Ex-Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark in £21m settlement

[RANGERRAB 3,679]

Like most goings-on at Holyrood no one takes any responsibility when things go wrong.

 

the idea you can just hand over £24m ( and maybe up to £100m) of taxpayers money just because public servants can’t do their jobs properly is scandalous. And where do these exorbitant figures comes from ? Are they based on the earnings of Whitehouse & Clark ? What salaries were they on ?

 

The Scottish public(& us in particular) have a right to know what went on in this failed prosecution. Who was behind it and why? 

 

Or was this a diversionary tactic ? 

Edited February 10, 2021 by RANGERRAB

[Bluedell 5,627]

4 hours ago, JohnMc said:

So, you have to ask yourself who benefits from an attempted criminal prosecution against those involved with the administration and buy out of Rangers. I'm no fan of Duff and Phelps or Charles Green, but what has happened here is disgraceful. 

I believe a better question is who benefited from a deliberately botched criminal prosecution against those involved with the administration and buy-out of Rangers.

[RANGERRAB 3,679]

11 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I believe a better question is who benefited from a deliberately botched criminal prosecution against those involved with the administration and buy-out of Rangers.

Exactly. 

[Uilleam 5,948]

42 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think he is being oily.

He may well be the most unctuous, pettifogging, lawyerly, son of a bitch in Scotland, but, as far as I can determine, a "malicious prosecution" may not require spitefulness, or vindictiveness, but merely (!) its pursuance without just or provable cause 

[Bill 13,717]

10 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

He may well be the most unctuous, pettifogging, lawyerly, son of a bitch in Scotland, but, as far as I can determine, a "malicious prosecution" may not require spitefulness, or vindictiveness, but merely (!) its pursuance without just or provable cause 

And as far as I can see, words have inviolable meaning and trying to distort that using only-too-convenient legal interpretation is only likely to impress those it’s targeted at. It’s a fudge, otherwise the Lord Advocate wouldn’t be using the old tactic of “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”. Like I said, oily. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Bill

[Uilleam 5,948]

43 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

the idea you can just hand over £24m ( and maybe up to £100m) of taxpayers money just because public servants can’t do their jobs properly is scandalous. And where do these exorbitant figures comes from ? Are they based on the earnings of Whitehouse & Clark ? What salaries were they on ?

What the LA said was:

 

"The approach that has been taken in settling cases was to make a reasonable estimate of the actual loss that individuals could demonstrate."

 

One would like to think that this did not go through on the nod, and that some form of financial scrutiny was undertaken, to ensure that the settlements had some basis in reality.

Leaving aside our personal opinions, we have to realise that the Crown dropped the cases against them and 'fessed up to malicious prosecution. 

Hence Whitehouse and Clarke were -are- innocent before the law. They lost business, thus earnings,  and had their reputations traduced. The fact that their claims were the result of this prosecution will have made it difficult for the Crown Office in negotiations, and that may be reflected in the settlements. 

[Uilleam 5,948]

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

And as far as I can see, words have inviolable meaning and trying to distort that using only-too-convenient legal interpretation is only likely to impress those it’s targeted at. It’s a fudge, otherwise the Lord Advocate wouldn’t be using the old tactic of “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”. Like I said, oily. 

I don't think it matters: there seems to be a legal position on the definition of malicious prosecution, beyond malevolent, and involves pursuit without just cause, no matter the motive. Actually, that may well be worse. 

 

 

[JohnMc 2,766]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

I believe a better question is who benefited from a deliberately botched criminal prosecution against those involved with the administration and buy-out of Rangers.

Normally I'd challenge you on 'deliberately botched' but with what's come to light recently I'm now open minded to all possibilities. I don't think we got any answers today, just more questions. 

[JohnMc 2,766]

1 hour ago, Uilleam said:

I don't think it matters: there seems to be a legal position on the definition of malicious prosecution, beyond malevolent, and involves pursuit without just cause, no matter the motive. Actually, that may well be worse. 

 

 

When actions are agreed out of court they almost always carry a 'no blame' caveat. Even when it's clear that one side has won and one has lost, when damages have been agreed and they are clear to everyone lawyers always insert a 'this agreement signifies no acceptance of blame etc...'. Clearly the LA and the PF think they have that here, however it seems one the Duff & Phelps team feels they don't. A lot will hinge on that. I suspect the Crown will push very hard for that and a gaging order agreement on the remaining cases still to be agreed. 

There's little doubt in my mind the current LA is choosing his words very carefully. He's not going to admit to 'malice' in the sense that we understand the word while related cases are ongoing and also because he knows it would start a feeding frenzy I suspect he'd rather avoid. Today buys him and everyone involved time. There was no smoking gun, and this will drop down the news agenda while the related cases are dealt with. When it returns to the public eye, well, who knows where we'll all be by then. 

 

[Scott7 6,018]

41 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

When actions are agreed out of court they almost always carry a 'no blame' caveat. Even when it's clear that one side has won and one has lost, when damages have been agreed and they are clear to everyone lawyers always insert a 'this agreement signifies no acceptance of blame etc

The LA admitted liability.

 

“On 20 August 2020, I admitted liability to Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse”