WILLIEA Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 They gave a decision on a 2 out of 3 basis on an interpretation of Law which is subject to appeal. They do not make Laws, that is not their job That's my understanding of how it works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Of course it's a lawful finding,if it's not a legal finding then what is it? see, you've made a wee booboo just there - illegal refers to breaking criminal law, while unlawful refers to the civil law. In England & Wales, anyway. Not sure about Scotland. It is open to appeal, though - laws are not created in courtrooms. They are created by the executive, and enacted by the legislative. Then interpreted by the judiciary. Fucking complicated game, mind - no wonder they wiggy fuckers charge a fortune, eh? Right and wrong isn't an issue for them - it's all about winning a game played with other peoples' lives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 If any Mods are watching, you might want to launch this geezer. Keeps havering about Jews and "the Rothschilds" secretly being in charge in a bizarre and disconcertingly Naziesque fashion. You wouldn't stand for this constant crowbarring of Muslims or Catholics into every thread, and his Hebrew fixation is giving me the boke. Highly sinister. Better to get rid, I reckon. ^^^ What is this shite ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The Herald article is a good piece and I'm afraid I agree with the direction it's leaning in. I fear a turning of the tide which will see them escape the removal of titles. This ludicrous legal ruling that the payments were loans sounds sufficient to at least make it arguable about whether they needed to be declared. It's been fun. Seeing them lose and draw games in the third has been great. Watching my lot eliminate them from the diddiest of Cups was tremendous. My final hope (other than another insolvency event) was for title stripping and until this week, I thought there was a decent chance of it happening. It now feels like a long shot. You may be right - certainly gives the SPL an excuse to sh*te out of seeing justice done. That said, there's at least one judge on the panel and tax laws don't overlap much with SPL rules. I'd expect the panel to take a very dim view of these "loans", to start with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Why not? His decision would be subject to appeal as it is not Law, just his interpretation I can see what you watch when you're not on P&B. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 If any Mods are watching, you might want to launch this geezer. Keeps havering about Jews and "the Rothschilds" secretly being in charge in a bizarre and disconcertingly Naziesque fashion. You wouldn't stand for this constant crowbarring of Muslims or Catholics into every thread, and his Hebrew fixation is giving me the boke. Highly sinister. Better to get rid, I reckon. Jesus, who's been crowbarring Muslims? Seriously, though, I agree with the Hamstercopter. I defended this eedjit in a previous incarnation, simply because I was unaware of his history, and he hadn't (as far as I could see) said what he'd been accused of. He is getting a bit fucking creepy with the quotes and sly insinuations. Not adding a lot to the forum. I'm not asking for him to be banned, but I certainly don't like the cut of his jib. If that was the criteria, I'd be reporting half the loons on here, and there'd be a lot less hearts/hibees on the SPL board! I'm sure the mods'll be along shortly, let them apply their own judgment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 see, you've made a wee booboo just there - illegal refers to breaking criminal law, while unlawful refers to the civil law. In England & Wales, anyway. Not sure about Scotland. It is open to appeal, though - laws are not created in courtrooms. They are created by the executive, and enacted by the legislative. Then interpreted by the judiciary. Fucking complicated game, mind - no wonder they wiggy fuckers charge a fortune, eh? Right and wrong isn't an issue for them - it's all about winning a game played with other peoples' lives. However apparently HMRC can only appeal on a point of law to the second tier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 cognoscenti? That's fecking Latin! Rumbled, ya wee rascal, ye! Mea culpa! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I have a twinge of sympathy for Rangers fans. Well, some of them at least. There is something wrong about how this has all played out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I'm sure the mods'll be along shortly, let them apply their own judgment. If i were the Mods i would ban every member of this forum that registered from Valentines Day 2012 up until today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 ^^^ What is this shite ? People think you're creepy and sinister,speaking for myself i just think you're a tosspot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 cognoscenti? That's fecking Latin! Rumbled, ya wee rascal, ye! Mea culpa! Look everybody - a joke, taken as a joke! f**k me - Happy Days are Here Again.... Now, Kincardine, after me: "Pater noster, qui es in caelis...." Whaddya mean, too far? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 People think you're creepy and sinister,speaking for myself i just think you're a tosspot. You would know the difference. If it's ok with you, i will continue to be the tosspot and you can continue to be creepy and sinister. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 You would know the difference. If it's ok with you, i will continue to be the tosspot and you can continue to be creepy and sinister. It's how you've been perceived on here not me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 ^^^ What is this shite ? See the "smiling Abu Qatada leaves court" thread for you talking about "filthy, unscrupulous" "Rothschild" types "pulling strings... Behind the scenes" in case verdicts. One of many examples of a weird and extremely whiffy fixation, in recent weeks. You know what you're about, pal. If the Mods fancy poking through your posting history, they will too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I have a twinge of sympathy for Rangers fans. Well, some of them at least. There is something wrong about how this has all played out. Have to agree - "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I have a twinge of sympathy for Rangers fans. Well, some of them at least. There is something wrong about how this has all played out. How do you mean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 It's how you've been perceived on here not me. You're a slow learner Youngsy, hence my reason for excusing you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 See the "smiling Abu Qatada leaves court" thread for you talking about "filthy, unscrupulous" "Rothschild" types "pulling strings... Behind the scenes" in case verdicts. One of many examples of a weird and extremely whiffy fixation, in recent weeks. You know what you're about, pal. If the Mods fancy poking through your posting history, they will too. Rothschild Zionists? That is correct, i am no fan of Rothschild Zionism. If you have a problem with that, that is too fkn bad fella. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 However apparently HMRC can only appeal on a point of law to the second tier. I think that's (sort of) correct. Although what you may find is it also depends on an interpretation of evidence being seen as incorrect, or new evidence being introduced. Certainly, it is often the case in criminal cases that one has to APPLY for "leave to appeal" - Civil law works differently. I know that in England, a convicted criminal can appeal on the length of sentence - or severity of punishment once he's been "sent down". He can only appeal his conviction if new evidence is found or if a procedural error can be proved. Sorta thing - I'm not that well up on it. 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.