good Lord, our country is in dire need of some positive imagery. Unless of course you class baying and organised mobs, acting in a threatening and intimidating manner with the sole purpose of usurping the right of freedom of speech as witnessed in Glasgow yesterday, as positive imagery. Or the paradox of Republican Bands marching under a banner of “Hope Over Fear” through the streets of Glasgow. In fact why does hate speech have to have any religious connotations to qualify it as a crime? Most reasonable people of whatever political or religious persuasion should be utterly appalled at the levels of abuse suffered by internet pro-unionist blogger Effie Deans, or Ruth Davidson – none of which is religiously motivated. Yet it as poisonous, insidious and as harmful as anything with a religious connotation. Prof Steve Bruce may have been silenced but it is imperative his message is not.

You have PM bud

I would suspect we will have a new Football Board Chairman

Why would all hell break loose Craig ? The content and criteria of the articles have been known for some time - notwithstanding the insolvency part, King has ben convicted of crimes (offences against the South African Income Tax Act) which are liable to imprisonment of 2 or more years.

Apologies double post

An excellent thought provoking article Frankie, absolutely top class. Ive rarely entered the debate on this issue as I felt there were more pressing issues for our club than a song. However as the debate has raged on and the imbalance has become more and more obvious. its become clear its no longer about the words of a song but a far more serious and wider issue, at the heart of which is prejudicial behaviour towards both our club and its support. Ive also changed my opinion regarding Spiers, I no longer feel he is an egotistical idiot who cant see the woods for the trees, but now view him as a deliberately vindictive and malicious individual who sees his future as penning articles which lack balance and rationale.

There was an interesting footnote to the article covering the Ruth Davidson homophobic abuse on Twitter earlier this week when in a subsequent interview Ms Davidson intimated: “A significant proportion of the abuse I receive is homophobic, and I make a point of calling out a selection of such tweets every few weeks. It’s not OK. People don’t have to just sit there and take it. You are allowed to challenge it.” It would not only be refreshing, but considerably re-assuring to many bears, if the new regime at Ibrox were to adopt a similar strategy in tackling those hacks who see our club, not so much as a “succulent lamb” but more of a sacrificial lamb in terms of reporting. Sadly, as has become the norm these days, there are a number of instances our board could utilise to fire warning shots across the bow and lay down a significant marker for the future. It would be completely remiss of me to call the Chris Graham debacle anything but a witch hunt. Motivated by a desire for personal revenge, the full weight of BBC Scotland’s publicly funded media machine was utilised to satisfy one journalist’s petted lip in respect of Chris Graham, as James Cook extracted eye for an eye type vengeance. A gloating Gerry McCulloch revealed the true nature of the driving force behind this story. I may not be a mathematician but I can work out this simple equation – take a tweet which has been in the public domain for several months attracting zero interest then add the author of that tweet taking a position on the Rangers board, multiply it by a BBC Scotland reporter harbouring a personal grudge with a public broadcasting organisation at his immediate disposal, and you arrive at your answer. The only question I have left is will this kind of behaviour be on James Cook’s CV when he applies for that “American gig” he covets so much? (Yes James, you would be surprised at just what some of us know). Then we have the Daily Record’s Mark McGivern running with a negative Ranger’s story, whilst unbeknown to him, it was all part of a ruse to expose how certain newspapers are prepared to run stories damaging to the club, without even checking the veracity of the allegations they are making. Not only is this a hook, line and sinker moment in term of amusement, it also underlines the need which exists to challenge not only press lies, but to expose the motivation behind such conduct. In Scottish legal terms, “conduct after the crime” is often used in circumstantial cases to infer the guilt of an accused. I wonder if the Scotsman’s Kenny Farquarhson decision to delete this tweet qualifies as such conduct after the crime. Not only is it an outrageous allegation, it is of course completely false. Anyone who has heard the Dundee United fans singing about the Derry Boys of the Dundee support will know just how ridiculous Farquarhson’s slur is on our support. While Rangers fan groups, bloggers and individual supporters will continue to highlight and challenge untruthful and damaging articles in respect of the club, we will never be able to carry the authority of a rebuke from within the club itself. There is nothing dignified whatsoever in a silence which allows our club to be the target of the lazy, the malicious or the vengeful elements of our press. And whilst we appreciate the new regime has pressing matters to deal with, we will not wait forever for that shot across the bows of the press. (John Allan)

Nice to see McCulloch's unintentional admission that BBC Scotland's motivation for running this story was based upon a personal vendetta and vengenance.

