bmck

Good work mate.

 

Don't listen to the old b.

Och man, I'm with you. Technology is just awful. I re-oriented my whole career to get away from it. Change for changes sake, I say. This technology is just a fad - I'm looking forward to gersnet-pencil-paper-and-post (gppp if you will) when it comes out

Thanks Zaps.

For the styles, it may be possible to 'revert' to the style to earlier version features. I'm not entirely sure, but if it's feggucked beyond fixing it's something I'm happy to give a go.

I cant seem to use the accessories like quote, change of fonts etc when posting.

They're still there Gribz. One of the things that changes is the style templates - here is the background colour is the same as the word (ie, mouseover shows what's what). It's not usually me that does style things but I'll try and get it done if it continues to be a problem.

Seems to be a few changes. I auto log into the activity page plus the thread list look slightly different

Heya Gribz!

To you and Gazza, there are a few changes, but mostly behind the scenes. It's not a Windows 7 to Windows 8 type change, just the application of important patches.

I'm about now though, so if there are changes people would like to see, I will try my best to get them done.

Welcome back Barry. Great you are back on. I hope your exams went well.

 

Please give me back the Gersnet classic!!!!!!:smile:

They went terribly actually Pete. Difficult exams.

If you start a petition for classic I'll sign it, but with my tech hat on, we are now secure and uptodate.

As someone who has just lost a close family member I know how the family feel, my thoughts are with them.

We lost someone at this time of year a few years ago. It's impossibly hard. Thoughts are with you.

I'm incidentally not saying it's good or bad to sing TBB. What is bad is when things that can be debated in an adult manner are turned into moral crusades with absolute rights and wrongs: there are a million sensible opinions between the two extremes of 'it's fine, there's nothing to explain' and 'censorship is fine, ban it'. Once you indulge people's hypersensitivity (and even indulge the impression that their hypersensitivity is a noble fight against bigotry/cheats/oppression/racism/tax avoiders/evilness), the possibility of sensible debate about anything suffers from the law of diminishing returns. It is now not possible to have a reasonable debate about Rangers, and that's where it started.

I'm not sure if there have been any moral crusades that haven't masked power grabs. It started with TBB, and once you allow that sort of logic, this is where it ends up.

OK, that's the basic upgrade done, and in broadest strokes, things seem to be working. I had to do it a bit earlier than planned as I have a meeting tomorrow that I entirely forgot about.

Please use this topic to point out the things as yet awry. If it's matters of styling, I'll probably leave that in that infinitely safe hands of Zaps and Frankie. But if there are technical things, please let me know.

Apologies for the interference. I did see there were still quite a few people on, but I knew it would take a few hours.

So near Christmas there's no reason beer and work have to be an either-or! :cheers:

1. Thanks muchly

2. Where specifically is that? I'll do what I can.

3. For ye of little faith http://gersnet.proboards.com/

I'm looking for the cctv!, how come you can see me and I can't see you?

 

Genius:smokin:

Evil genius - muhahaha! That beer looks nice!

Two Barry Mckays', both superstars.

Welcome back sir.

Hey Ian - bloody great to 'see' you!!!

Good day to you sir, too. I've missed Frankie loads too but I'd never say it in public on an open forum. It's a bit bad that I'm Barry McKay The Lesser now we have an aspiring superstar playing for the Rangers.

They're still kicking about but I'll fill you in anyway. Ian is still a moody auld chunt and Johnny less so.

Haw you, I won't be hearing any factually true bad words said about Ian!

Grand!!, quite good to get the vb upgrade done

Yeah, sincere apologies about that. It really is over-behind. I'd handed in my resignation from humanity for a while to try and get all the things-wot-needed-done done, and this is very much behind on that front. It'll be the thing I deal with first tonight.

Where's johnny and ian?!

He's STILL studying? He must be one of the most qualified people in the world by now.

 

I haven't seen him post yet but welcome anyway.

Heya Gazza. I'm trying to get there. I think this is the last one. I hope all you arrests have been justified since we last spoke And thanks!

Hello all lovely persons,

Over the next week or so (not today), I'll be doing some house work on the forum. My plan is to do this between 1am - 4am, to cause minimal hassle, but I can't predict whether any time consuming oddities will arise.

So, just to let you know.

Hugs,

Barry

Two years ago a colleague of mine cut out all safety procedures to enter into the working area of a large machine. Another colleague unaware that he was in the machine came back from his coffee break and started the machine. The machine caught hold of the guy and he was crushed to death. Even although my colleague was totally stupid and at fault, bridging all the safety devices, breaking all company rules, my company received a huge fine for allowing it to happen. A company must insure(in precautions as well as insurance) itself even for total stupidity from it's workers.

