WP Archives 05 Oct 2012: Toxic Tomo's Tenious Tat

So, I like alliteration. Forgive me.

I've been rather amused by Alex Thompson's latest blog on Rangers.

His unhealthy obsession with the biggest football club in Scotland continues with a desperate attempt to make a court case against Rangers former owner Craig Whyte current and relevant.

As 'Gers fans on Twitter questioned the relevance of his blog, Toxic replied that Whyte might still be involved in Rangers.

It's not the first time it's been suggested, but mostly by John "wherrs the deeds" Brown, and David Leggat.

Despite lots of bluster, and an admirable persistence in repeating the claims, neither have offered a shred of evidence.

Neither does Toxic.

It's interesting that Toxic and Leggat hate each other's guts, as their blogs are at times two sides of the same coin.

Both like their wild unsubstantiated claims and both have an obsession with Craig Whyte.

Toxic takes it further by repeating the curiosities previously blogged by Paul McConville and Rangers Tax Case over Whyte's various directorships and "identities".

It's hardly groundbreaking stuff.

That becomes crystal clear to anyone familiar with companies house information, and director searches.

Try it yourself.

Within 5 minutes you will find many directors with a strange tendency for providing inconsistent information.

Why they do it I don't know, but they do.

So we have a blog telling nothing new that feels a year out of date, and the author somehow immensely proud of his efforts.

Please remember this lazy amateurism the next time you see Toxic reporting from a war zone.

Bill.

WP Archives Sep 12 2012: Roger Who?

While some would argue that “all out attack on Rangers day” is every day, today’s assault on Charles Green by the press, is particularly vindictive, and reeks of the SPL Cabal calling in favours in order to discredit Green’s statement with regards to the SPL’s Kangaroo Court.

There is a shocking piece of propaganda by former SPL Chief Roger Mitchell in the Herald, who debates Green’s points with a level of finesse you would expect from a Celtic Minded blogger.

He takes Green’s points on one by one

“Claim 1 Rangers ceased to be subject to the SPL's rules when they were ejected from their league.

 Fact Rangers oldco was not ejected from the SPL. The fact that Rangers went into liquidation automatically expelled them from the league. The SPL shareholders then decided not to make an exception and let them back in. Two very different things”

Rangers history and business all transferred to the new legal entity as part of the purchase and the legal agreement reached between Rangers and the football bodies when granting Rangers an SFA Licence. Rangers “oldco” were forced to transfer there SPL share to Dundee. To date, the “oldco” have not been liquidated.

Mitchell also neglects to mention that the rule changes which allowed this to happen were decided after Rangers went in to Administration.

“Claim 2 The outcome of the SPL's process will have no legal effect.

Fact What the SPL are deciding upon is whether their tournament and their trophy was assigned to the correct club in the years in question.

The SPL have every right to examine whether participants in their competition behaved within the rules. And if they find they haven't, they can apply their rule book as recourse. More Green nonsense.

I do, however, agree with him that "whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL". Indeed. But the SPL should be proud of that, and not hide behind the Law Lords.

The SPL are examining the conduct of the participants in their competition well before Rangers went into liquidation, in particular the conduct of the club then owned by Sir David Murray, with the club secretary role (in charge of those player registrations) held by Campbell Ogilvie (whatever happened to him?). Charles Green and Sevco have nothing to do with this. Whatsoever.”

I’m actually very surprised the above is an original piece of work by Mitchell, given that several high profile Celtic writers and bloggers have been campaigning for the removal of Campbell Ogilvie from his position. That aside, his assertion that the SPL can “assign” a trophy is bordering on ridiculous. Each trophy is won on merit, on the field.

If Rangers are judged by Lord Nimmo Smith’s panel to have broken SPL rules, then there are a number of sanctions that can be chosen, however, as Charles Green states, Rangers take issue with both the law firm chosen to investigate, their conduct through SPL and SFA negotiations with Rangers, and the attempt to charge Rangers not on the rules applicable at the time Rangers are alleged to have used EBTs improperly, but against a revised set of rules issued at a later date.

