WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 It is on topic, thanks for you concern Norman. Yes, Bennett, of course it is. Vlad's shenanigans are directly related to those at ibrox. Of course they are. How could we be so blind? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Let me reply in kind Yes he is Amazing the amount of 'fans' on here who rush to defend the Jakey at every opportunity. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Always funny when Celtic fans start preaching about "sectarian singing policy" Your own club`s history is equally tainted with this and other matters The club does not have a sectarian singin policy other than "sing this stuff and we will ban you along with pass your details over to the relevant authorities" it is clearly announced just before kick off and printed onto every ticket If you want to try and dredge this stuff up which is completely off topic, fine lets do it but I warn you, I will go well beyond sectarian singing when talking about both of our clubs dirty history Tedi, you do know there's a difference between "singing" and "signing", don't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 oops my bad, sorry HT But we dont have a sectarian signing policy either, again everything else I said applies, it is completely off topic Not now no, that's why I wrote "for most of your history". Also, as I asked the question in relation to the whole club/company/continuation argument, how much more on topic would you like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Not sure if this has been posted yet. Read that it was a nasty crash too. The independent commission set up by the Scottish Premier League to investigate Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts is likely to have to defer its hearing, which was due to begin next week as Rod McKenzie, the Harper McLeod lawyer who had gathered the evidence against the Ibrox club, was involved in a car crash last week and is still recovering from his injuries. No firm decision has been taken on the hearing, which was arranged for Tuesday and was to be chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith. However, with McKenzie unable to attend, it is likely to be postponed. The hearing is due to hear evidence about Rangers' use of EBTs from 2001 to 2010 and whether or not any payments to players should have been registered in their contracts. McKenzie's initial investigations convinced the SPL that there is a prima facie case against the Ibrox club, although Charles Green, the Rangers chief executive, said they would boycott the commission's investigation. The SPL's investigation was launched on March 5 to determine whether or not all payments made to Rangers players in respect of their earnings from football were declared, which is required by the Scottish Football Association rules. However, Green said that "neither the SPL, nor its commission, has any legal power or authority over the club because it is not in the SPL". If Rangers were to be found guilty, the commission can choose from a number of sanctions. However, during negotiations over Rangers' SFA membership licence last summer, individuals within the SPL wanted Rangers to agree to be stripped of the titles the club won from 2001 to 2010, which they have refused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Yes, Bennett, of course it is. Vlad's shenanigans are directly related to those at ibrox. Of course they are. How could we be so blind? Not the point i was making, stupid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Amazing the amount of 'fans' on here who rush to defend the Jakey at every opportunity. How many? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Amazing the amount of 'fans' on here who rush to defend the Jakey at every opportunity. It is a pretty damning accusation you've levelled at him, mind, Bennett. That kind of shit could attract jail time, after all. I would have thought the onus was on you and your buddies to back it up, rather than continue with your snide little smears. Just before I attract the usual opprobrium from the Orcs - I am not defending anyone, I am attacking the defamatory actions of a minority of posters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Well, Bennett, let's have a look at this. Holocaust denial is a) stupid and b)offensive in the extreme. When I see evidence of it, I'll address it. There was no evidence of antisemitism on the link which you gleefully posted last night. In actual fact, the poster you're attacking posted that his views on the subject were personal, and refused to be drawn into debate. What he referred to was "what you're taught about the holocaust"(my paraphrase). Quite a different thing. For instance, while we all know what the Nazis perpetrated, there has been a repeated denial over the years about the less than concerted efforts of the Allies to destroy the likes of Auschwitz, coupled with a reluctance of resistance fighters (especially in Poland) to explain why higher priority was not given to disrupting the extermination. I don't think i need to add anything to this, you've dug your own hole this time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 How many? Thats a good question Hen, considering the guy probably has dozens of accounts on here. The guys f**king mental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I have already answered these questions many times I can see what you are driving at, so let me say again, I will accept the findings and the punishments (if any) of the tribunal or appeal body after they have completed, if this means title stripping then so be it Will you accept the same findings and same punishments (if any)? They do have a habit of repeating the same old plsh until they hear what they want to hear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Not the point i was making, stupid. My my, the insults are low-grade today... Tell me Bennett, how many people do you think that site has working on it? How much material on the rangers saga have they dealt with, and how long have they been concentrating on that particular clusterfuck? A particularly British clusterfuck, for the most part? Now, how long has the Hearts situation been extant for, and how visible are the finances, given the nature of their ownership? I think you're being unrealistic asking for chapter and verse on the situation at Tynecastle so quickly, but THERE ARE FORUMS TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION ON P&B IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. Unless, of course, you're deflecting again.