It was judged by the same independent panel that is hearing the double contracts stuff including Lord Nimmo-Smith. So, you're saying that they judged themselves to be partial??? I was expecting this "beeling" malarkey. I'm asking seriously - the only possible thing I can think of is (as I can only recall seeing his statements in print to be fair) that he is suggesting he was misquoted and the Not Provan (geddit) was as a result of not being able to determine whether he's a lying prick or a grandstanding prick (I doubt this and it's extremely far fetched in any case). I see our fourth estate has paid it all absolutely no heed at all and have suggested he was "cleared" <mongs>
Now that's a couple of meaty examples of beel... Why do you think he got "off" then diccus Wtf are ticketus and Craig Whyte to do with anything? What's a sevco?...
Regards the OP, those rumours are doing the rounds on twitter too. And it's not celtic fans that are spreading them ... Whether there's any truth in them is another matter entirely.
I get it now - question = beel, gotya. He didn't "get off" but you know that anyway. He received a not provan without any explanation of what evidence they lacked. It cannot be that his assertions are correct as that would be "not guilty" None of you find this weird?
I don't remember a "not proven" SFA verdict before. Can't say I'm fussed but it strikes me as an attempt to defuse the situation more than anything else.
Well what's your thoughts? Frightened that this is the start if it and the dual contracts will be given a bit provan verdict tae? Btw, if these letter "exist" this enquiry will have to prove that they were actually issued from rangers and not wee Timmy on his wee lappy
Heard a comment from Bomber Brown who said Whyte still owned Ibrox. At the risk of missing the obvious I don't see how he can own assets that were sold off during liquidation.
It's really not important to anything at all in the grand scheme but, logically, does it make any sense to you? I mean, more legally learned minds than mine came up with it and I really doubt any political machinations behind it as the panel were independent. I just, other than claims of a misquote being upheld, cannot fathom it. I'm not beeling and I'm not contesting it - I'm really curious as to why that verdict was returned.
