flyingrodent

Nor is it the terror-targeted, precision bombing of evil itself that others are pimping. Although it's worth remembering that killing large numbers of civilians and then openly lying about how and why you did it is pretty immoral, regardless of whether some roasters on the internet say daft things about it.

Yes, how dare people take pictures of another state intentionally blowing up buildings in their neighbourhoods with high explosives. As you say, it's surely tantamount to terrorism.

It's true that most fans of SPFL clubs will probably miss Hearts and Hibs. Never mind though, they'll both be back next season.

It's particularly strange that people get so upset about people who are being bombed filming and photographing their own bombardment. This has been the case since at least 2002 - the Israelis kill a lot of civilians, and then get very upset indeed when the Palestinians take pictures of the dead. The Israeli government appears to view this as basically a further act of terrorism, but I'd suggest that other people should probably take a more charitable view.

Allow me to repeat this - there's no obligation on civilians to get out of the way of Israeli missiles and bullets, whether they warn them to get out of the way or not. The onus is on combatants not to kill them. This isn't up for debate, from either a legal or moral standpoint. People who tell you the opposite are basically repeating one side's weak excuses for killing civilians, which isn't very nice or sane. As a rule, I try not to parrot propagandistic excuses to kill innocent people, and I suggest that you try not to do it as well.

To be fair, about 80% of people who have strong opinions on the matter from one angle or the other are usually horrible roasters.

Yup. I like how some folk seem to have just accepted that it's perfectly fine to blow up people's houses, with the inhabitants inside or not, so long as you warn them first, or hit them with a missile with no warhead - that in fact, anyone who stays in their houses and gets killed are actually engaged in an act of asymmetric warfare as "human shields", in some cases. Of course, this isn't correct. There's no obligation on civilians to get out of the way of your missiles and bullets, whether you warn them or not - the onus is on you not to kill them. And that's that. People who tell you the opposite are basically repeating one side's weak excuses for killing civilians, which isn't very nice or sane in my view.

The cops are certainly the correct people to investigate. In the meantime, I expect the supporter group Jihad against HMRC, the SPFL and the BBC, amongst others, to continue unabated and I'll be surprised if it turns out that any one of you has so much as thought to write a letter to David Murray asking politely if you can have back some of the millions he and his mates embezzled received as loans as part of an entirely non-suspect tax avoidance scheme.

Disappointed to see Celtic winning, but Aye Ready to cheer on any teams we face in future.

You have to imagine the police are going to have to clean this crap up, because nobody else is going to.

I think the Rangers fans are content to blame everything on Craig Whyte, regardless of whatever countervailing evidence there may be, and to then hope that somebody else does something about it for them without them having to lift a finger. Given everything we've heard about the sheer dodginess of Whyte and co in the press, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else does do something about it. At which point the same fans who sat about doing nothing will pronounce it a massive victory for Rangers, totally absolving them of blame, and one in the eye for the rest of Scottish football. Which it won't be, of course - it'll be responsible people trotting dutifully around after Rangers old and new with a mop, a dustpan and a brush like they were an incontinent little puppy. Which they kind of are.

Round about the same time that one of these Rangers fans lays out a half-reasonable, not-insane explanation for why they think there was some kind of conspiracy against their club.

That's a very good point.

This is before we note that whatever else happens, in the grand scheme of things, some leaked documents basically mean fvck all, and anyone boiling about it is probably insane.

If HMRC (the organisation, rather than a random employee) were going to leak documents because of (whatever reasons), surely it would be better to release them to e.g. The Times, or the Daily Record, or The Sun, rather than some random with a blog. If you think HMRC deliberately released information illegally - and that Wow post suggests that you do - can you explain why the Revenue would choose to intentionally give docs to some unknown tit with a blog, who would have a tiny audience and no cred, rather than to an organisation that already has a huge circulation?

Why indeed? If somebody, somewhere wants to take a look at HMRC's decision-making, I have no objection. I'm 100% certain that the verdict will be "All perfectly reasonable", not least because the judges in the case praised HMRC for their conduct. But this "Why not have an investigation" attitude is an odd one for you to take given that a) There are few credible allegations against HMRC and not much evidence to assist in chasing them up, and that b) Both the judges found that Rangers had dragged the case out for as long as possible, and that one of them explicitly accused Rangers employees of deliberately attempting to mislead and frustrate the inquiry. The first point is basically tangential to the death of Rangers. The second may well have contributed directly to it - you can imagine how useful that verdict could've been, if it had come much earlier, like HMRC wanted it to, but were prevented from achieving.

You seem to be saying here that HMRC were likely correct in bringing the original case but that the decision to appeal the verdict was in some way unacceptable. Is that what you're saying?

But that's ridiculous - David Murray's own lawyers accepted that there was a case to answer when they accepted that Rangers were guilty of a good chunk of the charges against them. That vindicates HMRC's decision-making on its own with no further supporting evidence required. Nonetheless, when the judges themselves - the ones who rejected the majority of the charges, no less - state explicitly that there was a case to answer, they mean that HMRC was wholly justified in bringing the case. This isn't even up for debate, you know. HMRC have been categorically proven correct in bringing a case against Rangers, and that view has been endorsed by all parties involved in the proceedings themselves.

Even the judges who largely sided with Rangers in the first tribunal verdict said explicitly that there was a case to answer; praised HMRC for their rigorous investigation and castigated the DeadCo for deliberately obstructing the investigation at every possible opportunity. So what are you basing this claim on?

Are you saying that HMRC deliberately leaked documents to bloggers, or that some random employee did? And even if it's the former, you know, that doesn't exactly strike me as an astounding, horrifying travesty of justice.

It'd be really helpful if folk like Bomber would help us non-Rangers fans to understand why they think Rangers were badly treated by explaining in simple terms how and why this "mistreatment" occurred.

Aww, bless. You Rangers fans are like a bunch of little toy teddy bears with those wee strings sticking out the back, that makes you say "When we get back we'll beat you all" and "No sporting advantage!" when they're pulled.

Unfortunately for fans of Sevco, they're not at all interested in the slightest in follow, following the money, because doing so would lead them directly to David Murray and his cronies. It looks like none of them have the slightest desire to pursue those men for all the cash they stole took out of the club as "loans", cash that would probably be quite useful to them round about now. It's far more exciting and gratifying for them to pretend to each other that their club's demise was somebody else's fault, rather than their own.

How come e.g. Celtic fans managed to oust their corrupt and thieving owners, but Rangers fans somehow couldn't? Do they have some kind of ninja, corruption-crushing superpowers that your fans don't? Fans of clubs all over the world have managed to get rid of unpopular or criminal chairmen. How come you couldn't?

This is jogging my memory, now. Recall, from the original verdict - Even the judges that supported Dave's lawyers' argument acknowledged that there was a case to answer, and both of them praised HMRC for the rigour of their investigation. Additionally, all three judges noted that Rangers were deliberately obstructive and unhelpful; one actually concluded that their representatives intentionally attempted to mislead, delay and obstruct the inquiry. That, while also finding that of the cases in which HMRC were able to rescue the documentation from the shredder get their hands on the paperwork, most of them were non-compliant i.e. illegal. Just the kind of verdict you'd expect to be delivered upon spotlessly innocent businessmen, needlessly harrassed by the tax authorities, who emerge without a single stain upon their character, or a single Rangers supporter asking them to give any of the money back.