As previous Chairman and owner David Murray has stated, neither he nor any of his representatives were asked for their views on the use of EBTs by Harper MacLeod.

Reference to Campbell Ogilvie is intriguing, as he left Rangers in 2005, with EBTs in operation for 4 years of his tenure. He has previously stated he did see or sign any “second contract” for any players or staff.

It seems that Mitchell and others are implying rather unsubtly that Ogilvie is lying.

The assertion that Charles Green and “Sevco” have nothing to do with this is also misleading for two reasons.

“Sevco” do not exist. Rangers parent company are called “The Rangers Football Club limited”. Rangers the footballing entity are just known as "Rangers"

As part of discussions to award Rangers the transfer of membership from the “oldco” to the “newco” it was agreed in print that the “newco” would assume responsibility for the SPL investigation.

Mitchell, like the SPL, seems confused as to who should be punished by their Kangaroo court.

“Claim 3 The new owners purchased all the business and assets of Rangers, including titles and trophies.

Fact Green said on June 2012 that if his CVA proposal was to fail (which it did) and Rangers were to be liquidated (which they are), "the history, the tradition, everything that's great about this club is swept aside".

Therefore he admits he has not purchased titles and trophies. Sevco has no titles and trophies.

Green made the statement as a bargaining chip to achieve a CVA. In this he failed

As part of the SFA Share transfer, his fear of history being lost was quelled, as the club retained its glorious history. In any case, other clubs such as Leeds Utd who had been through a similar situation had kept their history in full, so a precedent had been set. “Sevco” do not exist.

Had the SFA Licence been rejected, there may have been legal argument to make a case for Rangers losing their history. It wasn’t rejected. Mitchell is incorrect.

“By the way, Charles, I would not provoke commentators like me to dig this up, because what you said is not what the Rangers fans want to hear now, as you now correctly realise. Let it lie, Charlie, let it lie.”

So, even one with a leaning towards Govan would argue that, under the most superficial scrutiny, Green's attack is less than robust. But sometimes you have to chuck a dog a bone. So, to be fair, Charlie is right with his complaint on the SPL's lack of consistency,”

 Given that Mitchell’s “argument” is less than robust itself, and riddled with inaccuracies, then I’d suggest it’s Mitchell who should remain on the sidelines.

 Mitchell who was the first CEO of the SPL following the transfer of ownership from a company owned by current Celtic and SPL board member Eric Reilly, and the Administrator who oversaw the rejection of a very generous SKY deal, was a failure to Scottish Football, and has no credibility whatsoever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/scotland/2495351.stm

He goes on:

“Green states: "The SPL took part in discussions regarding the new company's league status, where 'the EBT issue' would be dealt with as part of a package of sanctions which would be implemented in return for membership.

"We do not accept that people who are willing to come to an agreement on such matters then have a right to instigate a full-blown inquisition when matters do not unfold as they thought they would."

Sadly this falls into the general shambles of the management of the affair by the SFA/SPL. I made my own view clear on the leadership of both bodies in the summer. But I cannot see how the credibility of the current process on a simple point of law over false registration of players with Employee Benefit Trusts (being handled by independent top QCs) can be derailed by claims that the prosecutor behaved incoherently months earlier.”

Green actually makes no reference to the now widely accepted event where Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod ranted and raved in anger at Green and stated clearly that “you bastards cheated for 11 years”

Green is clearly referring to the SPL board. Rod McKenzie didn’t instigate an inquisition, unless he is running the SPL.

Mitchell slating the leadership of both the SFA and SPL is hypocritical in the extreme.

While it is widely accepted that the SPL and the SFA have indeed been weak and prone to making rules up as they go along, they would not have had to do so had Mitchell put in place a tight infrastructure to handle and prevent such occurrences.

“Good debating point, Charles, but it's not enough. Instead, all of us who love the game and who hold true sporting values in our hearts have a simple question: Did Rangers oldco gain unfair advantage by registering players on a basis where their full employment conditions were not declared to the SPL/SFA?”

