Late night internet bampottery..

[macranger 296]

One thing I can't get my head round is, that I was always led to believe that to appeal, there must be some new evidence? Surely they can't just appeal so as its someone else who's on the panel that may have a different view on it? So if there is any new evidence, then where did it come from & why was it held back?

[Jodz 98]

One thing I can't get my head round is, that I was always led to believe that to appeal, there must be some new evidence? Surely they can't just appeal so as its someone else who's on the panel that may have a different view on it? So if there is any new evidence, then where did it come from & why was it held back?

I know they requested the right to appeal, but has that right been granted? You may be correct and the request could be denied. Heres hoping

[Uncle Fester 186]

Why would you go after a club who at best earn 4 million pounds of TV revenue per season, when you could choose any one of 8-10 EPL teams, the worst of which earns 80 million pounds of TV revenue per season?

Because they're nobody's.

[Uncle Fester 186]

Patience grasshoppers all will eventually be revealed, I'm certain there are people now employed by Rangers who will have had "sources" passing them information. So in the words of William Wallace.....HOLD.

[fuckthespl 2,508]

I've never thought of us as an easier target than the EPL clubs but I do understand your point. I think a certain Bellshill born MP (incidentally where myself and our fine manager were also both born) was instrumental in our club being chosen for the test case.

Anyway, bedtime for me. Night night all.

Makes me ashamed to be from Bellshill. Then again, Ally makes up for it

[falwheel 222]

I have never read a valid reason why? the appeal decision took so long to be announced. if the successful appeal had ben announced sooner then maybe we could have avoided the sale of our club. can we have this investigated ?

[danger ranger 922]

just look at the religous beliefs of our attackers both inside hmrc and the media, and also lloyds bank. Also consider as Scotland gets closer to independance the catholic church has got bolder over the last few years and the jesuits have never stopped over the centuries underminning governments, unions, local politics etc.

They call it a modern equal society, but bring in draconion laws akin to the nazi party who exalted themself as babylon, of which the catholic church is the religous front of babylon, and which calls us heretics, well why are the laws not served on them. Because there is no new modern equal society only dark age laws designed to crush freedom and conform people to their will.

Just look all over the world, there's war everywhere as different divides fight for control and it is no different here.The trouble has also started in Ulster again as they make inroads to get rid of the protestant rights. Consider Ulsters grief over the last 30 years, we have not had trouble like that in our streets therefore we are asleep to it.

This was a coordinated attack on us and hopefully we as a nation wake up to the threat.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Oh good God, really? This is a tim like paranoia.

Would the honourable gentleman please keep to the remit in the opening post rather than just throw about insults.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Well its no longer late night so the bampottery head is no longer on.

The original three benchmarks of motive, opportunity and conduct after the crime, still stand however.

When we look at the RTC blog and its conduct it poses significant questions. The blog released sensational exclusives over a sustained period of time, causing journalist Tom English to praise the quality of info and suggest “it was sourced from within” HMRC.

But that presents a problem. Are we really to believe that a person was regularly accessing the HMRC evidence store and hand picking material to pass onto the blog over a regular and sustained period without detection ?

Or was it a one off – where they accessed the evidence and photocopied the relevant material and handled over a huge bundle to the blog ? Perhaps we should be on lookout for a man in a Celtic top driving a very very large white van.

The HMRC response to the e-petition reaching 10,000 was in my opinion peculiar and particularly defensive - “we dont speculate on leaks”. Neither they should they should be conducting their own internal investigations so that they can confirm or deny they were responsible for the leaks. Would that not fulfil the ethos of openness and transparency ?

Furthermore if the petition reaches the 100, 000 mark then the type and nature of the investigation will be totally different to the type SDM instructed his lawyers to request from Crown Offcie.

For those of us who were shareholders (albeit an emotional rather than a financial investment) we have at the very least the right to expect that all reasonable steps were taken to investigate the source of the leaks. Particularly when the information was being used by the RTC blog to present the company controlling our investment as “toxic” thus making it virtually unsaleable. I find it unacceptable that the agency charged with the responsibility of the investigation of crime in Soctland – ie the Police – and who have both the powers and resources to investigate such matters have not been involved to date.

