It's a fact - some are more equal than others.

[boabie 230]

Prospective  jurors in the Craig Whyte trial were banned from serving on that jury if they were Rangers supporters.

Yesterday two trials at the Court of Session, both involving Rangers as a club and with financial repercussions, admittedly not against the current set-up, were heard before a judge who is not only a Celtic fan but a season ticket holder and shareholder in that club.

 

 

" A Celtic-loving judge was told he must have a “season ticket” for Rangers court actions after hearing two cases linked to the Ibrox club in one day.

Advocate Roddy Dunlop QC made the quip to Lord Doherty as he prepared to defend BDO, the liquidators of “oldco” Rangers, in a £2.8million claim.

Minutes earlier, in a separate case, the judge had listened to arguments from BDO lawyers suing David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, the Ibrox side’s former administrators.

Dunlop told Lord Doherty at the Court of Session in Edinburgh: “Your Lordship must have a season ticket in litigation for Rangers.”

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/season-ticket-jibe-celtic-supporting-12079312

 

How can that be right ?

[Uilleam 5,618]

The only thing that I can say -in mitigation, M'Lud- is that the decisions of the bench are a matter of record, while the deliberations of the jury, in camera, are not. 

[boabie 230]

19 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

The only thing that I can say -in mitigation, M'Lud- is that the decisions of the bench are a matter of record, while the deliberations of the jury, in camera, are not. 

Let's move on to the judge making a decision which goes against the evidence. What is on record showing how he made his decision was flawed so BDO launch an appeal. The appeal is upheld, Whyte loses his action, and BDO are left with another load of lawyers bills to pay.

I'll say it again, how can this be right ?

[Uilleam 5,618]

The only thing I can say is - right of appeal against a decision which is evidentially wrong, or wrong in matters of law.

[der Berliner 3,424]

IMHO, judge or not, if it is openly known that he supports or holds favour for a direct competitor of the subject/club in question, s-/he is not unbiased and needs to be replaced. Else,it will essentially end up like the utterly impartial and totally unbiased actions of the SFA/SPL in 2012.

 

He might claim to be unbiased et al, but given his pedigree and known favours, he should stand down from such trials by himself ... and safe his face. It actually beggars belief that there are apparently so few "capable" judges that all these trials end up at his doorstep.

 

As it stands, he and his Yahoo compadres will sure share the odd laugh about this whole affair over a glass of whisky in their golf club house or the like.

[Gonzo79 14,143]

We have plenty of Bears making it easy for Celtc-minded individuals to do and say as they please.  

 

What hope do we have with things like this when we constantly fight amongst ourselves and vote in politicians who despise Rangers.

[Scott7 5,513]

A bit of perspective here. 

 

This is the guy who scored for Rangers in the Upper Tier Tribunal before the appeal judges spoiled it all. What’s more, he declared his celtic shareholding and the BDO lawyers declined to object to him hearing the case.

 

He is the Commercial Judge so, surprise, surprise, he hears Commmercial cases no matter who the parties are.

 

In these circumstances, members of the jury, I invite you to find his Lordship not guilty of whatever it is you think he might be guilty of.

 

Having said that, his photo reminds me of Charlie Nicholas and a couple of other wee forwards who played for the tims but whose names I haven’t bothered to remember.