This myth is clearly debunked by Green, and has also been debunked by former Chairmen Alastair Johnston on the RST site, and by David Murray.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is absolutely clear that the practice of EBTs, when used, were completely legal, and Rangers (and Murray) still assert that not only did Rangers comply with the SPL rules as set out when the EBTs were in use, but that other SPL members did not.

While many have attacked Green today, he appeared to be holding back

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I should state that while the contractual agreements and payments employed by at least one other SPL side require to be investigated, all clubs were offered an amnesty by the SFA with regards to their payment practices.

None have declared any such non contractual payment

http://williampoole.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/celtic-employees-tax-avoidance/

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/301167-scottish-fa-ask-clubs-to-declare-non-contractual-payments/

IN the interests of consistency, clubs who are found to have both exploited such loopholes, failed to declare them in annual accounts submissions, and also failed to declare their activity in the SFA Amnesty, should receive more punishment than Rangers, should Rangers be found “guilty”

These clubs have to be investigated first for that to happen.

There is enough evidence to instigate an investigation, so what’s stopping them?

Mitchell continues:

“In my mind the answer is undoubtedly 'yes'. But let's not forget the lessons of Versailles: bloodlust rebounds.

The SPL enquiry punishment doesn't arouse great passion in me. And it shouldn't either for Celtic fans. For them I'd argue the victory is in the fact that their greatest rival died.

The 125-year long struggle ended with the collapse of the adversary. The war was won. Achilles vanquished Hector.

In closing, from Mark Anthony onwards history tells us that well-crafted oratory can influence the mob.”

The choice of prose above is very reminiscent of at least one contributor to the Rangers Tax Case blog, aswell as Rangers hating activists Phil Mac Giolla Bhain and Kieron Brady.

Mitchell goes on

“While Charles Green is no great speaker or statesman, I must admit, he is no dummy. And there is no doubt that his audience is the mob, whose money and favour he needs in order to exit the Rangers investment project with a financial return.

Stoking up hatred has always energised "the base", another example of which we saw in the Republican convention in these days.”

Green protecting his club and his investment is only natural and professional. If reacting to hate filled agendas is “stoking up hatred”, then I for one am glad that Mitchell is not a judge.

“Well done, Charles. Initial Public Offering of shares here we come.

For Scottish football, the days of enlightenment around the Tommy Burns funeral are long gone, and I fear the worst.”

Enlightenment? Don’t make me laugh.

Using the Tommy Burns funeral to ingratiate himself with the Celtic support, is as low a tactic I have seen when attacking Rangers.

I could go further than this but I don’t think it’s appropriate that I sink to Mitchell’s level.

“Roger” clearly thinks the Herald readership are gullible dummys.

He should be left in no doubt that the public, and Green, are far more switched on than he ever was during his ill fated tenure in charge of the SPL.

Bill.

WP Archives 26 Sep 2012: The Bumbling Buffoon is back

Just when you think Graham Spiers has disappeared for good, he comes back infrequently to remind people that the standard of journalism in Scotland has reached rock bottom

I used to think that newspaper editors, and Radio controllers should be some of the most streetwise and incisive individuals around. You’d think that years of journalism and reporting from the streets would instil a common sense that would set them apart. Wrong.

Latterly I’ve come to the conclusion that they are living in a timewarp and so far removed from reality that they have completely lost perspective.

After all, Graham Spiers still seems to pop up in Scottish broadsheets and on the airwaves, despite a toxic reputation that he cannot understand a game of football, cannot get a scoop, and has the reverse midas touch anywhere he writes.

After months of offering very very little in terms of relevance, Spiers has jumped in to full rant mode at Rangers with regards to Charles Green’s pertinent observations of the SFA and SPL agendas against Rangers.

While Spiers likes to play the bumbling fool when it suits him, he also displays that narcisism that high profile journalists posess, and assumes a position of superiority, even when he is completely off the mark.

Right from the off, Spiers gets it completely wrong, and perhaps I should show just how wrong he actually is

“I am still trying to get my head around the senselessness of Charles Green and Rangers FC refusing to have any truck with the SPL’s investigation conducted by Lord Nimmo Smith into the alleged EBTs misdemeanours at the club.”