Some of the members of the Fans Board could be forgiven for thinking Llambias was "too busy" for anything when there was an EGM in the offing.

BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY/MISDIRECTION As alluded to by yourself during the aforementioned Public Select Committee, the Rangers FC tax travails received considerable media attention. As shareholders in the company many of us were particularly concerned by one particular aspect of such coverage, and that was coverage which had at its heart material relating to the business dealings of the company which would normally be considered “confidential” Two sources were of particular concern: (1) The Rangers Tax Case Blog – This was an anonymous blog on the internet which featured almost daily fresh material of a confidential nature relating to Rangers tax dealings. It also offered “interpretation” of the confidential material it was publishing, and normally such interpretation was particularly slanted to infer Rangers guilt. To understand both the scope and effect of this website allow me to quote from journalist Tom English writing in the Scotsman newspaper on 25.11.2012 “If you wanted to know the latest news on their tax travails, rangerstaxcase was a place you went because, unlike newspapers or radio stations, rangerstaxcase was connected to the heart of the FTT and everybody knew it. It had documents and detail that were beyond dispute. When illustrating one point it was making it would summon up information that could only have come from somebody within, or very close to, the tribunal” In 2012 the Rangers Tax Case Blog won the Orwell Prize, the judges citing was as follows: ‘The 2012 Blog Prize showed that not only could blogs comment on current events, they could drive stories forward. Rangers Tax-Case takes what might be a dry topic – the tax affairs of a sports team – and shows how a striving for transitory success has severely distorted sporting, legal and ethical boundaries. Displaying focused contempt for those who evade difficult truths, and beating almost every Scottish football journalist to the real story – Rangers Tax-Case shows how expertise and incisive writing can expose the hypocrisies the powerful use to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. It is a worthy winner which not only proves that independent blogging is as healthy as it ever was, but also offers a mirror in which our times are reflected.’ Following the decision of the Upper Tax Tribunal in favour of Rangers the anonymous blog not only shut down, but also deleted all its files. (2) The Men Who Sold the Jerseys – BBC Scotland Documentary. This documentary was broadcast on national television (BBC Scotland & Northern Ireland) on the 23rd March 2012. Again at the heart of this documentary were numerous confidential documents which BBC Scotland later published on their website. This documentary was also a recipient of an award – the Foreign Press Awards Sports Story. HMRC have a legal duty to protect such information. http://www.hmrc.gov....ut/privacy.html “Security HMRC has a legal duty to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer information. HMRC take all reasonable steps to protect any information you submit via the website, both online and offline, in accordance with legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998. HMRC take all appropriate steps to protect your personally identifiable information as you transmit your information from your computer to the HMRC site and to protect such information for loss, misuse, and unauthorised access, disclosure, alteration, or destruction. HMRC use leading technologies and encryption software to safeguard your data, and operate strict security standards to prevent any unauthorised access to it.” These two outlets of confidential information were the subject of numerous complaints to HMRC from Rangers shareholders clearly concerned about the breaches of confidentiality. To say HMRC’s response to these complaints was underwhelming is a considerable understatement. Shareholders received the same generic response from HMRC – “HMRC do not comment about speculation about breaches of confidentiality” Further complaints to Government Ministers such as David Gauke MP and Danny Alexander MP were referred to HMRC’s Ministerial Correspondence Unit (Keeley Spindler) who again offered the generic response aforesaid. I would have thought that HMRC’s pledge to take “all appropriate steps” would have included taking complaints from shareholders seriously, and not dismissing an award winning web blog publishing “documents and details which were beyond dispute” and a BBC Scotland documentary, broadcast on national television, as mere “speculation”. Did HMRC investigate these complaints from Rangers shareholders highlighting various instances of breaches of confidentiality? The seizing of documentation by HMRC in the Rangers Tax Case would