Perhaps it will take Crown Office to open the can of worms, by granting SDM his criminal investigation, and the susbsequent cross referencing of the documentary evidence seized by HMRC and that which was released by RTC over that sustained period.

What is perhaps most disheartening however is that this conversation regarding all the foregoing only appears to be taking place within the Rangers community. Is it too much too expect that Scottish journalists, their professional pride insulted by this blog, would not be willing to try and get tot he bottom of all this, or at the very least start asking some less than comfortable questions of a lot of people ?

If the twittering of Spiers or English is anything to go by, apparently not. The latter is far too busy goading Traynor via Twitter for his “Gentleman be careful” comments.

Traynor of course, does not even have a twitter account.

[korealoyal 53]

[Muirheadbear 1,483]

Bottom line is that Rangers were trading and competing successfully over the last 3-4 years. They were reducing their debt and winning trophies. HMRC were like a dog with a bone with the EBT scheme. But why us? There were other clubs using it.

At the CVA they had all the power because they were able to claim that they were owed 94m which subsequently they we're found not to be owed due to the tribunal decision. Both Rangers and other creditors suffered big time because of that . And that is plainly wrong!

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

Silence from one being interviewed by the police years ago was considered 'no proof' but now silence is constrewed as guilt.From HMRC the silence is deafening.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

There were more people at Ibrox today than have signed the e-petition. I could have started another thread urging people to sign same, but for some reason we are not getting near the numbers required.

I opened this discussion, in the manner I did with the opening post, to encourage discussion, to keep this subject very much at the forefront of matters, and to encourage anyone reading this thread who had not signed the petition to do so. I am of the opinion that there are some people who would be very happy if the questions being asked by the Rangers support were to dry up.

If you look through the thread, giving regard to the remit in the opening post, there is not conclusive proof or an overwhelming argument which removes suspicion from HMRC. I fully accept there are others who will fit the three categories of Motive, Opportunity and Conduct after the crime. But in an investigation which has been characterised by numerous leaks do we not deserve better from HMRC ? Particularly considering the damage done to our club as a consequence of these leaks - wherever they came from.

To say “they dont speculate on leaks” is totally unacceptable given the damage which has been done to the Rangers brand. It is a statement devoid of openness and transparency.

Furthermore, aside from the leaks aspect, I want to know why my club were chosen as the test case by HMRC. There are perhaps perfectly legitimate reasons, but until we have the type of investigation which the 100,000 signatures is a consequence of – we will never know.

I would encourage you all to endeavour to get as many people as possible to sign this petition.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

It is absolutely correct to keep the petition front and centre and to encourage as many people as possible to sign it. If there is also then a criminal investigation then so much the better. HMRC must be held fully to account for its actions, decisions, conduct, mangement of the entire process and for the steps it should (must) have taken to investigate how information was finding its way into unauthorised hands. Having happened in our case, what confidence can HMRC Ministers and Senior Civil Servants have that similar leaks would not occur in other tax cases which are in the public eye? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this case was a headline making case very much in the public eye at least in Scotland. And so is there not also a duty on the Scottish Parliament to be pressing HMRC for full, accurate and complete disclosure of why the case was brought, the standards by which the case was managed and information supposedly protected; and full details of the steps HMRC has taken to identify how leaks of information happened and who was responsible? Also to be answered by HMRC is what breaches of the Civil Service code, or breaches of the Official Secrets Act happened in respect of this case, and what action HMRC has taken or is taking in respect of such breaches.

Until HMRC's Ministers and Senior Civil Servants act with the integrity that the British public rightly expects from its elected Ministers and their appointed officials then how can trust and confidence in the running of that Govt Department be repaired? By their silence, crass response about not speculating on leaks, and sheer distancing of any notion of public accountability for ensuring that the full and complete truth is exposed, they lose the right to be respected and, going further, put themselves into the category of an Government institution that deliberately set about to actively harm a football club of national and international renown. That is the charge before them. If HMRC disagree then let them openly state their case with full and complete details. What do they have to hide by not doing so?

