King adherents reaffirm their faith despite every counterfactual

218

“Time has now been provided to allow Mr King to take the steps that will be required for him to arrange for Laird Investments (Pty) Limited to make a code compliant offer for shareholders’ shares”.

Translated: It’s a fair cop.

The former statement was made on Newco’s website by court order yesterday to confirm Dave King would comply with the Takeover Panel’s Code and earlier court findings.

This offer to shareholders will see some of the club’s founding fathers cash in their chips and ponder the wisdom of their six-year investment.  Allegations of their involvement in organised crime may, or may not, be valid, but the club will soon be more concentrated in the hands of Dave “penniless” King than ever.

Getting the money out of South Africa will involve a tax consideration.  The entire exercise will cost money that would otherwise be available for investment in the club, not to enrich early-investor shareholders and the South African Revenue Service, but the court has had its say.

As ever, this finding in favour of the Takeover Panel was delivered in language consistent with “favourable settlement” phraseology.  “Time has now been provided”, suggesting what happened at court last week was the spontaneous creation of time, not a clear instruction to perform against deadlines.

The ref flags are all there, we are clearly in Trump/Brexit bombast territory, where the adherents reaffirm their faith despite every counterfactual and the rest of us roll our eyes and wait on the inevitable consequences. It is a successful leadership strategy, if lacking in a long term survival plan.

Share.

About Author

218 Comments
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6

  1. Macjay from thru the night

     

     

     

    Climate change is a theory.

     

     

    Climate change is a theory which , in the OPINION of some people who support said theory , is a theory which has been proved

     

    It has not.

     

     

    In your original post, you were suggesting that a theory and an opinion had some equivalence and that this was also a FACT. Now you are making a sensible discrimination between the two after your initial carefree or careless usage.

     

    Now, who , exactly is saying it has been proven? And proven to be what?

     

    If I say this particular theory has proven to be the best fit for the facts and observations available, then I am on safe ground.

     

    If I say it has been proven to be persuasive to the vast, vast, vast, majority of informed scientific minds who have looked at the data, then I am also on safe ground.

     

     

    If I say it has been proved beyond doubt, then I am over-stretching scientific certainty.

     

    If I say it has been proved as a fact, I am being anti-scientific and worthy of criticism.

     

     

     

    The Theory of Climate Change has gaps and unexplained data to account for yet. It may even prove to be wrong in many facets.

     

    Thanks.

     

    That is really the only point I was trying to make.

     

     Retain a healthy scepticism.

     

     

    Firstly, I think you veered away from healthy scepticism through to unhealthy cynicism and on to outright denial. You did this when you introduced your second point (so it was not the “only” point you were making) that they only come up with this stuff because it is in their self-interest to do so.

     

    In market forces terms, there was much more money sloshing about and available to researchers who could bolster the argument against climate change than there was money to research evidence in support of the theory. No-one would ever argue that there are not rogue researchers who would chase a buck and “suppress” or “mis-interpret” or “downplay” evidence in research; we all know of incidences where it has happened. However, few people would be “brave” (in the “Yes Minister!” Sense of the word) enough to assert that all of these fine minds, dedicated to the purity of the research principle and exposed to the discipline of the scrutiny of equally ambitious and informed peers, would all just make it up, or go along with a mis-informed view, or suffer from an outbreak of mass hysteria and suddenly all agree with each other. Anyone who did has never seen the inside world of academic research. And, then, to assert, on top of that, that they are doing it for the riches available… well, that does begger belief.

     

     

     

    Climate change is a socialist construct . Rammed down the throats of school age children . Designed to turn them into lefties by their leftist teachers.

     

    Sadly , they are succeeding.

     

     

    Look down the road a wee bit. See those things waving at you? That’s your senses taking leave of you at this point, that is!

     

    I get you don’t like Socialists (even though you lump various shades of social democracy and totalitarianism thought into the same label; I guess you would not accept Sweden, Norway or Finland in your 20 countries construct) and I get that you would prefer that Climate Change was wrong too and we did not have to face the consequences of it being broadly correct. And all you have done here is lump two things you don’t like together and blame each of them for the other.

     

    Governments of all hues would prefer to keep the money they are spending on combating climate change for other projects. Socialist governments would prefer to spend the money on the betterment of the poor. Right wing governments would prefer to spend it on tax cuts for their friends or military expansionist projects. And Macron type centrists would prefer to spend it on PR to promote the virtues of being ideologically baseless. None of them would want to spend it on Climate Change measures unless and until they had been convinced of the need. Now how do you account for the fact that all these political hues have been persuaded? Were they bought? What is their self interest in promoting a “false” ideology? How socialist is Arnie Schwarzenegger (who immediately denounced Trump’s stance and said he was not typical of most US thinking on this matter)?

     

     

    Your schoolchildren will survive a day off school to protest against Climate Change policies. There are some scenarios where they won’t survive. So long as they arrived at the decision to protest without being compelled and by exercising their own informed decisions, they should be applauded.

     

     

    In conclusion, it is quite appropriate to be opposed to the Theory of Climate Change and to present alternative evidence. It is neither appropriate nor convincing to just shout it down or try to paint it as a big lefty plot. That convinces nobody of sound mind.

     

     

     

    P.S. In other right-wing news- Wee Jamesie is the frst name on the team sheet.

     

     

    Off to work now

  2. Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on

    JimmynoPaul,

     

    overpopulation is a myth created by the greedy western world to allow us to discard 40% of the worlds food as refuse, there is plenty for all, if the west wanted. Its easier to think starving people are the result of overpopulation, a bit like what happened in Eire in the 19th century.