have involved the cataloguing of evidence for future use. Did HMRC cross reference their catalogued evidence against the confidential information appearing in the public domain? If so what were their findings and what action did they take? Furthermore what duties and responsibilities are placed upon them in the event of the theft or loss of evidence? In February 2013, the SPL’s Independent Commission, chaired by Rt Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith, assisted by Nicholas Stewart QC and Charles Flint QC, published its conclusions following its investigation into EBT use by Rangers in what is referred to as the SPL Independent Commission Report. Section 98 of their Report contained an extraordinary revelation. “Meanwhile, BBC Scotland came, by unknown means, into possession of what they described as “dozens of secret emails, letters and documents”, which we understand were the productions before the Tax Tribunal. These formed the basis of a programme entitled “Rangers – The Men Who Sold the Jerseys”, which was broadcast on 23 May 2012. BBC Scotland also published copious material on its website. The published material included a table containing the names of Rangers players, coaches and staff who were beneficiaries of the MGMRT, and how much they received through that trust.” The term “productions” is of course legal jargon for evidence. Therefore one of the outlets of confidential information (BBC Scotland) which was the subject of complaints from Rangers shareholders, which HMRC dismissed as “speculation about breaches of confidentiality,” appear to have sourced that confidential material courtesy of evidential items seized by HMRC for use in the tax tribunal. Whilst I obviously cannot confirm it, I think it is safe to assume that the unauthorised removal of evidential items would be facilitated by theft. Were HMRC aware of such a theft and what were their duties and responsibilities with regard to this? Following the ruling of the First Tier Tax Tribunal in November 2012, both Sir David Murray and I lodged criminal complaints with, what was then, Strathclyde Police in respect of the various breaches of confidentiality. This led to the subsequent instigation of a Police criminal enquiry. The fact that this was the instigation of a Police enquiry would suggest that no previous complaints had been received in respect of either breaches of confidentiality nor theft of evidence. In view of the foregoing, I would also ask you to consider, at what point a public body, is so neglectful, so grossly incompetent, that their behaviour warrants consideration of criminal negligence. On Wednesday 16th July, 2014, you participated in a question and answer session with executive level officers from HMRC as part of the compilation of the HM Revenue & Customs Annual Report 2013-14. http://data.parliame...oral/11443.html At question 54 you table a question to Mr Jim Harra, Director General Business Tax, HMRC, who suggests the question in itself is a “misapprehension” and responds as follows: “It has been in the media. This dispute on employee benefit trusts was not the reason why Rangers went into liquidation. It was for non-payment of their standard pay-as-you-earn and VAT obligations.” I would respectfully suggest that is wholly inaccurate. Rangers FC [Oldco] went into liquidation due to a series of events in which HMRC themselves played an integral part, some of which forms the subject of this report, culminating in their rejection of the CVA proposed by Mr Charles Green, and furthermore, that the original question tabled by yourself, represents a far more accurate summary of the sequence of factual events. In conclusion it is clear there are several areas of inconsistency with regard to public commitments made by HMRC and the actual service level delivery of such commitments. There are also serious concerns as a consequence of HMRC’s apparent dismissal of bona fide complaints highlighting serious breaches of confidentiality. Many thousands of Rangers supporters and shareholders have previously signed a petition requesting a full and public Government Enquiry into this whole affair. The recent high profile arrests and forthcoming prosecution of 4 individuals, will once again put the events into the media spotlight, but additionally, it will also make available facts and circumstances previously unknown to the general public. Whilst I feel the gravity of the concerns highlighted herein would be best served by way of full and public Government Enquiry, I fully accept that the Public Accounts Committee be aware of information that the general public are not privy to. If you do not feel that the interests of the public would be best served by such an enquiry, I would at least respectfully request that the various concerns and inconsistencies outlined above would be directed to executive level officers via the Public Accounts Committee.