Firstly, the SPL’s investigation has already been carried out, and was carried out by Celtic’s law firm Harper Macleod, and more specifically Rod Mckenzie

Nimmo Smith is chairing an “independent” panel to sit on that evidence

“Nimmo Smith has been widely quoted in the past few days, but one plea he made that has virtually gone unnoticed was that anyone associated with Oldco or Newco Rangers, who believe they have a plea of mitigation to make about the club, should come forward and speak to the commission.”

David Murray stated several weeks ago that no one from the SPL, Harper MacLeod had not contacted him, nor anyone else from the “oldco”

Nimmo-Smith should be contacting Murray directly, rather than implying an open invite through the media for Murray attend a tribunal where the evidence has already been compiled without his input.

Expecting Murray to take part in such an arrangement is absolutely ridiculous.

In any case, Murray. like Alastair Johnston and Green, is very clear that no tribunal should be taking place until after the HMRC FTT appeal is decided

“What are Rangers so scared of? Why did the club obfuscate in passing on relevant documentation? What is there to hide?”

Murray’s position should be explained above.

Green’s position is explained in various statements.

Green’s statements are clear. The SPL are working to a pre-determined agenda which compromises the integrity of the tribunal.

While Rangers have stated that they do not question Nimmo Smith’s impartiality, and that he has been put in a difficult position by the SPL board, my belief is that he too is working to a pre-determined agenda, and that his request for input is meaningless, unless he formalises it.

Essentially, if he genuinely wished a credible and fair hearing for Rangers, he would throw out the slanted evidence of Rod McKenzie and the SPL, and tell them to start again once the FTT has been decided, with a directive to interview all stakeholders.

He hasn’t, which means he either has no intention of seeking all the relevant evidence, or is not being allowed to by the SPL board

His terminology in comparing Rangers alleged actions with match fixing would suggest the former.

“If Rangers are innocent of an alleged dual-contracts scam – and they may well be – then why does the club not step forward and argue its case?”

Because they have been through the process with HMRC and the FTT and await the judgement. The SPL kangaroo court should not be taking place until after any such judgement is issued

My understanding is that the case isn’t as cut and dried as many are making out. If it was it would have been finalised a long time ago.

At one stage, with a week to go before the commission’s preliminary hearing of September 11, Green and Newco Rangers were prepared to go and talk to Nimmo Smith. But, with a day to go, they swiftly changed their mind.

Interesting. Perhaps Green found something out about the panel that was not too his liking?

Why did it take from Sep 11 to Sep 26 for this to come to light ?

To quote Nimmo Smith verbatim from his preparatory notes on the Rangers hearings to be held in November: “Oldco and Rangers FC will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at the hearings and make submissions as they see fit.”

A few pages further on in his notes, and applying his desire to have all evidence and all voices considered in this saga, Nimmo Smith adds: “We [hope] that Oldco, Newco and any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear will give intimation to that effect. We wish to emphasise that the doors remain open to Oldco and Newco to appear and be represented…”

Never mind Charles Green’s antics, what about Sir David Murray? Given Nimmo Smith and his commission’s desire to establish clear blue water between itself and the SPL, what can possibly stop Murray from coming forward to give his side of the story?

Nimmo Smith chose his words carefully in terms of testimony about EBTs: “…any other person claiming an interest…”

In this Rangers saga, I can think of no viable person who suits those words more than Murray, the man who set the Ibrox club on the fateful course of EBTs in the first place.

As stated above, Murray has never been formally invited to contribute to the investigation, and his focus has to be in fighting his case against HMRC, not a kangaroo court set up by Rangers’ enemies.

Murray avows that Rangers are innocent. He claims this is a stitch-up by people – whoever the heck they might be – to damage Rangers. Murray says the EBTs, the famed “legal loophole” to paying taxes, were used properly and legitimately.

I severely doubt Murray’s interpretation on this but, more than that, I want him to be given his chance to come before the commission to protest his and Rangers’ innocence.

Can someone provide a single valid reason why Murray would not to come before – or present evidence to – Nimmo Smith?

Not to? What does that mean?

