wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 A "cock and cock" story I do believe . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Right. Off to make 4 or 5 aliases on kickback. Won't need to adjust the attitude much from ff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 For asking a question? After Tedi replied to a question posed to you? Touchy c**t aren't you? I'm so relaxed these days it's unreal. You're still a dick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast_Tim Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Brilliant. Currant buns and their over active imaginations 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I'm so relaxed these days it's unreal. You're still a dick. Has the anesthetic not worn off yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 So Spartans get their payoff for not pushing their more legitimate claim for admittance last year. Twelve clubs have today been selected to compete in the new Scottish Lowland Football League from season 2013/14. The successful clubs are: Spartans FC, Threave Rovers FC, Preston Athletic FC, Gretna FC (2008), Whitehill Welfare FC, Dalbeattie Star FC, East Kilbride FC, Selkirk FC, Gala Fairydean Rovers FC, Edinburgh City FC, University of Stirling FC and Vale of Leithen FC. Interestingly, Gretna (2008)..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Charlotte posting on TSFM:- Charlotte Fakeovers says: June 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm 46 1 Rate This ForresDee said on June 17, 2013 at 11:33 am My thoughts on the legal reasons for not mentioning Charlotte have now changed from simple complicity of the MSM (although Ill reserve my position on that for some of them) to simply the rules around reporting of ongoing police investigation, whether into charlotte herself or her information supplier or maybe even (if we are lucky) the issues that bring us here. _______________________________________________________________ Let me make it clear that as far as Im aware, there is no Police Investigation looking at my particular role. As of last week, no representatives of the SMSM has been in touch with Craig Whyte to establish the authenticity of the material so far released, nor do they show any willingness to do so. The Daily Record and The Scottish Sun are in a complete lock down mode. They will know the reasons as to why that is the case. The rest of the SMSM are stunningly quiet also. Its clear that the PR guys have kicked in big time. Jack Irvine, Hay and McKerron for example know where the bodies are buried and have no hesitation in leaking information that others would prefer to keep quiet , especially so should the other party have not yet been persuaded to share the same viewpoints. The police, according to Duff and Phelps, didnt seem to interested in the case. A steer was given that it was probably outside the jurisdiction of the Strathclyde force given that it was an English company matter. On that same subject, only in the last month or so have the Insolvency service stepped in with questions for Craig on matters relating to Tixway and Rangers. Its a very slow process and a convenient one for the SMSM to use as an excuse to avoid reporting on the news. Some newspapers are indeed heavily conflicted they will have no hiding place soon. Its time for the big hitters to get involved. As a closing point for now. The myth that Craig Whyte paid Google to remove his history has much substance to it. Jack Irvine and Craig are fully aware of the many letters sent out to multiple sources, at considerable expense from Carter Ruck from 2009 onwards. All seemed to have the desired effect and old articles promptly pulled. Google can only report on what it sees as visible content. Apart from the odd fans forum/blog the main area of attack was on the news aggregators. All appeared to comply and Google searches performed at a later date would not contain the items of significant interest. The again, if a Political Journalist of the Year (2012) appears to give Jack Irvine the nod that his client is under review, what trust can we have in any of the media to simply report without favour? https://twitter.com/CharlotteFakes/status/346626862459523072 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/299946-inquiry-into-rangers-charity-over-match-against-ac-m http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/299946-inquiry-into-rangers-charity-over-match-against-ac-milan/ It had originally been organised to raise funds for the Rangers Charity Foundation, which was going to receive 60% of all money gathered by the game on March 30. The charity, which has donated more than £2.3m to various causes since it was set up in 2002, has reduced the amount it will take from the game to 10%, meaning the majority of the money raised will go to the club, which is currently in administration. Seems pretty black and white to me. Thank f**k that horrible club is no longer with us. ilan/ It had originally been organised to raise funds for the Rangers Charity Foundation, which was going to receive 60% of all money gathered by the game on March 30. The charity, which has donated more than £2.3m to various causes since it was set up in 2002, has reduced the amount it will take from the game to 10%, meaning the majority of the money raised will go to the club, which is currently in administration. Seems pretty black and white to me. Thank f**k that horrible club is no longer with us. If it seems so black and white to you then tell us all what was the outcome of this enquiry, which incidentally was over two years ago. Was there any crime of fraud committed and if so who was charged with any such crime. Or maybe it was just as it was, an agreement between all parties concerned for the RCF to take 10% of the total sum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 IP 80.255.209.128 has had 5417 posts from Nov 2011 and only 2 members have used that IP address,Bennet and VickyTheViking. I rest my case. The Jury retired for 2 seconds and then gave its verdict......