How will the programme affect the hmrc court case?

[corkinator 611]

Just thinking, how will it?

Surely the way the programme was shown will predjudice the ongoing court case/findings.

This type of thing would NEVER be allowed while a criminal trial was ongoing or awaiting a verdict, the bbc would get their arse handed to them. And the perpetrator could apply for an unfair trial if found guilty.

Also, surely the information received with the ebts is release of protected personal data, something not right here! I am obviously looking at this as a layman so any one with any insight please enlighten me.

[gunslinger 270]

its finished so probably not much.

[eosmhdo 1,879]

Just thinking, how will it?

Surely the way the programme was shown will predjudice the ongoing court case/findings.

This type of thing would NEVER be allowed while a criminal trial was ongoing or awaiting a verdict, the bbc would get their arse handed to them. And the perpetrator could apply for an unfair trial if found guilty.

Also, surely the information received with the ebts is release of protected personal data, something not right here! I am obviously looking at this as a layman so any one with any insight please enlighten me.

Programme would have been poured over by lawyers telling everyone to say allegedly, surely, possibly and the like.

Direct accusations i did not hear as always heard a (you the viewer make your own mind up) around anything possibly dodgy.

Thats what i saw anyway, so spurious though that others will read it differently in their own opinions.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

In absolutely no way whatsoever. The critical reception of the HMRC outcome may be influenced by the programme however; and that will be interesting.

[corkinator 611]

its finished so probably not much.

Don't be so pedantic, you knew I meant the verdict.

[marvinsmarvels 13]

TBH honest last night didnt really enlighten me any on the use of EBT and why we were being taken to court. It took to myself having a read of the sun to see what the fuss was about and why HMRC are taking to us to court over their use. the main reason is the HMRC people are saying that rangers used the EBTs as part of the players contracts of employment which HMRC eventually brought in legislation that doing this is illegal. Rangers argument is that HMRC never stipulated that at the time of the ebt's implementation and took it to be everything was above board.

[corkinator 611]

Programme would have been poured over by lawyers telling everyone to say allegedly, surely, possibly and the like.

Direct accusations i did not hear as always heard a (you the viewer make your own mind up) around anything possibly dodgy.

Thats what i saw anyway, so spurious though that others will read it differently in their own opinions.

Yeah but th point I'm making is should this had been shown after the verdict and not before, in no other trial would this have been acceptable, it truly is a disgrace this was allowed to air before the verdict, IMO.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I would be shocked if a court of law decided to change anything based on a "maybes aye maybes no " set out in the program - they had no new evidence or the BBC lawyers would have been telling them to pass it on to the cops/court.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Yeah but th point I'm making is should this had been shown after the verdict and not before, in no other trial would this have been acceptable, it truly is a disgrace this was allowed to air before the verdict, IMO.

There was an interesting line from the Rangers website last night in regard to that programme, I won't go into it, but it might shed light on the media a little later on. Sometimes we have to wait and see; this looks like one of those times.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Yeah but th point I'm making is should this had been shown after the verdict and not before, in no other trial would this have been acceptable, it truly is a disgrace this was allowed to air before the verdict, IMO.

Your OP and the one above are good points raised bud and I agree with them re if this was a criminal verdict that was being discussed re HMRC v Rangers.

That program was nothing more than stirring it up plain and simple. It planted thoughts for the audience reaction they wanted.

[JCDBigBear 10,831]

The real evidence will have been poured over by the legal people of both Rangers and HMRC without the hysterical spin of this amateurish programme. I expect that they didn't hear or read anything that was not already on file with them. I believe that much of the programme concerned the takeover and administration issues which were all ifs, buts, possiblys and maybes. Rangers didn't hide the EBT scheme, it was used as tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

[HarrogateBlue 7]

If you rewind a watch, they supplied legal facts. Something the club wont deny or ever have. The bits that were libel / slander were said by a 3rd party on the evidence the bbc gave. To the 3rd part that was his honest answer. The bit you will never be told is they showed 1 plus another document that they never said were for different agendas. They let the 3rd party assume they were from the same agenda. Propaganda!