To conclude - if you have not signed the petition then please do so and spread the message to others to sign it. And raise the matter with MPs, MSPs and with HMRC direct.

[sergio 1,199]

There were more people at Ibrox today than have signed the e-petition. I could have started another thread urging people to sign same, but for some reason we are not getting near the numbers required.

I opened this discussion, in the manner I did with the opening post, to encourage discussion, to keep this subject very much at the forefront of matters, and to encourage anyone reading this thread who had not signed the petition to do so. I am of the opinion that there are some people who would be very happy if the questions being asked by the Rangers support were to dry up.

If you look through the thread, giving regard to the remit in the opening post, there is not conclusive proof or an overwhelming argument which removes suspicion from HMRC. I fully accept there are others who will fit the three categories of Motive, Opportunity and Conduct after the crime. But in an investigation which has been characterised by numerous leaks do we not deserve better from HMRC ? Particularly considering the damage done to our club as a consequence of these leaks - wherever they came from.

To say “they dont speculate on leaks” is totally unacceptable given the damage which has been done to the Rangers brand. It is a statement devoid of openness and transparency.

Furthermore, aside from the leaks aspect, I want to know why my club were chosen as the test case by HMRC. There are perhaps perfectly legitimate reasons, but until we have the type of investigation which the 100,000 signatures is a consequence of – we will never know.

I would encourage you all to endeavour to get as many people as possible to sign this petition.

http://epetitions.di...petitions/42143

You can sign this e-petition on other people's behalf, as long that person agrees, I have asked all my family and friends and every single person in my community to sign it.

I have posted on Facebook an I have asked other football fans sites to sign it.

I would urge the moderators, Admins to create a video that shows people how to create an email account, or how to use 10 min mail for those people who may want to sign it on a family members behalf

Please do all you can, the people responsible for this must be brought to justice.

[topgoalie 637]

There were more people at Ibrox today than have signed the e-petition. I could have started another thread urging people to sign same, but for some reason we are not getting near the numbers required.

I opened this discussion, in the manner I did with the opening post, to encourage discussion, to keep this subject very much at the forefront of matters, and to encourage anyone reading this thread who had not signed the petition to do so. I am of the opinion that there are some people who would be very happy if the questions being asked by the Rangers support were to dry up.

If you look through the thread, giving regard to the remit in the opening post, there is not conclusive proof or an overwhelming argument which removes suspicion from HMRC. I fully accept there are others who will fit the three categories of Motive, Opportunity and Conduct after the crime. But in an investigation which has been characterised by numerous leaks do we not deserve better from HMRC ? Particularly considering the damage done to our club as a consequence of these leaks - wherever they came from.

To say “they dont speculate on leaks” is totally unacceptable given the damage which has been done to the Rangers brand. It is a statement devoid of openness and transparency.

Furthermore, aside from the leaks aspect, I want to know why my club were chosen as the test case by HMRC. There are perhaps perfectly legitimate reasons, but until we have the type of investigation which the 100,000 signatures is a consequence of – we will never know.

I would encourage you all to endeavour to get as many people as possible to sign this petition.

http://epetitions.di...petitions/42143

Sometimes i despair,honestly just asking around members on our bus of around 70 members over the past weeks,about internet sites etc,and mentioned this site ,could not believe that myself apart there was maybe 3 at a push that knew about this site,dont get me wrong i have never been on facebook,being a taxi driver i get enough shite talk off the punters lol,got to admit a lot are older and set on their ways Bears,but still most of the news they are gathering is still from pape rs,or tv....

