No disagreement from me, I miss his posts a great deal - maybe as simple as taking up a huge amount of his time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Printable View
No disagreement from me, I miss his posts a great deal - maybe as simple as taking up a huge amount of his time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Possibly, yes. I hope he returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
This is a quote from the Takeover Panel statementQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
"We remind all regulated firms that they should not deal with the individual mentioned above, or his principals, on any transactions to which the Takeover Code applies. We also expect regulated firms to inform all approved persons at their firms that they should not deal with this individual on such transactions.Regulated firms need to be aware that we take all regulatory breaches very seriously and a breach of MAR 4.3 may leave a firm and any individuals involved open to enforcement action."
Does this mean that The Rangers cannot become listed on the stock exchange again for at least 4 years while he is the chairman? And no regulated company can deal with King in any way?
We live in a country where Catholics can’t become prime minister so it is no surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regulated means ‘FCA regulated’ as they are involved in providing financial services to consumers. Regulated firms either by the FCA (or broadly for banks the PRA) have to have approval for individuals to hold certain roles but the club is not going to be regulated. Firms offering financial services would (should) not do so to an individual who has been cold shouldered. Does not affect the club but the dullards running football thought he was fit and proper before and probably think this confirms this view.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
OK my bad, by regulated I meant listed on the stock exchange like they used to be....Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolm
A Catholic can be prime minister but not head of state, as the British monarch is also head of the Anglican Church. This also disbars Protestants who are non-conformists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
See the 'shot across the bows' remark from the judge - is that aimed at the Hun or SD or both ?
The action taken seems to be against king as an individual rather than as acting as an office holder of the club/company. It was I think his actions in buying shares to obtain control that were in breach of the code and so it is him and not the club that is subject to this sanction. That said you might expect the bad smell from his cold shouldering to impact on anything the club/company might want to do with him in office in respect to share activity that requires firms to provide regulated services ....but to (too) many nothing seems to make that club unworthy of respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
omfgQuote:
Originally Posted by cloudsquall
Hate to tell you thus, but it happens to Protestants too. Its bollocks whatever side comes out with it. Maybe step one is both sides accepting they gave a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Not after a fight here, but can you tell me how many Protestant popes there have been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Thankfully things have moved on so that the Succession Act has been amended. However, I always think people wouldn't get so angry about it if they accepted the reasons for its introduction, and understood what the reformation was about.
Likewise, it there would be a lot less aggro if people learned what King William's motives were and who his allies actually were.
Seems to me the reason for all this arguing is ever so slightly off target.
Of course there are idiotic bigots of all persuasions, and I've known Catholic bigots, but in Scotland anti-Catholic bigotry is far more prevalent, due to the composition of society. Whenever you get a minority you get a scapegoat, and I'm confident there is no Catholic in Scotland who hasn't been subjected to sectarian abuse at least once. We've all heard the chat about taigs/Fenians/left footers/green grapes/papists etc. I've experienced it and been judged accordingly; even your name can still cause raised eyebrows, let alone the school you attended. This nonsense persists in Scotland; we hear it regularly at football matches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
That is disgraceful. I have to say I worry about how other people relate to me that the Catholics I know don't complain about it in such desperate terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Maybe time for me to bite the bullet, and tell them to be more honest. As someone who has always tried to develop mutual understanding, I'm concerned I'm naive about how bad things actually are.
Put it this way, I would walk out of a wedding like the one shown, but I'd like to think I knew enough about the people not to go in the first place.
Erm none, as the head of a religion is usually required to be of that religion. That's very different from the head of a state which contains people of all religions and those of no religion. A religion is by definition a religious organisation; a state should be secular and keep out of religion, in my humble opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
Secukarism is a relatively new concept, and one I am happy to embrace. I think you really need to understand what went on during the Reformation to understand why Catholic monarchs are banned to appreciate my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Anyway, these discussions always end in years, so I'm out.
I'm just glad the OP showed that horrendous wedding. I was due to go to one involving a family from Shotts next year. It was a timely reminder of why I pulled out.
AT LAST!!!!
No, we huvnae won the cup again :wink:
But the SFA have grown a pair :greengrin
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50016954
I do understand, having read on the subject. However, it's a side issue to me. I would abolish monarchies and hereditary superiority of all kinds, religious or not. It's a medieval nonsense which perpetuates the class system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
Don't expect a response, he is out for years :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Quote:
these discussions always end in years, so I'm out.
I can't disagree with that. It's divide and rule at its worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Quite incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
I think a lot of us would agree with you on that.
:aok:
It's a socialist analysis, which we aren't supposed to mention in our money obsessed society. Accident of birth shouldn't be a factor, yet we live in a country where one quarter of our prime ministers attended the same school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50016954
The SFA will presently be trying to find an excuse why they shouldn't kick The Lying King out of Scottish football for not being a FPP.
Should be a hoot when the SFA publish the reasoning for their not guilty verdict.
Think for one minute he was the Chairman of Albion Rovers. He'd be banned for life.
Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever gonna be any progress...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
I really love it when this thread appears at the top of page one! Hopefully this is another boot in the studs for Der Hun. I don't know what it means in real terms but hopefully very bad news for them and costly as well
Sevco need to be shot of him before it gets to that, they are a toxic brand with King at the helm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by The Harp Awakes
Given the courts kicked Sevco and Sports Direct out in the hope that they reach an agreement amongst themselves with a promise to reconvene in January, does this not very much hand the initiative to Mike Ashley?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
He can pretty much say as much scathing stuff as he likes about Sevco and Dave King as their credibility is in the mud.
Can he not make pretty much any request now and say that the "cold-shouldered Dave King" has consistently acted inappropriately, as you would expect from such an individual, therefore the court ought to grant SD x,y,z..............
Sorry to disagree on this but whilst there has not been a law against a catholic prime minister since 1827, there has never been a catholic prime minister. Actions speak louder than words in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Watching Stuart Wheeler on BBC justifying his influence on the Tories and Brexit based on his success as a gambler...if you didnt know he wasnt an Earl/Lord/Duke, you'd have no idea he wasnt born into wealth and privilege:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Just watched him on 'HARDtalk' where he denies being brought up in a 'relatively wealthy family' - it must've been sheer hell for him at Eton then !Quote:
Originally Posted by SJNB Hibby