Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by StevieBC.

    This will take some beating!

    From The Sun today, in an article where Jim Traynor is complaining about his interview aired last Tuesday on the BBC;

    "…Traynor claims he had presented examples of when the BBC had been “less than fair and even inaccurate when reporting on Rangers”, only for the broadcaster not to air his complaints…"


    Truly breathtaking stuff.

    If anyone should have complaints about the less than accurate reporting of all things 'Rangers' by the BBC..

    it's the long suffering Internet Bampots.


    I always thought Traynor was just a thick, loud, bullying type.

    But the man is clearly delusional.

    [And right up his own @rse!]

    StevieBC Also Commented

    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    JC, I'm guessing you're holding out for SFA President?

    [You probably know more about their own rules & regulations, or 'guidelines'.]


    I quickly scanned their 'Equal Opportunities' form, which looked fairly standard.  

    Also fairly standard is this extract from their form;


    "…equal opportunities monitoring form

    The Scottish FA is committed to ensuring that applicants and employees from all sections of the community are treated equally and not discriminated against on the grounds of… religion…"


    So for example, the SFA Diversity & Social Inclusion manager should have at her fingertips right now;


    The religious diversity,

    – of Category 1 referees

    – of all SFA staff


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
    JC, go on, go on, go on… burn your bus pass and apply!


    You can clearly show evidence of your Admin proficiency by showing all your letters of complaint to – erm – the SFA, SPFL, CAS, HMRC, BBC, etc…


    You could be a valuable infiltrator for the Internet Bampots!


    We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.

    Whilst there is continuing, voluminous reporting of the fallout from the TRFC v Killie game…

    I haven't managed to find any reference to the Killie keeper having his red card rescinded.

    Not a peep in the DR, ET or Scotsman – as at time of posting.


    Any neutral or non-TRFC supporter would find that story as very significant, IMO.

    Recent Comments by StevieBC

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    TT, the HMRC CEO with the name James Harra?!

    Obviously a 'Rangers' hater, and this proves the conspiracy / cover up!

    Obviously…  smiley


    eJ, thanks for sharing that.

    It looks like Club 1872 could learn a thing or two from FOH?

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    I have to confess to fellow Bampots: I bought a newspaper today. I know, I know.  First time in many a year, and I did feel rather self conscious reaching out to the newspaper stand – as if I was reaching out to the top shelf for a dodgy magazine, [as I could only imagine it would feel of course!]


    But out of curiosity I bought The Times today as it used to be my daily read, pre-RTC, and I wanted to read their latest coverage of their HMRC 'scoop'.  [And I had no intention of subscribing online.]


    Rather than backtracking after the online backlash from more informed Bampots, The Times seems to be doubling down.


    On page 11 it was all about RFC and HMRC.  The whole page -with no adverts at all – so a lot of Times' resources are still being allocated to their story.


    Of the 3 headlines on that one page, the most prominent included a photo of an angry/concerned looking McCoist.

    That article included 14 paragraphs covering 3 sources of input.

    McCoist's input covered 7 paras.

    Mark Dingwall of the 'Follow Follow' fanzine covered 5 paras.

    A named EBT expert's input covered 2 paras.


    The EBT expert opinion aligned with the Internet Bampot's opinion.  This expert coverage was slipped in as token balance between McCoist and Dingwall.

    Dingwall's unchallenged input concluded the article with;

    "…assumptions were made that have turned out not to be true in terms of both legal and accountancy terms…"

    …from an unqualified lawyer/accountant running a rabid fanzine! And again: unchallenged by The Times.


    I knew the SMSM has been dumbing down for years, but it is sad to realise that a once decent paper has simply joined the race to the gutter with the likes of The DR and The ET.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    Still scratching the napper about the timing of this massive HMRC squirrel.


    It's during the international break – so there's 'probably' not a footy related need for distraction just now at Ibrox.

    The Memorial Walls court case yesterday – IMO – wouldn't have bothered anyone at Ibrox, so no distraction needed.


    So, it's to distract from possibly something new / unknown to the Bampots currently?

    It could be related to a desperate need for more funding, or something about King, or about the disputed 2011/12 UEFA licence…or something completely different.  Who knows.


    But, to derive the benefit of this well executed squirrel, the bad news has to be made public soon, you would think?

    Are we going to see yet another RIFC statement released late on a Friday night?


    I'll keep the popcorn handy this evening, just in case.  indecision

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    For all the rage and delusion displayed across the SMSM, on social media and – sadly unsurprisingly – for all the anger and abuse unjustly directed at HMRC staff…


    still absolutely nothing on the 'Rangers FC' website.


    Considering they cling to the belief that TRFC is in fact still the exact same club as RFC,

    you would think 'Rangers' would be even more vocal in its condemnation of HMRC?


    It's as if TRFC knows full well it's all BS…

    but the SMSM still have to follow the copy/paste instructions they are given, regardless.

    Celtic’s Questions to Answer
    StevieBC 14th November 2019 at 15:36

    This HMRC story has been cranked up to BS Level '11'.

    Headline from The ET;

    "Rangers vs HMRC: Ex-players and staff 'have EBT penalties wiped over incorrect tax bill…"


    No 'journalist' name is attributed to this nonsense.

    It's based "on a source" who is supposedly an accountant but "uninvolved"…



    Well, well, well…

    Mibbees The ET does have a bit of shame after all?

    I've just checked the above ET article for Comments: it is no longer available on their site, and disappeared into the ether.