Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Highlandmagyar]

That is perfectly reasonable, however my pouint was that while you may be a paragon of virtue, so to speak, not every Rangers fan, or every fan for that matter, has teh same standards. Therefore believing Rangers fans would never lower themselves because you wouldn't is a wee bit off the mark.

Anyway to the football, I am pretty sure Spurs was 1972 or 73.I know we definitely played Stoke in 1971, I was at that match and my dad took me down to Stoke for the second leg. We beat them on penalties at the old Victoria Ground. That was the first time I saw Motherwell in a competitive match outside Scotland.

October 1970 Spurs 3 Motherwell 2......November 1970 Motherwell 3 Spurs 1.

[Apache Don]

Never, ever, refer to me as a friend.

Let me be absolutely clear, without frothing:

I like baiting you, periodically.

I have no anger issues. Please refer to my comment that it is all in your razor sharp mind.

I am older than you.

I am wiser than you. Of that there is no doubt. I know this.

I do not need to "pound a keyboard" as I am as cold as ice.

Like WRK, I absolutely detest all things related to Celtic and Rangers, in equal magnitude.

And despite the law of the land, I detest homosexuals. The law cannot change my perception of them.

Oh dear, poor show man. Looking at time of post, suspect alcohol has played it's part but no excuse really.

The 'Bold' last line, pretty much screws up your claim highlighted in red. I would say that was the least wise statement I've seen on here.

[Highlandmagyar]

That is perfectly reasonable, however my pouint was that while you may be a paragon of virtue, so to speak, not every Rangers fan, or every fan for that matter, has teh same standards. Therefore believing Rangers fans would never lower themselves because you wouldn't is a wee bit off the mark.

Anyway to the football, I am pretty sure Spurs was 1972 or 73.I know we definitely played Stoke in 1971, I was at that match and my dad took me down to Stoke for the second leg. We beat them on penalties at the old Victoria Ground. That was the first time I saw Motherwell in a competitive match outside Scotland.

Sept 1970.Motherwell 1 Stoke 0...Sept 1970 Stoke 2 Motherwell 1 (Motherwell won on penalties)

Sept.1971 Motherwell 0 Stoke 1...Sept 1971 Stoke 4 Motherwell 1.

[Highlandmagyar]

It's well known that the biggest homophobes are in fact self-loathing gay men.

Where is it well known?

[aofjays]

Where is it well known?

Hmm, that's a toughy, I was hoping to be only asked for proof. Shit.

I'll go with universities, places where psychologists congregate and (now) within earshot of my desk.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

[Monkey Tennis]

Hmm, that's a toughy, I was hoping to be only asked for proof. Shit.

I'll go with universities, places where psychologists congregate and (now) within earshot of my desk.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm

Interesting stuff.

This bit:

"The research also sheds light on high profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. The authors cite such examples as Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006, and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007, as potentially reflecting this dynamic."

called to mind a certain Cardinal.

[TheLip69]

Sept 1970.Motherwell 1 Stoke 0...Sept 1970 Stoke 2 Motherwell 1 (Motherwell won on penalties)

Sept.1971 Motherwell 0 Stoke 1...Sept 1971 Stoke 4 Motherwell 1.

[flyingrodent]

So I imagined the tax case finding in our favour that effectively ruled in LAW that yer tax evasion was in fact legal tax avoidance.

God, alright then...

Doesn't it strike you as odd that out of the three following activities, only one will result in the coppers slapping you in handcuffs?

1) Pretending massive cash payments that never need repaying are "loans" in an effort to dodge huge sums of tax *as part of a legal tax avoidance scheme*

2) Deliberately doing everything within your power to obstruct the authorities from investigating your *legal tax avoidance scheme* and

3) Making private business emails public?

After all, 1&2 are things that only wealthy people can do, whereas 3 is an option open to everyone. So isn't it weird that 3 is the only one that will bring PC Plod rushing to your front door to arrest you?

And that being the case, are there any lessons we should draw about the governance of the UK?

[Bearwithme]

God, alright then...

Doesn't it strike you as odd that out of the three following activities, only one will result in the coppers slapping you in handcuffs?

1) Pretending massive cash payments that never need repaying are "loans" in an effort to dodge huge sums of tax *as part of a legal tax avoidance scheme*

2) Deliberately doing everything within your power to obstruct the authorities from investigating your *legal tax avoidance scheme* and

3) Making private business emails public?

After all, 1&2 are things that only wealthy people can do, whereas 3 is an option open to everyone. So isn't it weird that 3 is the only one that will bring PC Plod rushing to your front door to arrest you?

And that being the case, are there any lessons we should draw about the governance of the UK?

1) The taxman's own lawyer told the tribunal that the loans were not a sham. He'd make a pretty good witness if the polis came after us!

2) If stalling the taxman becomes a crime we'll need an awful lot more polis.