The following report has been sent in the form of a letter/complaint to the Public Accounts Committee. It is also in the possession of a leading MSM outlet in Scotland. It is the summary of 3 years research and investigation – its now up to others to do their duty. SETTLEMENT It is now a matter of record that Sir David Murray offered, unsuccessfully, to settle with HMRC in relation to Ranger’s use of EBT’s. HMRC themselves emphasise the importance of measures outside litigation. http://www.publicati...acc/458/458.pdf 18. We queried whether HMRC’s litigation strategy for avoidance cases is too cautious. We have heard in the past from the major accountancy firms that they would continue to promote avoidance schemes even when there was a 50% chance of these being successfully challenged.34 HMRC told us that last year it defeated 30 avoidance schemes and protected £2.7 billion through litigation. It said it is proud of its 80% success rate in avoidance cases, arguing that its high level of success is an important deterrent 35 HMRC emphasised the importance of measures outside of litigation. For example, it has not taken Employee Benefit Trusts to court, and sees reaching a settlement as the most effective way of resolving them. Unlike marketed avoidance schemes which often have a large number of followers , Employee Benefit Trusts tend to be bespoke, making individual case – by - case litigation costly. Such alternatives are laid out in HMRC’s document: How we resolve Tax Disputes, The Tax Assurance Commissioner’s Annual Report 2013-14 https://www.gov.uk/g...e_JULY14_V2.pdf and include measures such as Resolution via Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution which includes either mediation of facilitated discussion between the parties. As a shareholder I would be interested to know if any of these alternatives to litigation were pursued by HMRC in the case of Rangers, and if not why not, given their written commitment to such processes. DUTY OF CARE/EARLY INTERVENTION/INFORMATION SHARING This section reflects on opportunities missed, perhaps due to absence of protocols, clear pro-active guidelines and policies on early intervention. http://www.dailyreco...e-being-3992415 I have spoken personally to the journalist who wrote that article, Mr Keith Jackson of the Daily Record & Sunday Mail. He still has in his possession the relative documentation which substantiates the veracity of that article. These documents can be made available to the Public Accounts Committee should they be required. I would also direct you to the summary of Craig Whyte’s Directorship Disqualification. https://www.insolven...number=SC004276 and would highlight the following extract: All of the foregoing liabilities had arisen in the period between 01 September 2011 (after the limited company acquired the majority shareholding in RFC and he was appointed as a director of RFC) and February 2012, a period of five and a half months. Tixway UK Limited (“Tixway”) 2. Mr Whyte failed to ensure that Tixway maintained and/or preserved adequate accounting records, or if such records were maintained, he failed to deliver them up to the Liquidator. As a consequence of his failure to comply with his statutory obligations, the Liquidator has been unable to establish what has happened to apparently substantial assets of Tixway or, more generally, to verify the business activities and trading history of Tixway. In particular, the Liquidator has been unable to: 2.1 account for the substantial change in position as between Tixway’s last audited accounts (for the period to 31 January 2010) which showed Tixway as having fixed assets of £1,103,190 represented by “investments” and total current assets of £1,403,658 (comprising debtors of £923,856 and cash at bank and in hand of £479,802), and its current position which, according to the Liquidator’s latest estimated statement of affairs, is a deficiency of £3,017,918; 2.2 identify the investments recorded as owned by Tixway as at 31 January 2010 such that he is unable to account for or realise those assets for the benefit of Tixway’s creditors; 2.3 identify the debtors recorded in the accounts to 31 January 2010 and establish whether such debts remained outstanding or seek to collect the debts for the benefit of Tixway’s creditors; 2.4 identify the location of any cash sums held on behalf of Tixway and collect such sums for the benefit of Tixway’s creditors, only one bank account in the name of Tixway having been identified by the Liquidator which account held a balance of only £51,340 as at 31 January 2010; 2.5 verify the nature and purpose of transactions recorded in the one known bank account or establish that such transactions were for the legitimate purposes of Tixway’s business, credits to the known bank account over the period 01 April 2008 to 27 June 2012 totalling £1,955,709 and debits over the same period totalling £2,072,994; 2.6 establish whether Tixway had any employees, (HMRC having informed the Liquidator that Tixway did not operate a PAYE scheme) and/or whether any remuneration was paid to you (the known bank account showing payments to Mr Whyte personally totalling £100,875 over the period from 20 July 2009 to 22 May 2012); There appears to have been a considerable failure of due diligence by Sir David Murray with regard to Mr Craig Whyte. The latter’s failure to declare to the Scottish Football Association, a previous directorship disqualification (Vital UK Ltd for a period of 7 years) whilst his fraudulent scheme involving Ticketus came to fruition (for which he now faces criminal prosecution) saw him gain control of Rangers. His stewardship of Rangers was characterised by a course of conduct which had brought him previously to the attention of HMRC i.e. failure to contribute to PAYE and VAT payments. Throughout this series of developments and perhaps worthy of future consideration and exploration, is that the fact that at this time HMRC were in possession of information which, had the Scottish Football Association been granted access to, or been made aware of, may have prevented much of the subsequent damage and carnage which unfolded. This is in no way an attempt to apportion blame onto HMRC but more an exploration of the mechanisms such as information sharing protocols which may provide both shareholders and potential creditors a measure of protection from unscrupulous characters such as Craig Whyte. At what point, if any, is a government investigative agency, holding information which may afford protection to a company, its shareholders and those with whom it trades, obliged to share such information to beneficial parties? If the answer is never then perhaps that failing needs to be explored. The ramifications of Craig Whyte’s stewardship of Rangers have been calamitous for all of Scottish Football, resulting in reduced revenue, reduced sponsorship and job losses. Sue Walton, head of HMRC's anti-avoidance group writing in the Tax Journal 21 April 2011: http://www.taxjourna...ompliance-24781 “Realistically, though, we know that there will always be a need for targeted intervention to respond to the way that particular customers choose to behave.” Later in the same article she states: “To recap then, HMRC’s approach to compliance is, first and foremost, to minimise the need for enforcement – it is in everyone’s interests to do that. But where a risk of non-compliance is identified, we aim to detect that as early as possible and resolve it as quickly as we can.” Given HMRC’s knowledge of Craig Whyte and the way he was likely to behave, why did it take them a full 9 months to intervene in the case of Rangers, by which time a huge bill had been allowed to accrue? With HMRC’s failing to act in accordance with their own written commitments it is not hard to understand why many Rangers shareholders feel that quite simply HMRC were giving Craig Whyte “sufficient rope to hang himself” and both the club, the company, the shareholders and the subsequent creditors were all considered worthy collateral damage in bringing that to fruition.

