Comment Moderation Thread

By

Above post moved from the main blog. Not sure …

Comment on Comment Moderation Thread by Bryce Curdy.

Above post moved from the main blog. Not sure if SFM is taking me up on my suggestion or trying to be funny, probably the latter lol. Think I’ll give up at this point.

Bryce Curdy Also Commented

Comment Moderation Thread
SFM – a few of us, myself included, feeling a bit sore having had posts deleted yesterday. While my own post was about refereeing it was very generic and made no reference to last week’s incident. I thought it genuinely added to the debate and was consistent with the stated aims of the site. Ultimately we do all have to respect that it is your ball and therefore your rules and if we don’t like them we can go and play elsewhere, in the same way that if you don’t like any of us you can stop us playing. I have never moderated a blog and can only imagine what a thankless task it must be.

How would you feel about a deleted posts thread where you thought material that you thought was unsuitable for whatever reason for the main blog could be moved to, an extension of the current moderation thread if you like. There will obviously be a few posts that merit permanent deletion.


Comment Moderation Thread
I had a post deleted as well yesterday in which I politely asked on what basis did SFM reject even the possibility of refereeing bias. I know that non-Celtic fans believe that the notion of anti-Celtic bias is absurd, but my reason for posting is simply to reassure the non-Celtic fans that they are not being victimised.

Moderation is a thankless task but sometimes feels heavy handed on this site. Ultimately posters will move with their keyboards if they feel it detracts excessively, but we do have to recognise that it is SFM’s ball.

Regarding yesterday’s penalty Paul67 on CQN predicted that Celtic would benefit from a relatively inconsequential refereeing error in their next match to perpetuate the myth that the ‘honest mistakes’ even themselves out. He was nearly right.


Comment Moderation Thread
Matty Roth, ernie

I have not read the deleted posts in question, and even although I am a Celtic supporter I would not want this site to be moderated in any kind of pro-Celtic manner. One of it’s main strengths is that all clubs are represented (although Rangers/Sevco are obviously very under represented in relation to their fan base) and the minute it starts to resemble the Sevco thread on kerrydalestreet (very enjoyable from a Celtic fan’s perspective) or a Sevco based thread on CQN (possibly even more so) is the beginning of the end.

Matty, I genuinely don’t believe there are deliberate attempts to confuse the debate. To take up your point, the problem I and many Celtic fans have is that Tonev has been charged by the footballing authorities with the equivalent of a criminal offence. Few will appreciate and even fewer will be arsed to make the distinction you describe. He has been found guilty of what is a criminal offence even although he has not been investigated for one by the police or charged with one by the fiscal on the basis of one person’s word and is forever more branded a racist in the public’s eye (see The Sun). Perhaps some Celtic supporters are incapable of viewing this without green tinted specs but I would be hugely troubled by this regardless of the club involved.


Recent Comments by Bryce Curdy

To Comply or not to Comply ?
The definition of ‘tax avoidance’ seems variable although HMRC’s version appears to be that stated by Homunculus and perhaps that is the only one that matters in this context.

In the USA the definition is much wider and covers any form of legal tax management that reduces tax liability.  The Collins English dictionary seems to define it similarly.

But I’m struggling even harder to get my head round the differences between tax avoidance, unlawful tax avoidance, illegal tax avoidance and tax evasion!


To Comply or not to Comply ?
AULDHEIDMAY 16, 2018 at 11:34I would not be so sure of the accuracy. Regan is on record of saying granting ended 31st March and monitoring was down to UEFA.Traverso reply indicated a logical lacuna if this was what UEFA intended.This year the list of clubs granted a licence can be to UEFA at 31st May at the latest.In 2011 it was by 26th May 2011. So how can UEFA monitor any licence applicant if they do not know who have been recipients of a licence. There is also other statements in the Traverso reply that strongly challenge Regan’s understanding.So if anything turned up of significance until UEFA notified it is up to RFC to notify SFA and they to notify UEFA immediately.What did or did not turn up, depending on whether RFC followed the rules before 26th May, would question the veracity of statement in RFC Interim Accs that was drawn from Grant Thornton. It does not help the case for innocence when under CW Rangers were prepared to state they did not receive a significant document which is why they failed to act on it when it was pointed out they had already admitted its arrival to HMRC month before. The devil is in the detail but there are questions to be answered regarding the period before UEFA could possibly start monitoring. The SFA know what they are.” Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones” D Rumsfeld Feb 12 2002.
 —————————————————————————————————————–
Crossed wires I think, and my fault.  When I said accurate I didn’t mean to imply for a second that I believe any licensing transgressions were limited to the monitoring period and that everything was tickety boo on March 31st.  But it wouldn’t surprise me if this is exactly how the SFA will try and fudge things and that Sevco have been given a nod and a wink.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
I think we can see where this will end up.
Sevco’s claim that the charge relates purely to the monitoring period has yet to be confirmed but reasonable to assume it is broadly accurate.
This will allow the authorities and Sevco to claim that Rangers’ CL participation in 11-12 would not have been affected and that as they did not participate in 12-13, Celtic, Kilmarnock and no other club has lost out financially.  Rangers will be found guilty but the punishment will be a slap on the wrist, probably a five figure fine.


Is it time for the Sin Bin?
So Bobby Madden has been selected to referee the Celtic ‘Rangers’ SC SF.  He was selected for the last but one league encounter.  Whether he is a deliberate cheat or merely sees what he wants to see because of his well documented allegiances isn’t the point.  He should be nowhere near this fixture and is yet another example of SFA corruption/incompetence/two fingers to decent fans of Scottish football. Many will suspect this decision (which would not have been allowed in England) is the authorities once again doing everything in their power to help the Ibrox club.  Hard to imagine healthy season ticket sales with an increasingly likely third (or lower) place in the league without the compensation of silverware.


Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
I’ve not posted on the site for many months having contributed regularly previously. I have thought carefully about the repercussions of next Wednesday’s announcement and suspect many will disagree with what I’m about to state, but here goes:
i would rather see the Supreme Court reverse the CoS decision than for them to uphold it but there to be no consequences, which is what I fear will happen. If the Supreme Court find against HMRC then I will reluctantly accept that Rangers’ use of EBTs was within the letter of the law by the proverbial bawhair. It will of course leave the wee tax case and the five EBT recipients referred to above by Highlander unresolved. For the CoS decision to be upheld but ignored will forever leave a foul taste in my mouth.


About the author