Jump to content

Spine chilling if u have a brain....


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

It is clear now that CW was defo a lot fucking sharper and maybe a bit more straight up with us that we thought. When he said HMRC would keep appealing until they won i think we all took it that they would just keep appealing for as long as they could or they ran out of appeal routes. What he really meant it was it was a fait acompli. They only had to appeal two or three times before they were guaranteed a win because of this rule. 

To all the sdm, cw,cg  haters fuck it . They played a blinder and they did it for us. We have our club with its history intact. Would not have said this before today when i found this out.

What are you on about?

David Murray said he would do whatever it takes to put us on top again because his ego took a hit when we lost 10IAR to Celtic. 

Then, he actually couldn't be bothered 'doing what it takes' anymore and decided after a couple of years to take a shortcut and implement a questionable remuneration scheme in order to diminish how much he had to dip into his pocket.

Then it gets even better. Despite it being a Murray Group scheme he left the club on the hook for any potential liability all the while during 2011 when the rumours started to surface someone was backgrounding journalists that it wasn't an issue for Rangers and it was an issue for the Murray Group.

He then failed to do enough due diligence on the buyer of the club - which meant when the purchaser was hauled in front of court accused of fraudulently buying the club his legal team were able to make very persuasive arguments against the charge.

'They did it for us' - don't make me sick. We have our club and its history intact despite all these charlatans, egotists and dreamers that have inhabited the board room for the past 16 years... and you know what... it's a fucking miracle we still have a club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

What are you on about?

David Murray said he would do whatever it takes to put us on top again because his ego took a hit when we lost 10IAR to Celtic. 

Then, he actually couldn't be bothered 'doing what it takes' anymore and decided after a couple of years to take a shortcut and implement a questionable remuneration scheme in order to diminish how much he had to dip into his pocket.

Then it gets even better. Despite it being a Murray Group scheme he left the club on the hook for any potential liability all the while during 2011 when the rumours started to surface someone was backgrounding journalists that it wasn't an issue for Rangers and it was an issue for the Murray Group.

He then failed to do enough due diligence on the buyer of the club - which meant when the purchaser was hauled in front of court accused of fraudulently buying the club his legal team were able to make very persuasive arguments against the charge.

'They did it for us' - don't make me sick. We have our club and its history intact despite all these charlatans, egotists and dreamers that have inhabited the board room for the past 16 years... and you know what... it's a fucking miracle we still have a club.

Mate 

U need to look past face value. His company was fucked. He was being chased by the banks. And he had this , as it turns out, trumped up btc that made the pressure irresistable.

He would have known by this time that the btc would be lost because  the compliance with the law did not really matter.

If i was him i would have;

1. Found someone with experience of getring the better of hmrc and keeping assets away from the thieving scum.

2. Hatched a plan to sell him the club and let him do what was needed to appoint own admins who were primed to only accept a bid from another of my new 'aquantances'

3. When the bid from other 'aquantance' came in then sell the assets only to him. This leavibg the oldco with the toxic debt.

Ie exactly what thwy did. I say again. The btc was fait acompli. We were nevwr winning it cause it was not being judged against any law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Mate 

U need to look past face value. His company was fucked. He was being chased by the banks. And he had this , as it turns out, trumped up btc that made the pressure irresistable.

He would have known by this time that the btc would be lost because  the compliance with the law did not really matter.

If i was him i would have;

1. Found someone with experience of getring the better of hmrc and keeping assets away from the thieving scum.

2. Hatched a plan to sell him the club and let him do what was needed to appoint own admins who were primed to only accept a bid from another of my new 'aquantances'

3. When the bid from other 'aquantance' came in then sell the assets only to him. This leavibg the oldco with the toxic debt.

Ie exactly what thwy did. I say again. The btc was fait acompli. We were nevwr winning it cause it was not being judged against any law.

You missed my entire point. He got us into this mess with his egotistical act of hubris and then couldn't write the cheque he promised he would.

Everything you are talking about is the actions following the road of no return he had already started us on. I'm saying they were clearly avoidable in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, McEwan's Lager said:

You missed my entire point. He got us into this mess with his egotistical act of hubris and then couldn't write the cheque he promised he would.

Everything you are talking about is the actions following the road of no return he had already started us on. I'm saying they were clearly avoidable in the first place.

They were only avoidable if u could see the future or had pals in hmrc to tip u off. The advice murray received from tax advisors was good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, McEwan's Lager said:

What? :lol: 

Question 

What is a pound worth

answer

What ever you believe it to be worth

Your post shows me you think it's worth a pound, not very clever are you, one of the sheeple who can't see further than your own nose, thick as fuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danger ranger said:

Question 

What is a pound worth

answer

What ever you believe it to be worth

Your post shows me you think it's worth a pound, not very clever are you, one of the sheeple who can't see further than your own nose, thick as fuck.

Re your question, you are correct, but I would add in addition that the value you or I may derive of the pound in our pocket, compared to the good we are purchasing that we believe to be worth more than the pound in our pocket, is only derived from the fact that the Bank of England says that the pound as a unit is the currency of the nation.

Re the bold part, what the hell? How could you deduce that simply because I laughed at your statement "Just like the bank of England its owned and run by a list of names and has nothing whatsoever to do with England or Britain."

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

Seems a strange thing to try to pin on the EU, when tax cases have been decided on judge's interpretation of the law for hundreds of years.

Well this is straight from a legal industry site.

 

The Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation

 

 

The purposive approach to statutory interpretation is used in the European Court of Justice. The literal rule would be of little use in the European Courts since there are several languages in operation and translation is not an exact science.  Domestic judges are required to apply the Purposive approach whenever applying a piece of EU law.

Lord Simon explained the purposive approach inMaunsell v Olins[1975] AC 373 Case summary

 

 

'The first task of a court of construction is to put itself in the shoes of the draftsman – to consider what knowledge he had and, importantly, what statutory objective he had …being thus placed…the court proceeds to ascertain the meaning of the statutory language.’

 

Thus the purposive approach to statutory interpretation seeks to look for the purpose of the legislation before interpreting the words. It has often been said that the purposive approach is a mixture of the domestic rules, however, whereas the domestic rules require the courts to apply the literal rule first to look at the wording of the Act, the purposive approach starts with the mischief rule in seeking the purpose or intention of Parliament.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

Seems a strange thing to try to pin on the EU, when tax cases have been decided on judge's interpretation of the law for hundreds of years.

Further to the quote i just gave it betrays a self-obsession from government and the legal industry where they see themselves as prime over the public. They are not. They are employees that we fucking pay for.

This means that in order to be clear on legal obligations a private citizen needs to ask themself what they thought the incompetent cunt that wrote the law was meaning as opposed to understanding what he wrote. And that is wrong. Are u willing to be responsible for someone elses shit communication???

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

Seems a strange thing to try to pin on the EU, when tax cases have been decided on judge's interpretation of the law for hundreds of years.

Oh i should say as well. It is not a judge interpreting the law that is the issue. That is their job.

It is trying to second guess what the incompetent cunts that drafted the legislation meant that i have the issue with.

The associated politicians are probably long elected out. How do we get rid of sc judges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fs it gets better. Hodge only spent an early bit of his career at inland revenue.

His legal career began in 1981, when he was appointed as junior counsel to the Department of Energy.  Lord Hodge was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1983 and in 1991, after leaving the Department of Energy, he joined the then Inland Revenue.  His time at the Revenue lasted until 1996 when he was made a QC.

Been a fait acompli from the start

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...