Another post removed? why? “Very puzzled and disappointed to see …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by peterjung.

another post removed? why?

“Very puzzled and disappointed to see my post in response to the assertions made by “tearsofjoy” has been removed. I don’t believe I posted anything untoward or controversial. Simply rebutted, in my humble opinion, the ridiculous statements made in the previous mentioned post. I see that for some reason the post from “tearsofjoy remains” but my rebuttal has been removed?…poor form TSFM on such an emotive issue….again IMHO….

I reposted on the comment moderation thread……”

peterjung Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
TSFM says:

February 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm
peterjung
I am surprised that you are surprised. The first five words of that post was abuse of another poster. Wasn’t a simple rebuttal at all. It is th sort of post that makes moderation easier though.
_______________________________________________________________________________
If my calling of the original poster “a clown” was the reason for the removal then fair enough….

I respect your call… equally I stand by my original assertion of the post by “tearsofjoy”..

This is a deadly serious issue…..I was simply appalled and more than a little angry at the way it was characterised by the original poster. That was the intent behind my post.

Anyway….as I say I respect your call even if I disagree with the judgement. Regardless I appreciate your response to explain.

Love and peace to all 🙂

peterjung


Comment Moderation Thread
The following post I made within the last 30 mins or so in response to a post by “tearsofjoy” has been removed from the main blog? Why? Do not see the problem?

tearsofjoy says:
This is ridiculous…
__________________________________________________________________________________
You sir are a clown. The vitriol directed to Neil Lennon has nothing at all to do with anything from his playing days. There were/are many more players who were/are far more “combative” than Neil Lennon ever was who are free from the terrible abuse that Neil Lennon has been continually subjected too. You say that he is detested the length and breadth of Scotland and then cite some incident from what happened in England with Alan Shearer?
To take your position is to be disingenuous in the extreme.
Unfortunately Neil Lennon is the subject of such abuse for a small number of very obvious reasons:
He Is a Catholic from Northern Ireland who has the temerity to be sharp, witty, clever and damn good at what he does…which just so happens to be managing Celtic. I am absolutely pig sick of hearing people on here and in the media trot out this pash that it is because of the type of guy he is. Well actually, that is probably true if they mean being the successful Northern Irish catholic Celtic manager type of guy.
• This is a man who has been actually and seriously physically attacked on a number of occasions.
• This is a man who has had to suffer a long line of death threats.
• This is a man who was physically attacked on the touchline at a football game while he was only trying to do his job.
• This is a man who has had to move his young family at short notice on police advice on a number of occasions for their own safety
• This is a man who has had live ammunition sent to him in the post.
• This is a man who had letter bombs sent to him in the post.
Ah…but ..never mind…it is all because of “what he did in his playing days”. Sorry if you really believe that then you are either deluded, in denial, or just plain stupid.
I repeat …if you really think that then you are a buffoon. However I do not actually believe that you are that stupid which makes your motives even worse.


Recent Comments by peterjung

LNS – A Summary
Re The Various Drafts of the 5 Way Agreement:
 
See the attached which purports to be the original first draft and compare it with what was posted above by Homunculus as reportedly the final draft – Draft 6.
 
The first draft is full of mentions of sanctions for EBT’s…..by the final draft there is no mention of EBTs at all.  Who knows if John James has sight of yet a later draft or even the final signed version but I would suggest one thing – if these drafts are genuine it certainly illustrates which way the wind was blowing throughout the “negotiations” …..
 
Actually reminds of the time when “Rangers” were hauled up in front an SFA Judicial Panel for what, at the time, was described by Gary Allen QC as “Only match fixing in its various forms might be a more serious breach. They brought the game into serious disrepute.”
 
You may recall what happened next….
 

  • Mr McCoist’s infamous “Who are these people” dog whistle rant….
  • 24 Hours personal security amid threats and bomb scares for Gary Allen QC
  • Credible threats (according to Police) to burn down Raith Rovers stadium
  • etc.

 
And then…
 

  • “Rangers” go to the Court of Session seeking a judicial review against the punishment from the SFA Judicial Panel (12 month signing embargo)
  • “Rangers” win their case and despite such legal action being fundamentally against the principles of FIFA they are subject to precisely zero punishment for this…
  • “Rangers” then negotiate to actually accept the transfer embargo after all (that was nice of them) ….but only to start after the current transfer window that was then open closes

 
So ..”Rangers” went in a few short weeks to being found guilty of actions deemed to be second only to match fixing to effectively zero punishment…not only for the initial offences but indeed also for the serious matter of taking legal action against the sports national body…
 
I would say looking at Draft 1 of 5WA then Draft 6 it would be true to form for the final version to contain a guarantee of no action on the EBT issue…
 
While I am here…..why has no one asked any serious questions on why Graeme Souness was getting paid by Rangers via an EBT 10 years after leaving the club…..I am convinced there are some very dark goings on indeed behind all of this…. and this is the real reason why there is such a concerted effort going on for everyone to forget about this and move on…..


