Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[GreenockRover]

This is probably just some daft wee kid getting his kicks by acting hard online.

Never drink and type. Outta be a law against it

[WhiteRoseKillie]

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.

Was with you right up to the second last line, Third. the blue bigots have moved waayyy ahead in the despicable stakes due to their proven malfeasance and reaction to the discovery of said malfeasance.

As for the last line - sorry to say, that really is unacceptable. Live and let live, for Christ's sake. Like many minorities, I will occasionally get a bit narked when mouthpieces claim the right to be offended or play the "minority card" when demanding Rights which could be seen as privileges. On the whole, though, others' sexuality, colour, creed, or other form of self-definition doesn't matter a whole lot to me.

I have to say, with that last line, you've not just crossed a line - you've pole-vaulted over it.

[captain kirk]

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.

You like baiting him but you detest homosexuals?

[aofjays]

You like baiting him but you detest homosexuals?

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

[TheLip69]

How are you doing Lip? How's Manchester treating you? I'm up the road on August 7th to visit my auld dear in Muirhouse so I'm hoping to take the weans to Motherwell's Europa League match on the 8th. They haven't issued tickets yet as far as I can see.

Looking forward to this. I think my last 'European' night at Fir Park was a Texaco Cup game against Spurs in about 1971. Would that sound right?

As far as the body of your post goes I'd say this:

I've never claimed anything about my, " values and morals". For me to do so would be ridiculous seeing I have plenty foibles.

I do, though, have an ideal when it comes to Rangers fans and it is something like: Enjoy the game; make a noise; be loud; rip the pish; and let folk know who they are up against. At the same time, don't be rude; don't show your genitals and make sure women and old yins get a seat on the bus/train/tram before you.

Isn't this perfectly reasonable?

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.

[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.