Monkey Tennis Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 50 minutes ago, bennett said: Anyway, I do accept LNS's verdict, in that in law, it stands. I simply must accept it and therefore do. You didn't even put it in quotation marks ya daftie. And you certainly didn't put it in context or quote it in full, with the bit about the law being an ass. In short Bennett, I accept that the ruling exists and that there's nothing much that I can do about it. As I said at the time though, I don't accept that it is correct. That you're reduced to this dishonest nonsense in defending it, is telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 On 11/08/2017 at 17:42, bennett said: That would be terrible, really terrible. It would also be true, really true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said: You didn't even put it in quotation marks ya daftie. And you certainly didn't put it in context or quote it in full, with the bit about the law being an ass. In short Bennett, I accept that the ruling exists and that there's nothing much that I can do about it. As I said at the time though, I don't accept that it is correct. That you're reduced to this dishonest nonsense in defending it, is telling. It never got to you tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 It never got to you tho. Says the man who goes into hiding when asked a difficult question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, bennett said: It never got to you tho. Can you do me a favour Benny? Can you create a profile on Ragers Media with your P&B username? I'm sure you'll be welcome amongst your own and stay there thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 47 minutes ago, bennett said: It never got to you tho. Good God Bennett. Does that really count as a wee victory for you? Come on man. A bit of personal pride please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 19 hours ago, Glenconner said: None, just made them look like diddies. The diddies 7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: It's a point I know exists, but genuinely don't understand. Because nothing was done at the time, the Rangers players who were misleadingly registered, couldn't be deemed ineligible long afterwards. I honestly don't know how this works. If there's a time limit, I've not seen it. You're not suggesting someone made it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 3 hours ago, bennett said: Anyway, I do accept LNS's verdict, in that in law, it stands. I simply must accept it and therefore do. In law it does no such thing. What could happen is that if the SFA changed it an interested party could challenge any change. But there'd no "double jepordy" ruling here. Not least because LNS never actually addressed the core of what rangers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: It's a point I know exists, but genuinely don't understand. Because nothing was done at the time, the Rangers players who were misleadingly registered, couldn't be deemed ineligible long afterwards. I honestly don't know how this works. If there's a time limit, I've not seen it. I don't think it really exists at all. It's patently nonsense. And the fact is that the SFA were aware of it because a certain individual was benefiting from the scheme and no action was taken. So the actually were caught but due to malfeasance no action was taken at the time. The same SFA then instructed a one man kangaroo court to take no action due to a ruling that they invented, but only after sustained pressure from us diddies. In no way can LNS stand up to any legal scrutiny, or be binding in anyway. The SFA is quite aware of this. It just needs someone to challenge them in a legal arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 4 hours ago, bennett said: Anyway, I do accept LNS's verdict, in that in law, it stands. I simply must accept it and therefore do. There was nothing 'legal' about the LNS decision. It was an in-house decision, purchased from a paid lackey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, The DA said: There was nothing 'legal' about the LNS decision. It was an in-house decision, purchased from a paid lackey. That monkey, always getting shit wrong. Whats he like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Just now, bennett said: That monkey, always getting shit wrong. Whats be like... He's be like a monkbee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Bobby Skidmarks said: Says the man who goes into hiding when asked a difficult question. Fcuk it's bobby holness. 1 hour ago, hellbhoy said: Can you do me a favour Benny? Can you create a profile on Ragers Media with your P&B username? I'm sure you'll be welcome amongst your own and stay there thanks. Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 22 minutes ago, bennett said: Fcuk it's bobby holness. What B is a Pie and Bovril poster who mocked child abuse just to try an win an online argument against a man he'd never met? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 On 15/08/2017 at 20:29, Bobby Skidmarks said: Big Spotty Knew 12 minutes ago, Bobby Skidmarks said: What B is a Pie and Bovril poster who mocked child abuse just to try an win an online argument against a man he'd never met? Was it you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Skidmarks Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Just now, bennett said: Was it you? Nope, it was in fact Bennett. It also copped him a months banning. You are free to go back to the University of Life, and don't forget your lucky mascot Tedi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 22 hours ago, Insaintee said: sporting advantage 10 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: sporting advantage Oh you two. Why are you chucking about the 'sporting advantage' epithet and thinking it's in any way relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Oh you two. Why are you chucking about the 'sporting advantage' epithet and thinking it's in any way relevant? You mean the phrase I described as "utterly redundant" in the post you've quoted it from? Have you stopped reading properly, or are you just being idiotic for kicks now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: You mean the phrase I described as "utterly redundant" in the post you've quoted it from? Have you stopped reading properly, or are you just being idiotic for kicks now? Don't be silly. Your post still used 'sporting advantage' as an accusation. It isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Don't be silly. Your post still used 'sporting advantage' as an accusation. It isn't. I dismissed it as "redundant". That means that I saw it as irrelevant in this context, yet you felt the need to come on and tell me it was "irrelevant" in an accusatory manner. Seriously, you just produce unthinking guff these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.