And the same Frank Mulholland who gave this interview to The Sun... Anyone at pre-school could join the dots to complete the bigger picture. No small wonder their appears to be a softly softly approach by the thin blue line...

I dont think its any co-incidence Frankie that the resurgence of these songs have co-incided with a comprehensive failure of both the judiciary and football authorities to apply, even handedly, the laws they preside over.

I suspect the sectarian charities in Scotland are less than enamoured by Stan Collymore’s intrusion into the sectarian debate in Scotland. In fact anyone who possesses of grain of genuine desire to tackle this problem will realise it’s a subject which requires both a delicate and balanced approach if we are to get onside both sides of the Old Firm divide, some of whom have genuine concerns about their right to expression of culture and race. What we do not need is the debate being driven by someone whose own hypocrisy and conduct undermines that debate. Not only did Collymore commit a domestic assault on Ulrika Johnson, but the latter claims he also threatened to kill her. This of course is not the first time Collymore has been the subject of such allegations: http://www.dailymail…d-wife-row.html Of course Ms Johnsson’s problems with Collymore didn’t end there as she had to seek a court order preventing Collymore offering for public sale, a video of their previous intimate encounters: http://www.scotsman….le-ban-1-863032 Perhaps this latter course of action should have prepared us somewhat for his next unedifying course of conduct: http://news.sky.com/…gging-sex-shame “He is very apologetic, he is very remorseful, but he has to move on. “I hope the public at large will realise that Stan has made mistakes but that fundamentally he is not a bad egg and he is not an evil individual.” That statement would perhaps have carried greater authority had it not been issued following Collymore having been caught by Sun reporters, quite literally, with his pants down. And I’m sure the various victims of his trail of carnage including violence and threatening behaviour would argue that Stan is considerably worse than a “bad egg” and “not an evil individual”. Anyone spiteful enough to offer for sale an intimate sex video for the purpose of humiliating a female they have battered senseless should be utterly ashamed to try and even mount the high horse called “moral”. But not Collymore. Perhaps this Telegraph article sums it up perfectly. http://www.telegraph…-obsession.html Collymore calls “foul” when his own behaviour lets him down. He is not averse to laying the blame elsewhere to cover up his own shortcomings – particularly where there is no intimate sex video to release in order to extract vengeance. http://www.telegraph…reet-brawl.html http://www.telegraph…allegation.html Therefore it should come as no surprise that Collymore’s latest allegation against Rangers supporters made courtesy of twitter are both erroneous and false. I would take issue with the Rangers supporters singing this song however. I would suggest referring to Mr Collymore as a “wife beating bastard” is wholly inaccurate. He is a lot worse than that, and someone Scotland does not need to be driving the debate on sectarianism.

If Im correct the article is actually entitled " A Financial Experts Opinion Of Rangers' Future " The EGM related articles they have published have been these ones by me. https://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/ https://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/rangers-egm-our-alamo-awaits/

I think we all know the answer to that FS.

Yes in hindsight perhaps a little snippet about doing our "raging" by proxy might not have gone amiss.