In this morning’s Scotsman newspaper, Stuart Bathgate performs some astonishing logical gymnastics in apparently attempting to justify, or at least explain, the likelihood of a fudged (i.e. totally devoid of integrity) outcome to today’s SPL meeting to discuss and vote on, amongst other matters, sanctions in the event of member insolvency.

I’m sorry, Mr B – but for me, it all smacks rather too much like a more highbrow, intellectual variation on the “Cheeky Chappie’s” recent raw meat demands for so-called clarity and common sense in relation to “Special Case” status for Rangers … oh, and of course, Celtic, who they all still insist on trying to tar with the same dirty brush as the Govan mob, seeking disingenuously to apportion baseless guilt by association.

Bathgate draws a curious “parallel” in common law, in seeking to bolster his argument that the current Rangers scenario is somehow different to a run-of-the-mill, everyday criminal case, in that the proposed punishment for their wrongdoing will adversely affect other innocents, rather than just the perpetrator:

“When an individual is judged by a jury of his or her peers, that jury is generally able to reach its verdict knowing that the punishment will be meted out only on the accused. If someone is sentenced to a couple of years for assault, for example, jury members do not have to serve a couple of months each into the bargain.”

Punishment that is meted out only on the accused, eh?  Really, Mr B?

What about the assaulted party – might not he, or she, feel aggrieved that the sentence is too lenient?  What about the victim’s family – might not they feel let down by what they perceive as an inadequate, insensitive system?  What about the convict’s family – are they not directly penalised, too, by deprivation?  What about society that has to cope with the widespread perception of softness on its criminal element?  What about the NHS that has to mop up the mess the convict and his like leave behind at the prison doors?

The list goes on …

Come off it, Stuarty.  What a load of condescending, intellectual, journalistic claptrap!  Sorry to be so blunt … but if you feel such an overwhelming need to lodge a plea of mitigation, at least make it as coherent as it is transparent.

No … natural justice can (and should) prevail over blatant, if understandable, self-interest.  Rangers’ underhand dealings should be dealt with even-handedly, in the same way as any other club, irrespective (though not mindless) of third-party implications.  Indeed, there is an argument that their punishment should be the more severe BECAUSE of those implications and their cavalier disregard of them for decades.

Res iudicata est, M’lud!

Johnbhoy