The Commission is flawed for a number of reasons, from the choice of lawyers, to the lack of will to talk to Murray, and the commission being set up before the FTT final judgement, which suggests an assumption that Rangers are guilty.

There is absolutely no reason why either Murray or Green should treat the tribunal or those who commissioned it with anything other than contempt.

The SPL and SFA have been flawed in their handling of the Rangers case – everyone can see it. But the SPL is trying to make up for that by ensuring that its claim that Rangers FC warrants an investigation will be a claim carried out with the utmost impartiality and clarity.

Such a claim is not only inaccurate and misleading, it is laughable for many of the reasons I have stated above

You have to be a conspiracy theorist of fantasist proportions to somehow believe that Nimmo Smith and his two QCs, Nicholas Stewart and Charles Flint, are “agenda-driven” or “biased” in any way. This commission will once and for all cut through the cant and farrago of this case and reach a judgement on all its available evidence.

This is also not true. Neither Green nor Murray have questioned the impartiality of any of these men, but have questioned the agenda of the SPL board, and the SPL lawyers Harper MacLeod.

Perhaps the tribunal will be the next step,

Nimmo Smith, Stewart and Flint, apart from their renown in judicial matters, appear to have impeccable credentials. This is a costly exercise for the SPL, but it is worth it. Personally, I will very happily embrace this commission’s guilty or innocent verdict on Rangers, for those very reasons.

 I’d suggest that Nimmo Smith may shortly find his credibility shattered, unless he throws this case out. The credibility of all three is at risk.

In the EBTs/dual contracts controversy, Rangers face two imminent announcements: the tribunal on the so-called “big tax case” and then the Nimmo Smith hearing. The two are subtly linked: one is about EBTs and alleged tax evasion, the other is about player contracts and disclosure.

This story, with its claim and counter-claim, is more complex than anyone could imagine. Rangers could win one case and lose the other, or win or lose both.

My own hunch, given what I’ve been told, is that Rangers have been in the wrong. But far more able scrutineers than me might find otherwise

 Your own “hunch” is worthless, as you have not seen the evidence. On the basis of the above, you are clueless.

It is clear that Rangers believe the second to be worthless, and they’d be right, as they are believed to have both a strong case for themselves, and strong evidence to suggest that other SPL clubs have undertaken arrangements which have not been declared in any way shape or form to the SPL, while there is public documentary evidence of Rangers declaring their EBTs to the SPL and SFA.

Charles Green is not for letting this go either. If it would be wise for anyone to see sense and back down it would be the morally bankrupt SPL, before they become the financially bankrupt, (and former) SPL.

While it would be no surprise to see the SPL as a collective take one last ditch blind suicide attempt to kill Rangers, given their actions to date, the more influential members of the SPL could be intent on taking the SPL to the point of no return.

With falling crowds, and the Sky deal ready to die, it may be that the SPL members who care more about the future of their own club will step up and take action to stop the SPL bullies killing the game in Scotland.

I’d suggest if they don’t, their clubs will die and will never return.

Why Rangers FC, Green or Murray would not want to go before Nimmo Smith and present their case, remains baffling.

Only if you are stupid

Bill.

WP Archives: 05 Sep 2012 The Greatest Scandal in British Sport?

I was rather bemused yesterday as bigoted writer Phil Mac Giolla Bhain blogged that Rangers “downfall” was the biggest sporting scandal of all time.

The natural response to that ridiculous statement is to remind Mac Giolla Bhain and his apologists is to remind them of a twenty year cover up of sexual abuse of children by Celtic that was never punished.

That duly happened online and in Twitter land.

It’s the response from the Celtic Minded revisionists to that reminder that is the most disturbing.

For those Celtic fans who are not embarrassed by the lack of morality that their club displayed for twenty + years, the stock answer is loosely along the lines of trying to turn the tables on those criticising Celtic’s conduct by stating that the critics are obsessed with child abuse or similar.

These silencing tactics and a disgusting lack of acknowledgement of the sins of their club, are almost on a par with the actions of those named in court when Jim Torbett was standing trial.
Are today’s “fans” any better than the board members of their club during that dark period?
The more I read these responses, the more I believe that were any of these people in a similar position to those that refused to put a stop to the abuse, they would also do nothing and consign more children to years of abuse.

