Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Things lawyers like - large quantities of money. Things they don't like http://www.bentjudges.com/Harper_MacLeod.html -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 http://www.bentjudges.com/Harper_MacLeod.html Let's assume that's 100% true. And? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 You're clearly not the brightest, firstly the fail to understand what a question is and now inventing reasons for why we know the twat is a liar. On his very own blog he presented a video where he asked a question regarding Rangers situation - one of the D&P guys answered him. A few days later he posted a second video blog, referred again to the question asked and declared to the world he 'received no answers'. Perhaps you don't understand what a liar is, either. Well that first bolded bit is clearly a lie, so that answers the second bolded bit. Grow up son. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Let's assume that's 100% true. And? If it wasn't true - you would think Harper MacLeod would have much to say about it. But, it's been there for a considerable time - perhaps they are content to be seen as portrayed. Or it could be you have a greater faith in our legal system than I do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Well that first bolded bit is clearly a lie, so that answers the second bolded bit. Grow up son. I didn't really think you would defend your special lack of understanding - I'd look it up and then put the shovel down if I were you. PS: I've now noticed you've stopped defending the lying journo. Pleasing is the term on P&B for such moments I believe. Edited February 2, 2013 by Bendarroch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 If it wasn't true - you would think Harper MacLeod would have much to say about it. But, it's been there for a considerable time - perhaps they are content to be seen as portrayed. Or it could be you have a greater faith in our legal system than I do. And? Is there some lesson we should draw from this, one that impacts upon HM's suitability as lawyers for the SPL? Also, it's worth noting that you clearly know nothing about "our legal system", so your level of faith in it is neither here nor there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statts1976uk Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) so would telling players and staff that their PAYE and National Insurance has been paid but in reality it hasn't constitute lying as well? Would trying to force players to move the newco by telling them the law is on Newco's side whilst it's not constitute lying as well. It seems all sides are at this lying game but glass houses and all that. Edited February 2, 2013 by statts1976uk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah...Blah..Blah...Blah...Blah...blah...Blah...Blah..Blah....Blah....Blah. You're really just embarrassing yourself with infantile responses like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Appointing Celtics lawyers was an act of sheer folly from the SPL and to top it off they then offer up two differing tales relating to fat Rodneys role in all of this. Is there only 1 law firm in Scotland? Plenty of facts have been posted which show a clear conflict of interest from fat Rodney and his law firm, to disgregard them out of hand shows how petty and vindictive the P&Bers are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 And? Is there some lesson we should draw from this, one that impacts upon HM's suitability as lawyers for the SPL? Also, it's worth noting that you clearly know nothing about "our legal system", so your level of faith in it is neither here nor there. Flying rodent P&B's resident legal beagle, there's nothing he doesn't know about the law I can't believe he's a lawyer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 PS: I've now noticed you've stopped defending the lying journo. Pleasing is the term on P&B for such moments I believe. I didn't defend anyone, you're just making stuff up now. You're really just embarrassing yourself with infantile responses like this. If a sevconian says so then it must be true. That's how it works, right ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Appointing Celtics lawyers was an act of sheer folly from the SPL and to top it off they then offer up two differing tales relating to fat Rodneys role in all of this. Is there only 1 law firm in Scotland? Plenty of facts have been posted which show a clear conflict of interest from fat Rodney and his law firm, to disgregard them out of hand shows how petty and vindictive the P&Bers are. Sorry Bennett but could you point to just one, I've not been keeping up with this thread recently. HM may well be representing Celtic's interests in this case but in doing so they are also representing the interests of every other SPL shareholder. It may even be the fact that the SPL are not funding this case and it is being solely funded by Celtic but that does not constitute a conflict of interests it constitutes a shared interest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
