14 Nov 2015 14:34:11
Just noticed on the internet that a Hampden source has said there can be no stripping of titles because of the double jeopardy, we have already been found guilty of non disclosure of letters.
Whether that will stop them is another matter lol.

1.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 17:33:41
If true then why does this Hampden source not name himself and actually state where in the rulebook the mention of double jeopardy exists and save everybody a lot of hassle because the bitterness is driving most sane fans crazy.

2.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 18:15:22
Need to ask him, it was a piece from the Daily Rebel.

3.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 18:45:07
You can tell your Hampden source he is talking pish. Double jeopardy no longer applies in Scotland as long as there has been a change since the initial trial. In our case the EBT verdict has changed since the LNS investigation.

Not sure if your recall the worlds end murder in Edinburgh years ago. Anyway, they tried someone for that but never got a conviction. Many years after the trial they discovered new evidence that proved the person they tried was the murderer. At the time they could not try the person due to double jeopardy. However, in 2011 the law changed, thus allowing people to be tried a second time. In this instance they charged the suspect again and put him on trial before they finally convicted the murderer.

4.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 19:17:21
That isn't to say there actually was new evidence this time around.

5.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 20:22:15
Can you compare a murder case to a non-criminal tax hearing, Hogg man? The new evidence in the WE murder was DNA no?

6.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 20:46:08
No one is comparing the two cases, I was merely providing an example that some of you would have heard of to make the point that the change in the double jeopardy law no longer provides immunity against a retrial. By the way it does not necessarily have to be new evidence for a retrial. I would also like to mention that the SFA/SPL come under the influence of Scots Law as we have seen in recent years when people have challenged the football authorities in court.

Yes the new evidence in that case was DNA evidence that came about through new technological advances.

At the end of the day none of us know what is going to happen, yes we all know what we would like to happen and therefore, I understand why some people want to try and aleviate their fears by using comfort blankets such as double jeopardy etc.

The sensible thing for us all would be to avoid these discussions until we have conformation of what is happening. It would also be sensible for the SPL/SFA to await the final conclusion of the big tax case before making any decisions one way or another.

7.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 21:05:05
Still not paid the fine though.

8.) 14 Nov 2015
14 Nov 2015 21:16:21
My point was there are differences between Civil and Criminal law in Scotland.
I agree, best to wait for the outcome instead of us playing kid on lawyers on here.

9.) 15 Nov 2015
15 Nov 2015 09:18:55
I suspect that is why the SFA have made their comments by the "back door" and Celtic's somewhat ambiguous statement "we support sporting integrity" - ie nothing in their rules to take Rangers to task?

Regardless clearly the clamour will go get louder in the event that HMRC were to finally win the case in which case the source would either have to become official, or a change in rules going forward or a retrospect change to the rules.

Any which way will be difficult for SFA.

10.) 15 Nov 2015
15 Nov 2015 09:49:25
think this will end up in court, Celtic will take the SFA to court if we don't get stripped of titles and we will go to court if we do. Lawwell has set himself as the judge and the celtic fans the jury.

11.) 15 Nov 2015
15 Nov 2015 13:15:10
Do Barcelona have a sporting advantage since messi doesn't pay tax?

12.) 16 Nov 2015
16 Nov 2015 09:02:18
There was NO new evidence introduced at the EBT appeal.
That is the whole point of an appeal.

13.) 16 Nov 2015
16 Nov 2015 17:22:36

14.) 17 Nov 2015
17 Nov 2015 12:59:00
Guys, there is no such thing as Double Jeopardy in Civil law, it was applicable to criminal law until the law was changed. You cannot make comparisons from the EBT case to a murder. When Lord Nimmo Smith confirmed Rangers gained no sporting advantage and that no existing rules had been breached, he handed down a fine for non disclosure. He ruled that non disclosure had no impact on players registrations.

The court transcript confirms the lawyer acting for the league on conclusion stated "Our client accepts the courts ruling, and is not subject to any HMRC appeal", end of the matter. The ones driving this is Celtic fans. Even Celtic put out a wimsicale statement talking about, "at the time" they thought the court was wrong but accepted this was a league body matter and not within their control. Celtic fans can cry about it all they want, the law has spoken and the league accepted the court findings.

15.) 17 Nov 2015
17 Nov 2015 17:35:22
Rightaboutnow, you're on the ball with your post mate, I look at it had we been giving a sporting advantage then we would have won every competition played in our country. I say let the others squabble among there selfs. the titles are staying where they are, we know and they know it, I say ignore these fans, it's not our fault they can't handle our success.