LNS – A Summary

iceman63 16th November 2015 at 5:24 pm
 
It seems to me that the recent desperate briefing to DR about no means of changing the LNS decision and the latest ramblings from Roger Mitchell are signs of a desperation hitherto unknown in the corridors at Hampden……
 
…The mysterious and to date unexplained changes to SFA rule 14 which changed from there being no mechanism to allow a registration to be transferred to one which under the same heading of preventing such a transfer , now allowed one: this change being  made in November 2011….

Iceman – can you  – or anyone else – elaborate further on this change to Rule 14?
 


Whose assets are they anyway?
A recent somewhat dark and sinister development emanating from the sphere of some of the “Rangers Bloggers” has motivated me to post this.
 
I noticed a few days ago that the blogger known as John Stevens (@pzj_1) has turned to a new and despicable tactic of posting family and personal details online.  Now I seem to recall that this is the individual who was behind the “Celtic Land Deal/State Aid” allegations….
 
However his new quest would appear to be the unmasking of the other “Rangers Blogger” known as “John James”.  The latest “accused” is as far as I am aware just the latest in a string of individuals that John Stevens has accused of being “John James”.  However this new development of posting photographs, names and other details of not only the accused individual, but also of other family members, brothers, sisters, parents etc. is shocking to see even for this unhinged character.
 
Now it seems that those lovey tolerant lot over at the Vanguard Bears have taken some inspiration from John Stevens and began a similar campaign of their own.  In fact they have even went to the lengths of posting a three part blog.  Now this is really disgusting with all sorts of individuals named and smeared with family photographs posted including children.  The crime seems to be as far as I can make out is being employed by HMRC, being somewhat distantly acquainted with friends of Peter Lawell’s family and a few innocuous tweets and Facebook postings that in the eyes of the VB make them part of a “Rangers” hating conspiracy within HMRC all determined to bring down “Rangers”.
 
Of the damning evidence offered up by the VB is that some people had the audacity to engage in a fancy dress party dressed as “zombies”.  This apparently is proof of them being “sickening, bile filled, sectarian bigots” or some other such nonsense.
 
Of course every sane person knows that John Stevens and the VB are generally unhinged lunatics who until now could be largely ignored as irrelevant.  However this new tactic of posting peoples personal details and images online is a very worrying and sinister development.
 
I would hope that those individuals who have been targeted are consulting their lawyers as this has got to be at the minimum borderline criminal behaviour?
 
I will not provide the links to this material but it came to my attention through posts on the Bears Den site.  The vast majority of replies are fully supporting of the VB and John Stevens with various congratulations offered and several dark hints of violent repercussions to be visited upon some of the targeted individuals.  To be fair there are a small number of poster questioning the inclusion of children (adults are no problem it would seem) but they seem to be largely shouted down by the majority.  That the mods of the Bears Den allow both the original posts linking the material and the replies to be posted un-moderated is a very poor reflection on the mentality of the people in control of this site.
 
John Stevens and the Vanguard Bears have shown themselves to be twisted, deranged and possibly dangerous.  Action must be taken against them now before this gets out of hand and someone gets hurt.  How would one go about reporting this behaviour to the police?


Whose assets are they anyway?

grecian urn 4th November 2015 at 1:27 pm #
Shirley LNS MUST revisit his verdict. Won,t hold my breath through!

 
I refer you to my post at “peterjung 4th November 2015 at 12:47 pm”
 
They have already anticipated this outcome and have built this into the original decision…..again I quote:
 
The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.

The LNS decision will not be revisited based on this IMHO……


Whose assets are they anyway?
Regarding the talk of “Title Stripping” and revisiting the LNS decision…here is the get out as explicitly built into the original decision in the case of such an eventuality as today:
 
From the original LNS Judgement “THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED
DECISION by THE RT HON LORD NIMMO SMITH, NICHOLAS STEWART QC and CHARLES FLINT QC”
 
 [104] As we have already explained, in our view the purpose of the Rules applicable to Issues 1 to 3 is to promote the sporting integrity of the game. These rules are not designed as any form of financial regulation of football, analogous to the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Thus it is not the purpose of the Rules to regulate how one football club may seek to gain financial and sporting advantage over others. Obviously, a successful club is able to generate more income from gate money, sponsorship, advertising, sale of branded goods and so on, and is consequently able to offer greater financial rewards to its manager and players, in the hope of even more31 success. Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law– so as to minimise its tax liabilities. The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules.
Thoughts?


SSL Certificates