statts1976uk Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Appointing Celtics lawyers was an act of sheer folly from the SPL and to top it off they then offer up two differing tales relating to fat Rodneys role in all of this. Is there only 1 law firm in Scotland? Plenty of facts have been posted which show a clear conflict of interest from fat Rodney and his law firm, to disgregard them out of hand shows how petty and vindictive the P&Bers are. Why didn't Rangers complain when they were appointed SPL's legal advisors many years ago since the Celtic connection is so ingrained in HM? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Sorry Bennett but could you point to just one, I've not been keeping up with this thread recently. HM may well be representing Celtic's interests in this case but in doing so they are also representing the interests of every other SPL shareholder. It may even be the fact that the SPL are not funding this case and it is being solely funded by Celtic but that does not constitute a conflict of interests it constitutes a shared interest. They've been pointed out to you, you've ignored them. HM and fat Rodney should never been appointed, there are other law firms they could have used. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 And? Is there some lesson we should draw from this, one that impacts upon HM's suitability as lawyers for the SPL? Also, it's worth noting that you clearly know nothing about "our legal system", so your level of faith in it is neither here nor there. You might be willing to dismiss such actions, others much less so. And I very clearly understand the point of bentjudges as it points the fingers at fundamental corruption. No problem to you, apparently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Why didn't Rangers complain when they were appointed SPL's legal advisors many years ago since the Celtic connection is so ingrained in HM? Are you being serious here A law firm used and favoured by Celtic, with a few connections to that club has been tasked with investigating and bringing a case against Rangers. Completely different from being legal advisors, away and think about what you posted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 They've been pointed out to you, you've ignored them. HM and fat Rodney should never been appointed, there are other law firms they could have used. As I have pointed out nothing I have read represents a conflict of interests. If you can't point one out why do you keep claiming there is one? The fact that they are Celtic's lawyers as well as the SPL's means that they are perfect representation against Rangers. Should it be found that Rangers did cheat for all those years then Celtic were the party to have lost out the most. At the end of the day Celtic could have brought this action themselves and been represented by HM. If this action proves that Rangers did gain by breaking the rules then I could imagine all sorts of actions being raised against that club, as an example ICT suffered relegation and financial losses during that time, who would be liable for that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 LMAO I think I have just seen why Rangers fans are "boycotting" this match. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 As I have pointed out nothing I have read represents a conflict of interests. If you can't point one out why do you keep claiming there is one? The fact that they are Celtic's lawyers as well as the SPL's means that they are perfect representation against Rangers. Should it be found that Rangers did cheat for all those years then Celtic were the party to have lost out the most. At the end of the day Celtic could have brought this action themselves and been represented by HM. If this action proves that Rangers did gain by breaking the rules then I could imagine all sorts of actions being raised against that club, as an example ICT suffered relegation and financial losses during that time, who would be liable for that? Many conflicts of interest have been pointed out, you ignore them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Flying rodent P&B's resident legal beagle, there's nothing he doesn't know about the law I can't believe he's a lawyer. No wonder you can't believe it - I'm not a lawyer, and I've never said that I am. As I previously told you, the Mrs is a lawyer but then, you implied I was lying about that, the last time I mentioned it. But this isn't a complex technical issue that requires in-depth comprehension of the law. The term "conflict of interest" has a definite meaning and none of you have offered anything that amounts to it. Additionally, there is no individual or entity in the country that could possibly avoid your fans' deranged suspicions. Everything and anything that stands against Rangers - for any reason, however justified - appears to be tainted by Timmy, as far as your mob are concerned, so there's no duty on the SPL to pander to your prejudices. You've also failed utterly to offer any explanation for how or why this awful conspiracy functions. What concrete benefit would Celtic (or Hibs, or ICT, or St Mirren) get out of rigging a court against your godawful shystering club? How would such a conspiracy work? The only time any of you have offered any kind of theory for how this conspiracy works, it was Bendarroch agreeing that it's a conspiracy against Rangers, because that's just the kind of thing a bunch of crooks like Celtic would do. And that's it, the whole thing. Even those well-disposed towards Rangers would have to admit that you're all at it and that none of you can put a straightforward explanation for how this would work, because you're bullshitting - because you're throwing mud and hoping desperately that some of it sticks. It's laughable, playground stuff. 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.