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 What is worse the ones that rush to defend him or the ones that sit in silence when he makes these disgusting remarks but give him greenies when he is spouting his same old anti rangers drivel? Do they realise he has had several alias banned due to some of his posts, do they pretend to be ignorant of who he is, his posting style is hardly difficult to spot The latter option, it's pretty obvious that the guy is seriously warped and to let his comments go unchallenged is morally wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The latter option, it's pretty obvious that the guy is seriously warped and to let his comments go unchallenged is morally wrong. What exactly is it that has you and Ted wetting your knickers on this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I'm sure that The Scottish Football Monitor is already on the case and as many people on here said what they were doing was for the good of scottish football and not just hitting Rangers with a big stick. I have the utmost faith in the Scottish Football monitor website, i'll just have to be patient i guess. Excuse any typos as i've missplaced my specs again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I have already answered these questions many times I can see what you are driving at, so let me say again, I will accept the findings and the punishments (if any) of the tribunal or appeal body after they have completed, if this means title stripping then so be it Will you accept the same findings and same punishments (if any)? yes. And then i'll keep pushing for the criminal charges and also for any sanctions that UEFA or FIFA deem appropriate for the club/company/team/'institution' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrysnotter Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 No takers? Ok, ok, ok, I'll accept this "club is different from company" argument PROVIDED one of The People can sufficiently explain where the club ends and the company starts. What are the boundaries of the club? And, what are the boundaries of the company? Just a few questions to get us started (this list is not exhaustive, feel free to added to it):- Signing players - club or company? Sponsorship deals - club or company? Selling season tickets - club or company? Procuring branded clothing? Affiliation with professional bodies - club or company?Community initiatives - club or company? Paying player wages - club or company? Compliance with footballing regulations - club or company?RFC logo/crest and associated copyright - club or company? What about playing football - club or company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) Well, Bennett, let's have a look at this. Holocaust denial is a) stupid and b)offensive in the extreme. When I see evidence of it, I'll address it. There was no evidence of antisemitism on the link which you gleefully posted last night. In actual fact, the poster you're attacking posted that his views on the subject were personal, and refused to be drawn into debate. What he referred to was "what you're taught about the holocaust"(my paraphrase). Quite a different thing. For instance, while we all know what the Nazis perpetrated, there has been a repeated denial over the years about the less than concerted efforts of the Allies to destroy the likes of Auschwitz, coupled with a reluctance of resistance fighters (especially in Poland) to explain why higher priority was not given to disrupting the extermination. I don't think i need to add anything to this, you've dug your own hole this time. "Dug my own hole" is it? I've had a good look at the thread which you and Bendarroch were so keen to bring to all our attention. The ONLY posts I can find from the poster you're attacking (ETA: relevant to the accusation) are as follows: Firstly: "^^^ Strawman, stay on track with the discussion about football, if you want to debate whether what you were taught to believe about a holocaust actually happened in the way it was portrayed to you i suggest you start a thread in the general nonsense forum. This thread is about Hearts going bankrupt, getting liquidated and another club calling itself 'The Hearts' playing in the SFL3 next season. All because the Jambos celebrated it tax dodging and cheating." And then, when asked if he was denying the Holocaust, "My views on "the holocaust" are unrelated to this forum and my personal business. Now take my advice little boy, stay on the subject of football (as far back as 36 years) or piss off to the general nonsense forum with your pishy non-football related beliefs." Now, I can see two instances where you may have some concerns. Firstly, his expression "taught to believe". As I stated in the post of mine that I've quoted, there's a lot of stuff from the middle years of the 20th Century that don't fit the good/bad, black/white dichotomy. For instance, many of the British ruling class were supportive of the Nazi regime until the late Thirties. The Daily Mail was wholly supportive of "Herr Hitler" for years after the policy of anti-semitism was well-known. I certainly didn't know as much about that period when I was younger as I do now. So, as for what you were "taught to believe", I think you're being presumptuous. Secondly, The use of quote marks around his mention of the Holocaust in the second post. I can see your concern here, and indeed share it myself, but why not ask the poster - on that thread or by PM - if this was by way of minimising or belittling the phrase? Again, you're being presumptuous. FWIW, I reckon the possibilities are that your suspicions may have some validity, but I repeat - this is one HELL of an accusation to throw at someone without a) Giving him a chance to explain, and b) Offering hard evidence, rather than assumption and then denunciation. Edited November 9, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) The latter option, it's pretty obvious that the guy is seriously warped and to let his comments go unchallenged is morally wrong. Did you challenge him on the thread where he made the posts in question? Would seem to be the logical thing to do. Or by PM? Or on this thread? Or AT ALL? Just wondering.... Edited November 9, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Pretty selective with your quoting Norman, your defence of him does you no favours at all. Seeing a different side to you now, one that i don't care much for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.