[hibeejim21]

Its on stv grants twitter feed worthingger,i think he or some other journalist is reporting from the court ?

[Trusevich]

STVGrant isn't in London today. It all comes from the pretendy guy.

[TheWorthinGer]

If you get caught twittering from court you are in contempt and will get 30 days.

I was once threatened with custody for reading a book while on an educational visit to Glasgow Sheriff court.

[hibeejim21]

Not sure WG but think it's ok in england in some cases if the judge approves it.

Also

CourtNewsUK ‏@CourtNewsUK 1h1 hour ago
Rangers FC made a false claim to the High Court yesterday that it had repaid a £5m loan to Sports Direct http://courtnewsuk.co.uk

https://t.co/3nj9VdGzUt :daily record reporting it too.


STV grant (who i think is usually decent) is seeking a response from king.

[Trusevich]

CourtNewsUK ‏@CourtNewsUK  1h1 hour ago
Rangers FC made a false claim to the High Court yesterday that it had repaid a £5m loan to Sports Direct http://courtnewsuk.co.uk

https://t.co/3nj9VdGzUt :daily record reporting it too.

It's only a false claim if the QC making it was aware it was false before he made it. He clearly wasn't brought properly up to date with the machinations of the outstanding £500k. Either way, the process of repayment is under way.

By the way, courtnewsuk.co.uk is a news aggregation site. It just picks up and replicates the tweets from chosen twitter accounts. It isn't 'reporting' anything. Neither is the Daily Retard, for that matter.

[hibeejim21]

Fair enough,just you were casting doubts on stv grants tweets so i provided some others. The story is clearly true though.

Also its not clear from the sports direct counsel's comments that any of the loan has been paid yet. Indeed it seems from what he has said that they are still raising the money. Yet as stv grant points out king told the AGM the money was there in the bank in full.


Mr Quest said the claim had come as a surprise and been investigated. He told Mr Justice Peter Smith: "That is not correct. The 5m has not been repaid."

Mr Quest said an email had revealed the club was still waiting to collect "another 500,000" before paying the money back.

STV News contacted Mr King for comment on Friday but he has not yet responded

[Trusevich]

Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.

Plenty of people are keen to paint King as lying again. I don't think it's relevant at all. The real talking point is the matter of who signed the injunction order (suggestions are that it was Sandy Easdale), and whether he had the authority to do so on behalf of the Rangers board. If not, the whole shooting match is a mixed-metaphorical busted flush.

That'll all come out in the January hearing, I suspect.

[TheWorthinGer]

Fair enough,just you were casting doubts on stv grants tweets so i provided some others. The story is clearly true though.

Also its not clear from the sports direct counsel's comments that any of the loan has been paid yet. Indeed it seems from what he has said that they are still raising the money. Yet as stv grant points out king told the AGM the money was there in the bank in full.


Mr Quest said the claim had come as a surprise and been investigated. He told Mr Justice Peter Smith: "That is not correct. The 5m has not been repaid."

Mr Quest said an email had revealed the club was still waiting to collect "another 500,000" before paying the money back.

STV News contacted Mr King for comment on Friday but he has not yet responded

How is the story "clearly true" - just out of interest?  Is truth judged by the number of tweets?  Have you seen the email?  Has the judge?  Is the judge satisfied that not only does it say such a thing in the email, but also that the email is reliable and it's content to be believed?

The only thing that is true is that Quest has made the claim.

Barristers are Advocates - they say what they are told to say as long as they don't know that it's untrue: Quest could equally have been asked to repeat an untruth.  

---

Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.

Plenty of people are keen to paint King as lying again. I don't think it's relevant at all. The real talking point is the matter of who signed the injunction order (suggestions are that it was Sandy Easdale), and whether he had the authority to do so on behalf of the Rangers board. If not, the whole shooting match is a mixed-metaphorical busted flush.

That'll all come out in the January hearing, I suspect.

Were any of the signatories acting in their/an official capacity? That's the question.  I'm beginning to suspect not.

Here's hoping that all of the SD contract begin to unravel.

[Trusevich]

How is the story "clearly true" - just out of interest?  Is truth judged by the number of tweets?  Have you seen the email?  Has the judge?  Is the judge satisfied that not only does it say such a thing in the email, but also that the email is reliable and it's content to be believed?

The only thing that is true is that Quest has made the claim.

Barristers are Advocates - they say what they are told to say as long as they don't know that it's untrue: Quest could equally have been asked to repeat an untruth.

Absolutely spot on, TWG.

Our QC made a claim. Their QC made a counter-claim. Yet we're supposed to believe one and disbelieve the other. Wonder what qualifying factors are applied to that decision?

Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.

Plenty of people are keen to paint King as lying again. I don't think it's relevant at all. The real talking point is the matter of who signed the injunction order (suggestions are that it was Sandy Easdale), and whether he had the authority to do so on behalf of the Rangers board. If not, the whole shooting match is a mixed-metaphorical busted flush.

That'll all come out in the January hearing, I suspect.

Were any of the signatories acting in their/an official capacity? That's the question.  I'm beginning to suspect not.

Here's hoping that all of the SD contract begin to unravel.

Well, we know that Sandy Easdale was never on the RIFC Board of Directors as he wasn't allowed to be, so it therefore makes sense that he wouldn't be allowed to act in an official capacity for the RIFC board either. It all depends on who else was involved, if anyone at all.

[hibeejim21]

Fair enough,just you were casting doubts on stv grants tweets so i provided some others. The story is clearly true though.

Also its not clear from the sports direct counsel's comments that any of the loan has been paid yet. Indeed it seems from what he has said that they are still raising the money. Yet as stv grant points out king told the AGM the money was there in the bank in full.


Mr Quest said the claim had come as a surprise and been investigated. He told Mr Justice Peter Smith: "That is not correct. The 5m has not been repaid."

Mr Quest said an email had revealed the club was still waiting to collect "another 500,000" before paying the money back.

STV News contacted Mr King for comment on Friday but he has not yet responded

How is the story "clearly true" - just out of interest?  Is truth judged by the number of tweets?  Have you seen the email?  Has the judge?  Is the judge satisfied that not only does it say such a thing in the email, but also that the email is reliable and it's content to be believed?

The only thing that is true is that Quest has made the claim.

Barristers are Advocates - they say what they are told to say as long as they don't know that it's untrue: Quest could equally have been asked to repeat an untruth.  

---

Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.

Plenty of people are keen to paint King as lying again. I don't think it's relevant at all. The real talking point is the matter of who signed the injunction order (suggestions are that it was Sandy Easdale), and whether he had the authority to do so on behalf of the Rangers board. If not, the whole shooting match is a mixed-metaphorical busted flush.

That'll all come out in the January hearing, I suspect.

Were any of the signatories acting in their/an official capacity? That's the question.  I'm beginning to suspect not.

Here's hoping that all of the SD contract begin to unravel.

If it wasn't i'd expect rangers lawyer to challenge it. He clearly did not.

---

Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.

I'm going to the pub in an hour,can i borrow £20 from you ?