Jump to content

 

 

HMRC's Home for Peculiar Practice


Recommended Posts

I suspect there is mileage on what the blog describes, but as Frankie points out concrete evidence it is not. That being said, if there is substance to what is being alleged then finding concrete evidence will be difficult.

Edited by cooponthewing
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was concrete evidence available I doubt we would read it on that blog first. However that doesn't mean there isn't real value in doing what he does or the way he goes about it. Nor is there any harm throwing a likely name in the ring - many an effective exposé has started by speculating in public and if he's prepared to take the defamation risk then why not? I've noticed it's become almost de rigueur in some quarters to belittle this particular blogger as somehow less worthy but I think he deserves at least some credit for continuing the fight when many have long ago given up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bill said:

If there was concrete evidence available I doubt we would read it on that blog first. However that doesn't mean there isn't real value in doing what he does or the way he goes about it. Nor is there any harm throwing a likely name in the ring - many an effective exposé has started by speculating in public and if he's prepared to take the defamation risk then why not? I've noticed it's become almost de rigueur in some quarters to belittle this particular blogger as somehow less worthy but I think he deserves at least some credit for continuing the fight when many have long ago given up.

It's all good. It all brings minds back on to it. Maybe someone remembers something or maybe other names are brought forward. If it turns out that Ted, Dougal and Jack at the HMRC were the ones who called the shots on all things Rangers then it strengthens the case to have it looked at probably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains that when Rangers entered administration on 14th Feb 2012 the debt was £55m of which £21m was owed to HMRC who had deliberately allowed Whyte to go 6 months without paying Tax/NI. 

 

This meant that HMRC were owed more than 25 percent of the total meaning they could block a CVA which they did.

 

The BTC hadn’t been decided at the time of administration.  It had been appealed & the FTTT didn’t report back til Nov 2012

Edited by RANGERRAB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.