  3. If we beat Well and Killie on Saturday,will there be the same hysteria when we are top of the league again?.

  4. macjay1 for Neil Lennon on

    SETTING FREE THE BEARS FOR RES. 12 & OSCAR KNOX on 5TH DECEMBER 2018 9:09 AM

     

    Now, who , exactly is saying it has been proven?

     

    ===========================================

     

    David Attenborough.

     

    The Pope.

     

    Barry O`Bama

     

     

    Where have you been ?

  5. I was under the impression that Climate Change was a fact ; the reason (s) for it, opinion.

     

    Is that not the case?

     

     

    JJ

  6. Turkeybhoy @ 9:16

     

     

    I hadn`t been aware that Sevco were not playing until Sunday but, to answer your question, no, there won`t be. Hope that helps.

     

    JJ

  7. macjay1 for Neil Lennon on

    MACJAY1 FOR NEIL LENNON on 5TH DECEMBER 2018 9:22 AM

     

     

    I get that you would prefer that Climate Change was wrong too and we did not have to face the consequences of it being broadly correct.

     

    =======================================================

     

     

    That`s not the case at all.

     

    I like facts. I don`t like theory presented as fact.

     

    That`s the beginning and end of my stance on just about every issue.

     

    Climate change is presented as fact as was it`s predecessor ” global warming ‘” ?

     

     

    Not that long ago and for a number of years , the hole in the ozone layer was presented as a dangerous development .

     

    Why no word about it now ? Has it miraculously closed up ? Because we all changed our fridges ?

     

    Or was the scare campaign precisely that . Totally unjustified.

  8. Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on

    The Ozone continues to deplete, it’s no discussed as much because those in charge of the meeja don’t consider it as important as warmongering.

     

    A bit like the link between mobile phones and cancer, you don’t here much about that anymore but it’s still there.

  9. macjay1 for Neil Lennon on

    MACJAY1 FOR NEIL LENNON on 5TH DECEMBER 2018 9:35 AM

     

     

    I get you don’t like Socialists …………

     

    ====================================

     

     

    Not true at all . I`ve socialised with many socialists .I simply feel they need re-education.

     

    I try to do my bit .

     

     

    Perhaps their loyalty to their roots or their parents makes them reluctant to be seen as ” class traitors “.

     

     

    There can be no justification for supporting a theory ( or is it an opinion :-) ? ) which has been proved time and again over many decades to have failed.

     

    Often tragically.

     

    Socialism created Hitler.

     

    Merkel is pushing people in the same direction.

  10. Repeat comment and question:

     

     

    I was under the impression that Climate Change was a fact ; the reason (s) for it, opinion.

     

    Is that not the case?

  11. macjay1 for Neil Lennon on

    HOT SMOKED on 5TH DECEMBER 2018 9:23 AM

     

    I was under the impression that Climate Change was a fact ; the reason (s) for it, opinion.

     

     

     

    Is that not the case?

     

     

    =======================================================================

     

     

    Salient point.

     

     

    There is reasonable evidence that there is warming .

     

    The cause is in dispute. ( Man made ? )

     

    As , therefore is the remedy.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    JJ

  12. Joe Filippis Haircut on

    Morning Bhoys there may be a very slim chance that big Boyata may sign a new contract with the hoops if he does it would be a superb signing for the hoops and save the club a big transfer fee trying to sign his replacement. Motherwell away is another hard gig for the hoops they will be ready with there usual roughouse tactics but we need to win in order to keep pressure on sevco. The transfer window will be opening soon and we need to sign at least two players if not more to freshen up the side we also need to move on some of our fringe players. H.H.

  13. Trump has a Golf Resort in Doonbeg Clare, last year he pissed off some locals looking to build a 14 ft sea wall to protect his dunes from rising sea levels due to Global warming.

     

    This time he got his wall, so when it suits his interests Global warming is a fact and when it doesn’t it’s a theory. Anyhow of far more importance Please God Stephen is given some credible hope for recovery today.

  14. FAVOURITE UNCLE on

    vJOBO BALDIE on 3RD DECEMBER 2018 1:27 PM

     

     

     

    i took your advise re screen STICKING and it worked a treat.my wife says you are a gent and then i reminded her that she called you a really good looking guy last year.

     

     

    scrolloncsc.

  15. CANAMALAR IT LOOKS LIKE OCD OBSESSION on 5TH DECEMBER 2018 9:11 AM

     

    JimmynoPaul

     

    overpopulation is a myth created by the greedy western world to allow us to discard 40% of the worlds food as refuse, there is plenty for all, if the west wanted. Its easier to think starving people are the result of overpopulation, a bit like what happened in Eire in the 19th century.

     

     

    Canamalar.

     

    Thank you for your response.

     

    What you say is true and is another scandal.

     

    The point I was trying to make, and failing, is the effect the growth of human population is having on all other living creatures.

     

    We are wiping them out, by continuing to encroach in their environment.

     

    In the not too distant future, there will be very few left in the genuine wild, they will only be in National Parks that we will have created for them. In the UK that’s no safeguard for them though, as they are still killed with impunity on them.

     

    Hail Hail

  16. Anyone not bothered to read back here is a short smmary

     

     

    yes it is

     

    no it isnae

     

    yes it is

     

    no it isnae

     

    yes he did

     

    no he didnae

     

     

    got the gist

     

     

    meanwhile we have an important game tonight – Broonie to start – probably at Tom’s expense

     

     

    break over – back to chores

     

     

    laters

  17. MURDOCHAULDANDHAY

     

     

    Very best wishes for you today!

     

     

    Always remember you in my prayers.

     

     

    Good luck and God bless.

  18. Go tell the Spartim on

    Turkeybhoy

     

     

    Of course not, we wont get any credit whatsoever it will be the usual rhetoric about us having the biggest budget blah de blah, sadly for them the record books wont show in brackets (they had the biggest budget) beside all our achievements.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6