what is funny Gumbo? Tell me how Rangers losing this tax case means anything other than Rangers cheating?
You are a bare faced liar. We both know it. I don't particularly want embarrass you any more than you already are. If no regulations were broke (sic), then Rangers will not lose the tribunal. I understand why you revised your argument to this one, given that you concede that no sane person could reasonably argue it.....I suppose we'll put it down to temporary insanity? This argument gives you cover should Rangers lose the taxe case. Illegality shall be demonstrated and at that point little old Gumbo can claim he was right all along. Illegality has been demonstrated. Completely ignoring the fact that this is what the tribunal was established to do. Nobody gives a flying **** about your pissy little tax case. It has **** all to do with THIS tribunal and the terms of reference of THIS tribunal. Do I really believe that.......hmm... Interesting question. The answer is of course no. Given that I have never suggested such a thing, remotely intimated it, or even glanced sideways at such a notion, I wonder why you would ask such an utterly irrelevant question. I don't need to know the facts. The facts of the case have no bearing at all on the terms of reference of the tribunal. waiting for the result of the tribunal has no bearing at all on its terms of reference. Given that you think it isn't black and white, I'll ask again where the grey is? If you can't provide an answer, just don't bother to respond and we can forget all about this embarrassing episode for you. I promise I'll not bring it up at a later time to poke fun at you.
Being an erudite and learned fellow, at home mingling with some of the finest legal minds in the land I feel I have to point out that this discussion has been doomed to failure from the beginning as Rebel is using the classic " Paper,Scissors, Stone " tactic, whilst Gambol has opted for the renowned " Milk, Lemonade , Chocolate " defence.
The debate was over the first time we had it. Now Gumbo has come back with a new, slightly less stupid, argument (but still stupid) he hasn't fared any better.
I`m tempted to go looking for the original " the debate is over" thread and the subsequent ( I think ) Admirals new gameshow thread that followed......well, it would follow, it was subsequent ......I think
And Rebel returns to ranting again My postion has never changed. It's all here in this thread. All I've ever disputed is that losing the tibunal automatically means cheating. It doesn't. So you concede that losing a tax dispute does not automatically mean wrong doing... ...but somehow, for you, that does not apply to Rangers. It was an example of how HMRC operate, to illustrate that tax cases can be lost when no wrong doing or breaking of the regulations occured. In other words, it was to back up my argument. It was such a pissy little tax case it affected tens of thousands of IT contractors and financially ruined some. Yes, it was a pissy little tax case. What? I mean, ****in what? The facts have no bearing? Admitting you know **** all about it while saying you are 10000% certain of guilt? I think you just embrassed yourself with that pile of ****e. The "grey" is in the arguments presented by either side in tribunal. Hence the tribunal in the first place. Nobody outside the tribunal knows what points they are agruing over. It will remain grey until the result of the tribunal is known. Except for you, of course. Without knowing any of the facts you already made up your mind. How embarassing is that for you? You have nothing. Which is why you have resorted to inane ranting and saying I've embarassed myself and I've changed my argument. I haven't. It's here on this thread for all to see.
I think you have misunderstood my position. I think this is deliberate. Losing the tribunal means that Rangers have cheated. This is a fact. I have not preempted the result when I say this. Do you understand now?
I have misunderstood? Let's check. I asked... ...you responded... ...you conceded that losing a tax dispute does not automatically mean wrong doing. Then you say (above) that losing this tax dispute means Rangers have cheated. How does that work if the tribunal result doesn't show them to have done anything wrong?
Stirring it up a bit here "Cheating", by my definition at least, is the deliberate action of violating rules, with full knowledge that you are in violation of those rules. Being found to have broken rules does not by necessity prove "cheating". To call all rule-breaking "cheating" is the equivalent of calling all homicides "murder". You can break rules honestly or dishonestly and deliberately or "by mistake". Of course, the penalties for breaking the rules should reflect not just whether the action was deliberate "cheating" but the impact of the action and the extent of the (unfair) advantage gained.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can't...will_make_up_other_stuff_to_avoid_the_subject It's your parent's fault webel. Take it up with them fatty.
To be honest, the excuse of breaking the rules by "accident/mistake" doesn't hold much water. If Rangers are shown to have broken the rules and those responsible (board members, advisors, etc) turn round and try to say it was an honest mistake is bullshit. It's their job to know the rules and follow them correctly.
