{"id":14834,"date":"2019-11-17T07:18:03","date_gmt":"2019-11-17T07:18:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/etims.net\/?p=14834"},"modified":"2019-11-17T07:18:03","modified_gmt":"2019-11-17T07:18:03","slug":"celtic-diary-sunday-november-17-lawwell-laughs-loudest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/etims.net\/?p=14834","title":{"rendered":"Celtic Diary Sunday November 17: Lawwell Laughs Loudest"},"content":{"rendered":"

It certainly was a strange week.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Peter Lawwell , facing pressure at the upcoming AGM to do his job with a touch of integrity and actually look after his customers interests instead of helping to turn Scottish football into televised wrestling, would have been delighted to see attention focused on the other side of Glasgow for a while.<\/p>\n

Especially as it gives the fans something to laugh about.<\/p>\n

The London Times (Scottish division ) made themselves look rather silly with an article that hinted-stepping just short of actually saying so and thus offering any evidence -that the taxman was at fault for the demise of Rangers back in the early part of this decade.<\/p>\n

The problem for its author, Magnus Llewellin, was that in an unprecedented move, the accused shot him down rather publicly shortly after publication..<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
HMRC Press Office<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
@HMRCpressoffice<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
As widely reported today and to clarify: HMRC won against Rangers\u2019 tax avoidance in the Supreme Court, and did not miscalculate anything\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Not only that, but in a PR disaster for the world respected title, the tax chief even wrote to the paper..<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"Image\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Speaking of Llewellin…big thanks to Phil MacGhiollabhan for reminding me where I’d heard that name before…here’s a piece from Roy Greenslade in the Guardian in 2016…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

The row over\u00a0the firing of a columnist at Glasgow\u2019s Sunday Herald<\/a>\u00a0shows no signs of dying down.<\/em><\/p>\n

Members of Scottish PEN, wrote a letter to the paper\u2019s editor-in-chief, Magnus Llewellin, to register their concern about Angela Haggerty being dismissed.<\/em><\/p>\n

The letter,\u00a0published on the website of the group that campaigns for freedom of expression,<\/a>\u00a0said its members are \u201cdeeply troubled\u201d by the newspaper\u2019s decision to sack Haggerty \u201cfor showing her support for fellow journalist Graham Spiers.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Spiers decided he couldn\u2019t write for the Herald after disagreeing about the timing of its publication of an apology for one of his columns about the problems of bigotry \u201caround\u201d\u00a0Rangers<\/a> football club. Haggerty then expressed her support for him on Twitter.<\/em><\/p>\n

The National Union of Journalists\u00a0accused the Herald of \u201cpandering to the mob\u201d<\/a>. It removed its statement for a while but later reinstated it.*<\/em><\/p>\n

Like Scottish PEN\u2019s admission that it was unaware of \u201cdetails\u201d about pressure exerted on the\u00a0Herald<\/a>\u00a0by Rangers, the NUJ\u2019s decision reflected a lack of knowledge about the incident.<\/em><\/p>\n

My understanding is that a single sentence in Spiers\u2019s column, an allegation about a Rangers board director, was regarded as defamatory.<\/em><\/p>\n

Although contentious articles are usually read for possible libels prior to publication by the paper\u2019s lawyers,\u00a0Levy & McRae<\/a>, an editorial staff error meant that Spiers\u2019s column, which was published on the Herald\u2019s website, slipped through the net.<\/em><\/p>\n

Once Rangers objected, Llewellin found himself in a bind familiar to all journalists in such situations. He received legal advice saying the allegation was indefensible, and that if he tried to defend it – which he spent a fortnight initially trying to do – the paper would have faced major costs.<\/em><\/p>\n

Crucially, I understand that the costs would most likely have been borne by the editorial budget and, in Llewellin\u2019s view, could therefore have resulted in job cuts. (I\u2019ll deal with this in a moment).<\/em><\/p>\n

So Llewellin felt he had to publish the apology. It stated: \u201cWe acknowledge every member of the Rangers board is fully committed to fighting bigotry and offensive chanting, wherever it occurs in Scottish football, and that the club is actively tackling the issue.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Its publication upset Spiers who responded with an online statement saying he wanted more time to clarify his position. He realised that his opposition to the apology would effectively cut his ties with the Herald.<\/em><\/p>\n

He acknowledged that he could afford to be bold because he has other income, writing for the Times and through broadcasting for the BBC.<\/em><\/p>\n

But Haggerty, a relatively new columnist with the Sunday Herald, was sympathetic to Spiers\u2019s plight and, as someone who has previously suffered abuse from from Rangers fans after editing a book about the club, she wrote a tweet in which she complained about Rangers\u2019 bigotry.<\/em><\/p>\n