3) I don't know enough about this particular situation.

[flyingrodent]

I should probably remind folk here that laws don't grow organically in cabbage patches, perfect and natural, but are crafted and redrafted by human beings with specific reasons in mind.

Knowing that as we all do, it surely tells us something that indulging in back-breaking contortions to avoid tax and deliberately obstructing justice can be legal, while publishing some emails is so flagrantly against the law that the cops will bust you at the first whiff.

It's almost as if the law was drafted in the interests of wealthy crooks, rather than the man in the street, would be my interpretation.

Edited July 26, 2013 by flyingrodent

[flyingrodent]

1) The taxman's own lawyer told the tribunal that the loans were not a sham. He'd make a pretty good witness if the polis came after us!

2) If stalling the taxman becomes a crime we'll need an awful lot more polis.

Well,

1) Whether they were a "sham" in law or not, they were quite plainly bullshit of the first order, so transparently that even the dopiest football fan could spot it, and

2) I'd say that this implies we *probably do* need more police.

[Bearwithme]

1) If busllshit becomes a crime....

2) Nah. It's clearly not a job for the polis who have better things to do. Maybe we need more taxmen (and women), do you think?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Bearwithme

[flyingrodent]

1) If busllshit becomes a crime....

2) Nah. It's clearly not a job for the polis who have better things to do. Maybe we need more taxmen (and women), do you think?

Bullshit is a crime, if you bullshit the DSS or a bank or a copper but not, it seems, if you bullshit the taxman, and

Maybe it's not more police or taxmen we need, but fewer crooks?

[Bearwithme]

Bullshit is a crime, if you bullshit the DSS or a bank or a copper but not, it seems, if you bullshit the taxman, and

Maybe it's not more police or taxmen we need, but fewer crooks?

People do go to prison for tax offences (we should all be able to think of one or two). Clearly the Rangers situation does not fall into that category.

[flyingrodent]

People do go to prison for tax offences (we should all be able to think of one or two). Clearly the Rangers situation does not fall into that category.

Not so far, at any rate.

Mind, the point here isn't "are these plainly crooked activties legal", since they effectively are at present.

It was "how come these plainly crooked activities are legal, yet this one far less serious (and potentially public-spirited) activity definitely isn't?".

To be fair, it's probably a question for a wanky politics forum, rather than a football one.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Not so far, at any rate.

Mind, the point here isn't "are these plainly crooked activties legal", since they effectively are at present.

It was "how come these plainly crooked activities are legal, yet this one far less serious (and potentially public-spirited) activity definitely isn't?".

To be fair, it's probably a question for a wanky politics forum, rather than a football one.

In all fairness, Rodent, this may be a football forum, but it's not a football thread. The ease of execution and avoidance of punishment for criminality through the use of undue influence, threats and media manipulation are pretty much exactly what this thread is all about.

[LordHawHaw]

In all fairness, Rodent, this may be a football forum, but it's not a football thread. The ease of execution and avoidance of punishment for criminality through the use of undue influence, threats and media manipulation are pretty much exactly what this thread is all about.

The whole stinking pile of corruption goes much deeper than the liquidated Rangers FC, as does the cheating, back scratching, and Cronyism

[beermonkey]

God, alright then...

Doesn't it strike you as odd that out of the three following activities, only one will result in the coppers slapping you in handcuffs?

1) Pretending massive cash payments that never need repaying are "loans" in an effort to dodge huge sums of tax *as part of a legal tax avoidance scheme*

2) Deliberately doing everything within your power to obstruct the authorities from investigating your *legal tax avoidance scheme* and

3) Making private business emails public?

After all, 1&2 are things that only wealthy people can do, whereas 3 is an option open to everyone. So isn't it weird that 3 is the only one that will bring PC Plod rushing to your front door to arrest you?

And that being the case, are there any lessons we should draw about the governance of the UK?

No 3 is easier to prove, that's why plod will come knocking, don't give them anything that involves actual detective work for christ sake.

[hellbhoy]

To be fair, I cannot really see what CF has done that would warrant a police investigation.

CF arrived with the constant promise of something big, but the biggest thing ever delivered was Craig White the plastics hero doing a piss, turns out HB almost got something right for a change when he said the site was full of shite.

I do not know which way to take this ? after all it's you who posts a lot of non truths to bolster your weak pathetic arguments.

[hellbhoy]

Most laws and rules are designed to protect the wealthy and powerful and to preserve the status quo and to keep the hoi poloi in their place while at the same time creating the illusion that all is fair and just.

Remind you of anything?

Absolutely correct my good man and only a group of very clever lawyers and accountants can find the loopholes in the law the durty b@stards to scam the emergency services of much needed equipment and staff .

There have been thousands of new tax laws that have been created to be exploited by loopholes in the last decade ffs,you'd have thought they would have closed them .