Kitman

Happy birthday fella

stop saying over and out??? it wouldnt require a time machine but bassong for 4m Nah man, bring back Des Hamilton, he was proper mint like, would be worth 400 million poond and we wud be world champions !!!!11111 Come on Gutierrors, let's have some real deluded mag stuff, just like the mag at work, that's what the OP wants, eh

Does anyone care, really? If anything it gives mccoist an excuse for coming second, which looks likely anyway given Rangers' form.

I reckon Bendtner and Cattermole on the night could do some real damage in the centre too

If I could turn back tiiiiimmmee If I could find a wayeeeee

* sigh *

* sigh *

You're right about the junta. Of course we've been happy to do business with evil dictators before and since, scruples don't usually play a part in most countries' foreign policy....... Like Pinochet. Exactly. And Saddam Hussein, probably

More like the next Stephen Glass. I'm sure he drew the odd flattering comment too when he was breaking into the first team........ The new Tony Green. I shit thee not. I think it was Alan Oliver who said that though. Fucking hell

Hearts and Motherwell should be happiest about it. Celtic will be cutting costs all over now they're the only game in town. My Celtic supporting colleague reckons because they nearly went bust in the 90s they are already run prudently. Dunno if thats true

I assume you're directing that at Chez. I was just making a joke. I think Chez was too. Righto

I wonder if there's a Scottish equivalent of Leazesmag fighting the good fight on a Rangers' forum somewhere Goading and misquoting Leazes on the old argument. He'll get blamed for dragging it up if he responds of course. What Leazes actually says is clubs "don't go bust and out of existence" Do you think they'll be out of existence soon, or even relegated (like us) in order to steady the ship? I assume you're directing that at Chez. I was just making a joke.

Is the 'imperialist' angle bullshit though? According to Wiki it was annexed as a naval base and settled as a colony to provide a staging post for rounding Cape Horn in the 1830s.....there was an Argentine garrison there already that was forced to leave at gunpoint, and Argentina has as much historic basis to its claim as the Spanish and British before the navy moved in to claim it. I'm not sure I get the comparison with the Channel Islands either because it's what 20 miles? from Britain. It would be more like the equivalent of Japan annexing the Shetland Islands in the 19th century, building a naval base there and filling it full of Japanese goat herders. And then telling the UK to fuck off at gunpoint every time they asked for it to be returned. Not a perfect analogy, given the continuous population of the Shetland Islands since the Dark Ages and their proximity to Scotland, but perhaps something more like how the Argentinians see the issue. Not that I'm making excuses for Argentina, or even care about The Falklands. If you can call it 'Argentina', they did own it for just over 10 years, the Spanish owned it, and the British have, they are the two main people in the settlement of Falklands. What I meant is that it may very well be imperialism by the British if you so please, but then surely it is with the Argentinians too? Since it's never properly been theirs? The Channel Islands are right next to France and a channel away from Britain, but they're British. I don't care about the Falklands too much either, and like I said if they wanted to be independent i'd happily let them. But giving them to a country who they don't belong to is where I stand the line. The European population of Argentina who have never properly owned the islands calling Britain imperialistic whilst wanting some islands full of people who don't want them, not see the pot calling the kettle black? I see your point but my problem is I see even less sense in Britain owning it. However we can't give it to Argentina anyway after men have died to 'defend' it. Maybe we should give it to Peru.

Is the 'imperialist' angle bullshit though? According to Wiki it was annexed as a naval base and settled as a colony to provide a staging post for rounding Cape Horn in the 1830s.....there was an Argentine garrison there already that was forced to leave at gunpoint, and Argentina has as much historic basis to its claim as the Spanish and British before the navy moved in to claim it. I'm not sure I get the comparison with the Channel Islands either because it's what 20 miles? from Britain. It would be more like the equivalent of Japan annexing the Shetland Islands in the 19th century, building a naval base there and filling it full of Japanese goat herders. And then telling the UK to fuck off at gunpoint every time they asked for it to be returned. Not a perfect analogy, given the continuous population of the Shetland Islands since the Dark Ages and their proximity to Scotland, but perhaps something more like how the Argentinians see the issue. Not that I'm making excuses for Argentina, or even care about The Falklands.

Celtic supporting colleague just been past my desk. Still got the same great big grin on his face he's had on all day.

Im sure they are hoping for HMRC to back down. As things stand the tax man would get nothing after other creditors got their share. I believe this is just a lever, to get the Tax man to settle for a much lower sum. Makes sense, although HMRC might rank ahead of unsecured creditors, I can't remember.

It sounds like they have lived beyond their means for years, so that the dry bumfucking by HMRC is the final straw. Dunno whether they're hoping HMRC will back down and do a deal or whether they are in such deep shit that they've got no choice.

I said we'd lose by 2 goals. If only.

I have a Glaswegian colleague who supports Celtic. I must say he's pretty chipper to day...

You're right about the junta. Of course we've been happy to do business with evil dictators before and since, scruples don't usually play a part in most countries' foreign policy.......

I have mixed views on the Falklands, and I lived through the conflict. To boil it down, I believe we were probably right on the principle of sovereignty - on the basis that the people who live there were technically British citizens and didn't want to be annexed by Argentina - but wrong in all other respects. Firstly to me it's a bit silly that a godforsaken rock in the middle of the Atlantic is treated as part of British territory and we have/had any sort of responsibility to defend it, especially given that Britain's historical claims to the islands are somewhat murky. Secondly I don't think the interests of 3,000 people and a few sheep justified the expense and lives lost of the original conflict. Assuming it was about them and not oil in the first place. I don't agree with Britain owning the Rock of Gibraltar but I can at least see the strategic importance of it. I was very cynical about Mrs Thatcher and her motives for the conflict and I still am. As much as Galtieri and co were an obnoxious regime I'm still not sure what the point of the conflict was, other than a vote winner.

iirc Prince also has a guitar shaped like a penis to play his long twiddly solos on. Which is nice.

I do hope CT isn't driving a fare and trying to read this at the same time.......