What I'm saying isn't disagreeing with that pete. Although, in this case because damage was done to an employee we are taking about something slightly different, but that's another matter. The point is that companies are indeed always liable, that's why they must have insurance, but it's just that the person at fault is technically liable too, even though they are rarely if ever sued. But because the law makes the company liable, they are always the one who is sued.

If you want to see what I mean, consider personal injury in certain parts of America. They have a form of proportional liability, rather than vicarious liability. So instead of the company sharing the full legal burden with the employee who committed the wrong, they share a proportion depending on circumstance. So, in America, the person who is injured sues everyone - the employee personally, the company they work for, the subcontractor who provided the equipment if it applies. The Court then determines the percentage each party is liable, and also the percentage each party should pay. In one quite famous cause in Disneyland, the company had to pay 83% damages while only being assumed 1% of the blame. In the UK and Holland it's different - while the person who makes an arse of things is technically at fault, the company share this culpa fully. As such, it is always always the company who are sued. This doesn't detract from the legal liability of the person who made the mistake though.

He said he would talk to them, I doubt he'll get them to concede anything given that it's the govt who'll get all the taxes.

Did he say this directly in relation to our situation?

A constituent MP raised it, saying Portsmouth were under threat of non-existence, and it is not a realistic option to just go and support Sunderland. She asked if the PM would ask HMRC to make any payments reasonable so the club could continue existing as it was going to be taken over by fans, or something of that sort. He said he would.

My business is covered by public liability insurance, which covers the business against any court action resulting from public injury. As far as I know the boss is responsible for his employees and the buck stops with him.

As I said to Pete, this is the practical reality because an employer is always liable for the wrongs committed by their employee in the course of the employment, but the employee is still liable. However, it's not an option for the employer to say "Just sue him, I'm taking nothing to do with it" because they are joint and severally liable, so the person suing is always going to sue the employer. The reason you have public liability insurance is because, under law, your company is responsible for the wrongs committed by an employee. This does not exclude them from legal liability though, it's just in practice they won't be the ones being sued.

Of course the employee probably loses his/her job.

Negligence that leads to the activation of vicarious liability is a breach of contract. So, technically, an employer could sue a negligent employee for breach of contract. In practice, however, they don't. They tend just to fire them.

Law's awful, man.

I know you are studying law, but are you sure about this?

Yes. An employer is vicariously liable for any delict committed by an employee, but, in Scots law at least, employer and employee are jointly and severally liable. In practice, a person always sues the company because they are most likely to have funds/insurance for such things. An employer could, in theory, attempt to recover losses via a breach of contract but don't.

I always thought and I know it is in Holland that a boss is always responsible for the actions of his workers even although they do something stupid to cause an accident. While I am at work my boss is responsible for all my actions.

Yup, the practical reality is that the employer is always, excluding times when its difficult to determine whether an employee/employer relationship exists, the one going to be sued. I don't know about Dutch law, but since vicarious liability - ie, extending liability to another's wrongs - is in violation of basic legal principles, I would be surprised if technically employer's liability weren't a form of joint and several there. It's almost a technical point, though. If employers do not have insurance for such claims, company directors can be sued personally.

I am in no doubt that Rangers would have had tax lawyers and accountants professional opinion to the effect that the scheme was in use by many other clubs and considered an effective means of tax avoidance, which is of course legal; but that, as we all know does not mean that it is not open to challenge.

 

If Rangers did not have such advice or proceeded against such advice then that is another matter.

I have not yet done tax law so any comment I made there would be even less worthwhile than my defamation law article, but it is clear that there were sufficient clubs with sufficient legal and financial advice who thought this was a good idea. There are other clubs with other legal advice who didn't. The clubs who are ultimately going to be proven prudent are the ones that fall on the right side of the forthcoming decision, and the people who ultimately made the decision as to what advice to listen to are the ones going to be responsible for either being smart or being shockingly irresponsible. Advice is just advice - following the right advice is good leadership. Following bad advice when the stakes are so high is very bad leadership. Does anyone know if he used this scheme in any of his other companies?

Craig Whyte conducted a long period of due dilligence Barry, so he should have known what he was undertaking when handing over his hundred pence.

I know, that's what makes it crazy, bold, loyal, or cunning if he has some evil plan.

The major gripes with him are nothing to do with who is to blame or who is the root cause of the tax problem from the previous owner. There are valid concerns about how Whyte is running the club in the here and now as well as what his actual plans are.

All I'm saying is that it's like complaining about the décor on the titanic. All of this stuff we have heard sounds dodgy, and it probably is - though the motives of those saying it have to be taken into account - but it's not going to matter if we get hit with a 42million pound iceberg. Doesn't mean we shouldn't learn our lesson from the previous dodgy owner and hold this one to account, though; as I said, thoughtful criticism and demands for transparency are welcome. Seems a bit like the tax angst is being transposed onto all this politicking and gripe settling and giving it more significance. The tax case is everything.