As I wrote previously<\/a>, she maintains that she was referring to fans, but the Herald saw it differently and considered it to be a reference to Rangers\u2019 directors. The paper therefore viewed it as a failure \u201cto act within the spirit of its apology.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Lewellin told me he regards Haggerty as \u201ca brave and talented journalist\u201d but her reference to \u201cglaring bigotry at Ibrox\u201d only hours \u201cafter we\u2019d published a very carefully worded apology to avoid legal action, she (unwittingly) undermined it.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In\u00a0a Bella Caledonia piece about the circumstances of her sacking<\/a>, Haggerty said Llewellin had informed her that \u201crepresentatives of Rangers Football Club\u201d had brought her tweets to the attention of the Herald, \u201cand that, to cut a long story short, the paper was under so much legal pressure that he felt he had no option but to let me go.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

She wrote: \u201cHe also informed me that Neil MacKay, editor of the Sunday Herald, had fought strongly to stop it happening, but in the end he was overruled.\u201d Mackay underlined that fact\u00a0in a tweet<\/a>\u00a0saying it was not his decision to remove Haggerty.<\/em><\/p>\n

I emailed Llewellin to ask if he would consider reinstating Haggerty but he replied that \u201cas things stand at present, and to show the good faith and collective responsibility… bringing her back would be difficult – for the time being at least.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

At least that final phrase offers Haggerty a possible lifeline for the future, if she wishes to grab it.<\/em><\/p>\n

Now let me go back to that matter of legal costs being borne by the editorial department. I am not doubting Llewellin\u2019s word, but I am amazed that a publisher – in this case, Newsquest\/Gannett – might expect an editor to sacrifice jobs over a legal action.<\/em><\/p>\n

That casts the whole business of Llewellin\u2019s decision-making in a new light.<\/em><\/p>\n

*This sentence was amended after the NUJ reposted its statement\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Times has decided to stand by the article, at least until Llewellin is summoned to London for that chat about the paper moving in a new direction, and he hasn’t got a seat on the train….<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
The Times article did it’s job though, prompting serious, thought provoking responses from the supporters of Rangers who now feel even more aggrieved at the way the 21st century has treated them, after being forced to live in it as society began to disreard their 17th century views…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Ibrox Noise , one of their more highbrow websites-the rest are purely monobrow, complained…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As everyone now knows (but not everyone (hint anyone) will admit), Rangers have been completely vindicated over any wrong-doing 7+ years ago.<\/em><\/p>\n

The stunning Times revelations reveals that due to, as yet, unidentified means, reasons or origin, Rangers were overcharged by HMRC to the tune of around \u00a360M when something under \u00a320M was more accurate.<\/em><\/p>\n

This invalid sum, chased up by the Inland Revenue, was simply too much for Rangers\u2019 coffers to pay, and despite it being effectively illegal, it caused Rangers\u2019 existing holding company to cease trading and nearly cost Rangers fans their club.<\/em><\/p>\n

For 7 years this club has had every vindictive jibe under the sun thrown at it, from cheats, tax dodgers, sc*m of the earth, you name it.<\/em><\/p>\n

Yesterday\u2019s report from a highly-respected newspaper, following an investigation, confirms Rangers did absolutely nothing wrong and were charged a sum they were unable to pay.<\/em><\/p>\n

Ergo, the apology from the SPFL, SFA and Scottish football at large has been thoroughly welcomed.<\/em><\/p>\n

Hint: irony alert.<\/em><\/p>\n

Rather than accept the findings and apologise like men, we\u2019ll hear nothing.<\/em><\/p>\n

The BBC have already effectively whitewashed the story, leaving it to the \u2018gossip\u2019 columns and no more, while the major of news north of the border has absolutely ignored this.<\/em><\/p>\n

Only in Scotland could an institution like Rangers being scammed in this manner not be worthy of discussion, or indeed apology.<\/em><\/p>\n

Rangers are considering legal action over what happened 7 years ago, and as well they might. But you won\u2019t hear a soul in this country admit they were wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n

Indeed, following this story the site received an email abusing the club further, asking us why we had a problem with the BBC and Sportscene among others, and why did we feel superior to them.<\/em><\/p>\n

If nothing else indicates what\u2019s wrong with this country, that\u2019s it.\u00a0<\/em><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
Incredibly, the line about legal action was picked up in the mainstream media…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"Image\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
All of which meant that the moon had to put on some earmuffs for a couple of days…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
You may wish to perhaps put on a girdle at this point as your sides are in danger of splitting, and perhaps place your right hand below your jaw to prevent it hitting the floor in amazement at just how dumb the dumbest fans on the planet can actually be… and this one actually worked for them…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"Image\"<\/div>\n
This one writes about them…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Derek Clark<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
@derekclarksport<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Holy moly! If true it would represent the biggest illegal dismantling of a football club by a state & governing body. Off field ramifications are astronomical, on the field – anything won by clubs would be regarded as important as trophies won in the war years.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This one apparently is a financial guru…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Paul Lewis<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
@paullewismoney<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
HMRC overcharged Rangers in a major tax evoidance case and may have to repay the club \u00a320m. The club was rightly pursued for blatant tax evoidance for its players and staff and quite right HMRC ended it. Penalties waived because it could not prove fraud<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then there’s the core support…<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Rangers Spares<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
@RangersSparess<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\u00b7