As sick apologists lined up to defend Mac Giolla Bhain, following his book being ditched by the Scottish Sun, the whole concept of Mac Giollabhain writing a book about Rangers becomes more absurd.

While most of the blogger’s critics rightly point to his incubator article as evidence of his sheer hatred, it is only one piece in a host of hate filled agenda led articles across various platforms.

My understanding is that this book, like his previous effort, is a collection of blog postings charting events at Rangers through his agenda led eyes, and consisting of inside information from agenda led Celtic supporting individuals in key positions to affect as much damage to Rangers as possible.

The very idea that Rangers fans should be interested in this is preposterous.
If they are interested, they shouldn’t be.

The events at Rangers can never be compared to Celtic covering up child abuse, sacking the individual involved, then rehiring him, while telling parents to keep quiet.

The act of the cover up and the failure to punish Celtic  for that cover up together form the biggest scandal in UK sport.

There can be no “scandal” to compare. To suggest otherwise is sick, offensive, and an insult to the victims.

If there has been any scandal regarding the events at Ibrox over the last few years, it’s that a number of Celtic supporting individuals were in place to effect maximum damage on Rangers FC from various positions, and appear to have carried out an agenda to do so.

While it would be remiss of me to ignore the gross mismanagement of David Murray, Martin Bain and Craig Whyte, it should be pointed out that the accounts of Mac Giolla Bhain and “Rangers Tax Case” will most likely completely ignore the involvement of Fullerton, the possible illegal leaks from HMRC, and the shareholdings and conflicts of interests of various individuals working to “kill” Rangers.

It’s those individuals who should not be allowed to quietly fade in to obscurity, given their actions.

It has been hugely satisfying to see the Rangers support begin to wake up to some of the agendas in Scotland, and seeing Mac Giollabhain slated by many of his own, and also The Scottish Sun is a start.

Now the focus should be on the subject matter of the book(s), and more to the point, what is deliberately excluded.

Who is going to fill the blanks?

We as a support need to find out.

Bill.

WP Archives 23 Aug 2012: Harper MacLeod – Bastions of Integrity

Word reaches me of a curious arrangement that suits four senior Associates/Partners at the law firm that investigated Rangers FC on behalf of the SPL

One of the four is the actual lawyer who has been representing both Celtic and the SPL in many of the negotiations between the parties, and has also been the person responsible for the SPL investigation.

Some years ago Rod Mckenzie and three fellow associates are believed to have set up a loan through the firm via the Allied Irish Bank to pay for an art collection they bought from former partner Ross Harper, which is worth several hundred thousand pounds. This art collection currently impresses visitors to their Glasgow City Centre offices.

I’m told that every other associate and partner has to pay for this loan, but will not get the benefit, as it is carved up for the four who set up the loan, as a tidy little tax efficient pension.

Nice, eh?

Bill

WP Archives 19 Aug 2012: "The Conflict of Interest debate"

I've found it very interesting monitoring the Harper Macleod situation; their relationship with Celtic FC, and their employment by the SPL.

Many Rangers fans, including myself, have questioned the suitability of Harper Macleod to carry out any investigation on Rangers.

The term "conflict of interests" has become synonomous with this relationship.

The problem is, that it is not  technically a conflict of interest the way it is "clarified" by those with an agenda. Many a smarmy blogger has taken great delight in reminding Rangers supporters concerned at collusion of this to damage Rangers Football Club, using explanation from the law society website.

To try and explain, a conflict of interests to HM in dealing with Celtic and the SPL, is explained to us as being relevant if the SPL had to investigate Celtic using Harper Macleod, and Rangers are irrelevant.

Let's just say hypothetically that Celtic supporting Vincent Lunny had no other option than to report Celtic for their arrangement with Robbie Keane.

In this case Harper Macleod would have to declare themselves out.

So, we have bloggers, Celtic supporters, and various on message Celtic supporting journalists telling us it's not a conflict of interests, with the common message being for us to get back in our box, be quiet, and stop being so silly. Really?