[sergio 1,199]

Sometimes i despair,honestly just asking around members on our bus of around 70 members over the past weeks,about internet sites etc,and mentioned this site ,could not believe that myself apart there was maybe 3 at a push that knew about this site,dont get me wrong i have never been on facebook,being a taxi driver i get enough shite talk off the punters lol,got to admit a lot are older and set on their ways Bears,but still most of the news they are gathering is still from pape rs,or tv....

Take a laptop on the bus with WIFI and get them all to fucking sign it ...

[72barca 1,788]

It is absolutely correct to keep the petition front and centre and to encourage as many people as possible to sign it. If there is also then a criminal investigation then so much the better. HMRC must be held fully to account for its actions, decisions, conduct, mangement of the entire process and for the steps it should (must) have taken to investigate how information was finding its way into unauthorised hands. Having happened in our case, what confidence can HMRC Ministers and Senior Civil Servants have that similar leaks would not occur in other tax cases which are in the public eye? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this case was a headline making case very much in the public eye at least in Scotland. And so is there not also a duty on the Scottish Parliament to be pressing HMRC for full, accurate and complete disclosure of why the case was brought, the standards by which the case was managed and information supposedly protected; and full details of the steps HMRC has taken to identify how leaks of information happened and who was responsible? Also to be answered by HMRC is what breaches of the Civil Service code, or breaches of the Official Secrets Act happened in respect of this case, and what action HMRC has taken or is taking in respect of such breaches.

Until HMRC's Ministers and Senior Civil Servants act with the integrity that the British public rightly expects from its elected Ministers and their appointed officials then how can trust and confidence in the running of that Govt Department be repaired? By their silence, crass response about not speculating on leaks, and sheer distancing of any notion of public accountability for ensuring that the full and complete truth is exposed, they lose the right to be respected and, going further, put themselves into the category of an Government institution that deliberately set about to actively harm a football club of national and international renown. That is the charge before them. If HMRC disagree then let them openly state their case with full and complete details. What do they have to hide by not doing so?

To conclude - if you have not signed the petition then please do so and spread the message to others to sign it. And raise the matter with MPs, MSPs and with HMRC direct.

HMRC To 'Name And Shame' Tax Evaders

by Robert Lee, Tax-News.com, London

05 March 2010

Taxpayers and companies who deliberately evade taxes in the UK face having their name, address and details of their evasion made public after new legislation was put into force on March 3.

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will be able to publish names and details of individuals and companies who are caught dodging their taxes from April 1, 2010, when section 94 of the Finance Act 2009 comes into force.

Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said: “It is only right that people pay their fair share of tax, which supports vital public services. We know that law-abiding taxpayers will want to see the results of HMRC’s investigations into tax cheats.

He added: “This new approach should make people think again about trying to get away with tax fraud. As well as having to pay the tax, interest on the tax, plus penalties of up to 100% of the tax lost, they also now risk being identified publicly. “We are only targeting deliberate tax evaders. So if you know that you have not paid the right tax, and you want to avoid being named, contact HMRC right away to set things straight.”

It is planned that names will be published on HMRC’s website. Because this measure will only be applied for periods starting from April 1, 2010, it is not expected that any names will be published before the first half of 2011.

Taxpayers who may be named and shamed are those who have deliberately evaded tax of more than GBP25,000 in total.

Why would Rangers be named and shamed when nothing had yet been proved if not by a breach of this Act?

A similar scheme currently operates in the Republic of Ireland, and the UK government hopes that 'naming and shaming' will act as an additional deterrent in its enforcement arsenal to reduce tax evasion. However, one tax expert warns that businesses may stand to lose substantially more from having their name emblazoned on HMRC's defaulters' page than would be the case if just a financial penalty was imposed.

"Being named publicly in this way could be likened to 'ASBOs for tax evaders' causing a lot of damage to the individual's personal and commercial reputation," commented Stephen Camm, tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"It may a seem bit insensitive to 'name and shame' in this way, but will have a bigger impact for some than a straight-forward financial penalty, demolishing the facade of respectability that they would have previously maintained," he cautioned.

How do you sell a company which has been given such an ASBO?