[HarrogateBlue 7]

What is certain from last night is there was legal and private papers leaked. This is the way Duff and Phelps must take action. Serious allegations that need to be shown in a court of law.

[corkinator 611]

I would be shocked if a court of law decided to change anything based on a "maybes aye maybes no " set out in the program - they had no new evidence or the BBC lawyers would have been telling them to pass it on to the cops/court.

I have been shocked at the way most entities of the media are acting.

Hypothetical, if the case is in the balance and the judges viewed last night and the slant given to the mockumenatry human nature dictates the possibility that the verdict could tilt into a guilty verdict.

I'm just thinking out loud really.

We just don't know what goes on in the judges minds, the media has been treating us as guilty from day one mind you.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I have been shocked at the way most entities of the media are acting.

Hypothetical, if the case is in the balance and the judges viewed last night and the slant given to the mockumenatry human nature dictates the possibility that the verdict could tilt into a guilty verdict.

I'm just thinking out loud really.

We just don't know what goes on in the judges minds, the media has been treating us as guilty from day one mind you.

... as discussed in other threads about D&P's presumed complicity..... our guilt has been presumed by many - as is the presumption that we are Doomed DOOMED a tell ye!

[gunslinger 270]

Don't be so pedantic, you knew I meant the verdict.

still don't think it will affect it much. seems unlikely this evidence is new.

[eosmhdo 1,879]

Yeah but th point I'm making is should this had been shown after the verdict and not before, in no other trial would this have been acceptable, it truly is a disgrace this was allowed to air before the verdict, IMO.

The lawyers know there was nothing said to prejudice anything.

And if there was anything the cops would have it.

BBC cannot be seen to be withholding evidence, or can they?

[corkinator 611]

They can do as this wish, it's the uks version of Pravda.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

They can do as this wish, it's the uks version of Pravda.

We'll, that is true. State Broadcaster: you can't watch telly without subscribing to it! I have never quite understood myself why a Government is needed to provide light entertainment and drama; I am sure someone has the answer however.

[liquid111 51]

It will not affect the tax case in any way.

The tax case is wholly dependent on a review of the papers available and submissions made.

[Sobatai 70]

As the case is not being heard before a jury, it won't affect it at all. Judges are deemed to be above being influenced by the rantings, erm, I mean reporting, of the media.

[corkinator 611]

It will not affect the tax case in any way.

The tax case is wholly dependent on a review of the papers available and submissions made.

Papers? Sun & record.

Seriously tho, it's shocking they didn't wait till after the fact.

[Dickie1963 2,357]

The real evidence will have been poured over by the legal people of both Rangers and HMRC without the hysterical spin of this amateurish programme. I expect that they didn't hear or read anything that was not already on file with them. I believe that much of the programme concerned the takeover and administration issues which were all ifs, buts, possiblys and maybes. Rangers didn't hide the EBT scheme, it was used as tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

I agree. Rangers had a very well known QC defending us in court and hell mend anybody connected with Rangers who did not give him the full facts before he got to the Tribunal.

I dont believe that anything was held back.

[Sobatai 70]

I agree. Rangers had a very well known QC defending us in court and hell mend anybody connected with Rangers who did not give him the full facts before he got to the Tribunal.

I dont believe that anything was held back.

I would imagine that it is a very complex case and that there may be much contradictory evidence. For example, while the BBC stated it had seen evidence of "side letters" in some instances, obviously there were other instances where no evidence of "side letters" existed, or were shown to the BBC.

[jcb 1,167]

Does anyone seriously think,that after over 30 days of evidence being given by ourselves & HMRC (1'700 pages having been submitted by us) that last nights 60 minute programme would unearth anything new.

If it was as cut and dried as the BBC would have some believe, i doubt it would have required 4 seperate sittings.