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast_Tim Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 If it seems so black and white to you then tell us all what was the outcome of this enquiry, which incidentally was over two years ago. Was there any crime of fraud committed and if so who was charged with any such crime. Or maybe it was just as it was, an agreement between all parties concerned for the RCF to take 10% of the total sum. There was no crime. That's not the issue. The issue is it was morally reprehensible. Depriving worthy causes of much needed cash in a failed attempt to save a basket case of a football club ran and supported by morons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 There was no crime. That's not the issue. The issue is it was morally reprehensible. Depriving worthy causes of much needed cash in a failed attempt to save a basket case of a football club ran and supported by morons. The issue here is that the RCF agreed to forego part of the total amount in order to aid the PLC that supported the charity since 2002. Btw don't go too deep into this moron talk, both clubs have their darkside, haven't they. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast_Tim Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 The issue here is that the RCF agreed to forego part of the total amount in order to aid the PLC that supported the charity since 2002. Btw don't go too deep into this moron talk, both clubs have their darkside, haven't they. They do aye. But when rangers were dying, the supporters lorded it over everyone else with the worlds most successful club in the world WATP shite. When we were in a similar position our support got up off their holes and sorted the club out. Giving money to a PLC at the expense of a charity is disgusting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 The issue here is that the RCF agreed to forego part of the total amount in order to aid the PLC that supported the charity since 2002. Btw don't go too deep into this moron talk, both clubs have their darkside, haven't they. Dig away if you want..... , I have nooooooo problem wae "that" discussion. So if the charity was supporting the company.....who gave the donations? The company ? Or the fans ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 There was no crime. That's not the issue. The issue is it was morally reprehensible. This is what Youngsy does. If a verdict seems to favour Rangers, he refuses to recognise that the question raised could possibly involve any sort of moral dimension. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Dig away if you want..... , I have nooooooo problem wae "that" discussion. So if the charity was supporting the company.....who gave the donations? The company ? Or the fans ? I don't need to dig away wunf, don't worry about that. As for the RCF and money given to the PLC, it wasn't stolen and there was no deceit but if it bothers so many then i suggest they write to Rangers Charity Foundation for a full appraisal on this, nothing is hidden, the Scottish Charity Regulator inquired, found nothing and moved on. As for your question "who gave the donations" that originally would be the support and as far as i'm concerned it was no problem for me as a fan at that game for my money to be donated from the RCF to the PLC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 This is what Youngsy does. If a verdict seems to favour Rangers, he refuses to recognise that the question raised could possibly involve any sort of moral dimension. It hasn't gone unnoticed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I don't need to dig away wunf, don't worry about that. As for the RCF and money given to the PLC, it wasn't stolen and there was no deceit but if it bothers so many then i suggest they write to Rangers Charity Foundation for a full appraisal on this, nothing is hidden, the Scottish Charity Regulator inquired, found nothing and moved on. As for your question "who gave the donations" that originally would be the support and as far as i'm concerned it was no problem for me as a fan at that game for my money to be donated from the RCF to the PLC. Stoopid question..... Why not give direct to the charity instead of a "discredited middleman", its like giving a junkie a tenspot and telling him to put it the next "boys behind the wire" tin......never gonna happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 This is what Youngsy does. If a verdict seems to favour Rangers, he refuses to recognise that the question raised could possibly involve any sort of moral dimension. Do i? Perhaps i have the opinion in this instance that my club was bang in trouble and this money was very welcome from the RCF, they had no problem giving it after years of support from everyone involved with Rangers, including the support, so why should you or anyone outside of the club, who it's very evident have never gave a penny to the RCF, pass unwarranted opinion on it. It's too obvious that you and the rest who are giving off an opinion on this are just looking for another stick to beat everyone connected to the club, i very much doubt if any of you are too bothered in reality about this money, so save me the pious shock at a sum of money going from the RCF to the PLC and too bad if my stance isn't in agreement with yours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Do i? Perhaps i have the opinion in this instance that my club was bang in trouble and this money was very welcome from the RCF, they had no problem giving it after years of support from everyone involved with Rangers, including the support, so why should you or anyone outside of the club, who it's very evident have never gave a penny to the RCF, pass unwarranted opinion on it. It's too obvious that you and the rest who are giving off an opinion on this are just looking for another stick to beat everyone connected to the club, i very much doubt if any of you are too bothered in reality about this money, so save me the pious shock at a sum of money going from the RCF to the PLC and too bad if my stance isn't in agreement with yours. Simmer petal. I never voiced an opinion on the RCF. Questions of morality do enter discussions over what to do with money donated to a Charity Foundation however, and I was merely pointing out that you have a habit of overriding any notions of morality, if a verdict seems to favour Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 An honest question. Honest. Did the donations to RCF attract Gift Aid? If so, did RCF give the PLC the net or gross amount? 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.