Thinker 887 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Do judges routinely use past cases to boost their media profile (and, you might assume, supplement their income)? Is this something that's happened before? Surely that would predispose them to give the verdict that grabs the most headlines. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,677 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 The yahoo influence within Scotland's legal fraternity is there for all to see..... Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised at a 'common sense' verdict 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Drummond Young showed his hand when the "common sense" verdict was published, by declaring that the Club would not have been able to afford the players it had employed, without the use of EBTs (or words to that effect). That was not the matter at issue, was irrelevant to the judgement, and was not a subject on which, as far as I know, evidence had been led. It was nothing more than mischief making of the highest order, to suit a very particular agenda. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,677 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 (edited) Drummond Young showed his hand when the "common sense" verdict was published, by declaring that the Club would not have been able to afford the players it had employed, without the use of EBTs (or words to that effect). That was not the matter at issue, was irrelevant to the judgement, and was not a subject on which, as far as I know, evidence had been led. It was nothing more than mischief making of the highest order, to suit a very particular agenda. The three stooges were to decide if the EBT's were used within the taxation laws or not. If not then they'd be liable to taxation. But they never did that. They came up with his 'common sense' nonsense Edited November 19, 2016 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 (edited) The three stooges were to decide if the EBT's were used within the taxation laws or not. If not then they'd be liable to taxation. But they never did that. They came up with his 'common sense' nonsense The point is that he could not resist the irrelevant jibe that the Club would not have been able to afford the players it had employed, without the use of EBTs, which seemed indicative of a non judicial attitude, which one might interpret as jealousy, the green eyed monster, appropriately enough. Edited November 19, 2016 by Uilleam 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 the state of that and people wonder why the common man has no respect for the law and judiciary 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Judges aren't infallible they make mistakes too like everyone, hopefully the Supreme Court will put this particular judge back in his wee parochial box. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.