It is actually more corrupt and lacking integrity for Harper Macleod to investigate Rangers through a synergy of interests between Celtic and the SPL.

Given that the two most over used words in Scotland in the last six months have been "sporting integrity", where is the integrity in Celtic associates taking action to damage Rangers?

Given that the greatest beneficiaries of Rangers losing titles is Celtic, then I'd argue that this is the element being swept under the carpet quite efficiently by those adept at it.

Let's imagine also the situation where Rod McKenzie, or any other Harper Macleod employee, is a shareholder in Celtic FC, the main beneficiaries of sanctions imposed on Rangers?

Wouldn't that be technically a conflict of interest? What if you failed to declare that interest?

Denying there is any conflict of interests is misleading. Who would have thought that Celtic fans would lie and cover up?

Bill

WP Archives 14 Aug 2012: Alex Thomson and The NUJ – Corrupt and Irresponsible Bullies

As Channel 4’s Alex Thomson crowed yesterday about action taken by the NUJ against blogger David Leggat, it raised more questions than answers.

Thomson has restated his claims on various occasions that he was threatened by “a local journalist”

I have covered this ”story” before:

http://williampoole.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/useful-idiots/

It was established that the “threat” that Thomson was quoting was a myth.

Thomson, of course, reported his “threat” to Strathclyde Police.

When Strathclyde Police dismissed the claims, and the Telegraph reported that Strathclyde’s finest had claimed it was “laughable”, Thomson attempted to silence the Telegraph, who pulled the article. He stated that the Police were still investigating.

At that point, my own blog on the subject was pulled. I did it in the interests of fairness, as it appeared that the “investigation” was still open

It later became clear that the Police had thrown the claims out. At that point I republished my blogpost

http://williampoole.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/glasgow-the-toughest-gig/

The quote there from the Telegraph reporting that Strathclyde Police had thrown out the “case” was as follows:

“Alex Thomson case dropped

An odd footnote to the Rangers saga was resolved on Tuesday. Strathclyde Police confirmed that their investigation into an alleged threat made by an unnamed Scottish journalist against Alex Thomson, Chief Correspondent of Channel 4 News, has closed after no evidence was found.

A Strathclyde Police spokesperson told The Daily Telegraph: “An investigation was carried out but we were unable to establish any evidence of criminality.”

So, if the Police think that Thompson’s claims of threats are “laughable” as the first Telegraph report suggested, then why would the NUJ take action?

Leggat, of course, has a different view from Thompson in his own blog this morning.

Leggat’s  blog is a no holds barred written attack on Thompson, which is understandable, however I do believe he may be missing the point.

If Leggat had already resigned from the NUJ, due to pressure from the union to go easy on fellow journalists, following complaints, then that is the real story.

If Leggat is correct, it would appear that the NUJ couldn’t apply a £1000 fine and suspend him from the union if he’d already resigned, which would make Thompson a liar.

Given that we already knew Thompson was a liar, that’s hardly a revelation

What is more important is a campaign to silence a journalist who exposes the lies and agenda of liars like Thompson, and uncovers their agenda.

I have no doubt that Leggat will turn his attention to those who bullied him out of the NUJ and tried to suppress free speech, and for me this is where he should be applying his energy. Others can take up the mantle of defending Rangers. I believe Charles Green is more than capable.

The NUJ, which counts Irish Republican bigots Phil MacGiollabhain and Roy Greenslade amongst its most influential members, has bullied a brave blogger for standing up to their agenda.

The NUJ President certainly looks comfortable with the two republicans here.

The NUJ should not be silencing journalists or bloggers if they dare to criticise fellow members. Journalism should be about free speech.

While I find myself in disagreement with Leggat with regards to his feelings on Charles Green, I believe he has to fight for real justice after a campaign to silence and discredit him by NUJ bigots who wish dissenting voices silenced and wish to make an example of him to journalists in the mainstream media.

Leggat may have information that Strathclyde Police will act on the allegations of corruption from Thompson, and he may well be right.

How many more people will Thompson get to bully first though?

Bill