PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
That's it in a nutshell. The fact that every opposition fan I could be arsed to engage with don't even know what we're charged with, but are certain to the last Higgs-Boson particle in their body that we're guilty, says it all.

The lot of em are braindead pricks of the highest order...

The worst thing is it shows what's wrong universal suffrage. I've long since held the view that before being allowed to vote, the electorate should individually demonstrate that they actually know who & what they're voting for.

I tend not to comment on things I've no knowledge on, but your average football fan thinks he can switch from the Daily Sport & Only Fans, to expertly comment on matters that would even flummox Economists reading the Financial Times.

I truly fuckin despair! ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯
Click to expand...
Oh no. The first requirement of a democracy is the Rule of Law, laid down by consent and applied equally to all. Consent is given by the population voting in a gov on their behalf. Requiring knowledge to get the vote means some people have not consented, a perfect recipe for chaos. Loonies will deliberately fail to qualify and then claim the law does not apply to them as they go about nefarious business.
See the women’s suffrage movement and theories of extra parliamentary activity.
 
KS55 said:
Oh no. The first requirement of a democracy is the Rule of Law, laid down by consent and applied equally to all. Consent is given by the population voting in a gov on their behalf. Requiring knowledge to get the vote means some people have not consented, a perfect recipe for chaos. Loonies will deliberately fail to qualify and then claim the law does not apply to them as they go about nefarious business.
See the women’s suffrage movement and theories of extra parliamentary activity.
Click to expand...

I'm too stupid to understand all that. Can I vote please?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings is set out in the PL rules. There is no NDA.
Click to expand...
Eh? They’re the same thing - a binding set of rules which explicitly state what you can say (nothing) is an effective NDA.

Which was my original point - Masters isn’t ’being coy’, he simply isn’t allowed to say anything.
 
Iassel said:
Eh? They’re the same thing - a binding set of rules which explicitly state what you can say (nothing) is an effective NDA.

Which was my original point - Masters isn’t ’being coy’, he simply isn’t allowed to say anything.
Click to expand...

Not even sure why I am talking to someone who came to Chiang Mai, the delicious food capital of Thailand, and went for dinner to the Taj fucking Mahal ....

I am, however, willing to accept that I was being pedantic with the terminology. Still, there is no NDA. :)
 
singcat said:
It’s also not true - I was sucked into reading it and she goes on to talk about ‘breaches’ not alleged breaches and an appeal - presuming our guilt!
Click to expand...
Yes she does. “the timeframe of the breaches run from from 2009 to 2018 and noone has any clue at all what kind of punishment will ensue or how it will be appealed”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top