Gibbo

Does anyone have any details to the WoW sequel? My mate says it is called Ogre's Quest.

Though I havent seen the Smyril accounts I can safely say that £135 million (according to S.Times) of debt is a serious problem. To me this company is screwed. There seems to be little chance of trading it out given the grossly inappropriate ship and lacklustre passenger figures. Now, the 135m is secured against the assets of the company and is probably due mostly to the banks. I would not be surprised if they called in the liquidators/administrators/faroese equivalent. And that would leave SIC with diddly squat once all the other creditors are paid off. SIC would probably save money by calling in the liquidators, etc, rather than throwing more - unsecured - money at Smyril. It would be interesting to see the accounts because if they are NOT prepared on a "going concern" basis then it means the management and auditors have serious concerns about viability of company and could be on verge of going bust (it will be clearly stated whether they are or not). Has anyone seen them? Or could access them? Unsurprisingly they are not on the Smyril website (as far as I can see).

A friend of mine did a poo in the dug out of a Junior football team's ground in Aberdeenshire. Suffice to say, it was many moons ago 8O

Isn't that what all national charities do? "If you dont donate then money then starving children die/we wont find a cure for cancer/meg the dog will never find a loving home" It seems a bizarre criticism. As for the Fighting Fund proceeds, it looks as if there will be a sizeable surplus left over (assuming HO doesn't lose the plot and appeal - not impossible). It seems fairly obvious that it wont be spent on a family holiday, piss up at Posers or repatriated to original donors. Likewise, I cant see it being given to a national charity. I am almost certain it will go to Shetland charities - most probably CATS. Appears perfectly reasonable to me. And, as has been posted before, reputable people - we are told - are in charge of the funds so there is little chance of anything untoward happening (I would hope).

8O ...what the hell was all that about? Theft, treachery, dishonesty...

This is just a suggestion - but perhaps, Peeriesookey, the "debate" of the past week or so has alienated a lot of folk regardless of the merits of your aunt's case

Before my day I am afraid - I only took an interest during Indurain's final couple of tours.

i have bin neither aggresive, vitriolic or any o da things du says. - YOU HAVE i have dun nithing tae merit dis singling oot dat folk have decided tae launch at me, - YOU HAVE but i refuse tae get dragged intae a slanging match wi folk wi far too much time on der hands and who are far too willing tae drag this thread aff topic by accusing ithers o doing it. - WELL DONT THEN For the record, Peeriesookey has posted NINE times today 1.30am 1.03pm 1.49pm 1.58pm 2.15pm 2.37pm 2.47pm 3.12pm 5.05pm Now, who has too much time on their hands? My previous post received a reply within about 5mins of initial post. Peeriesookey, do you sit in front of your computer hitting the refresh button? Waiting for someone to post. I await you response (estimate time of arrival - 20 seconds from now)

I know this thread is "supposed" to be for debating the Satch issue but there appears to be very little debate going on - just slurs, aggression and nonsense. Peeriesooky's latest contribution was a classic - "I thought of something to say but decided it was irrelevent so I decided to say it anyway but because it is irrelevent it is also relevent." I am paraphrasing, of course. Freedom of speech is, of course, important but this is too much. The thread has been spoilt by a trio of obstructionists. Would it not be better if they were banned? Or better still, bowed out voluntarily with the profuse gratitude of everyone else. The we could all get back to discussing the relevent issue in a intelligent and considerate manner. I await Peeriesooky's vitriolic backlash with resignation.

I dunno about Ullrich as a contender (even before eviction). 1. He is in his thirties 2. He never seems to have the "fight" in him 3. His only victory in Le Tour now seems like an aberation during the transition from Indurain to Lance 4. Surely his lack of dynanism is a serious disadvantage. Throwing the bike in the big gear and cycling at the same cadence, uphill or not, seems rather lacking. My tip: Kloden

Here, here.

by the way, that was a hypothetical - not a direct quote. In case anyone accuses me of mis-quoting.

The point is these questions are heavily loaded which leads Satch's supporters and others to view them as unsavoury additions to the debate. For example... "I am totally on Satch's side but would his supporters tell me why we should support a convicted criminal with little to add to society beyond his taxes and a cheeky smile. After all, the public were far less vocal in their support for Hazel and Tanya. Perhaps - and I am not condoning this view - it is because he has loads of mates and isnt unemployed/mentally disabled. I just want to know because I am interested. This is a DEBATE after all? Or is it? Why is everyone so defensive? What are you trying to hide?" These kind of messages are very TIRING.

two seperate references to M.Theresa in the space of a minute...eerie...

Again... The facts surrounding the Satch case are the main argument in his favour. But if some insist that his "contribution" to the community is spelled out, laid bare and quantified then here goes. Since his imprisonment, Satch - by all accounts - has steered clear of trouble and led his life on the straight and narrow. He has a full time job for the local authority and is well liked/respected. In addition (from what I understand), he volunteers his time and abilities in service of local sport. One does not need to lead a Mother Theresa-like existence to "contribute" to society. Personally speaking, I have a job and stick to the laws and conventions of the UK. Though I do not put in 20 hours a week for Oxfam I still feel I make a contribution to society. I certainly dont take anything away from it - and the same goes for Satch.

What the hell is this? No one has said Satch is "invaluable." As has been mentioned repeatedly the argument against Satch's deportation rests on the facts not personality (though most agree he is a decent lad - despite past mistakes). So why bang on about his "contribution"? This is not a "debate" - it is a small group of people picking on an irrelevent issue and using it (or trying) to discredit a wider - and overwhelmingly - positve cause. Typical line of argument - public support for Hazel Minn and Tanya Koolamatri (sp?) was less vocal than for Satch, therefore Satch does not deserve the support he is currently receiving. I shouldn't have to comment on logic like that.

I have got to stick up for Moderators here. This is not a publicly-funded resource (to my knowledge) thus no one has any god-given "right" to express an opinion. It is a private resource where members of the public are "invited" to comment. It is the moderators who have the rights - to expel whoever they think deserves it and for whatever reason. It is THEIR house. Segatrix's posts were almost universally negative and confrontational (and, dare it be said, boring?). The positive climate of that particular thread was being compromised and I for one heaved a sigh of relief when Sega was given the digital boot.

i need do nothing of the sort as i wasn't being subtle or wanting people to read between the lines as i was saying exactly what i was putting accross. and michael....WHEN DID I SAY HE DIDN'T DESERVE SUPPORT???? I am quickly losing any feelings of support for the guy if the people on here giving me a hard time about the points I raised....NONE OF WHICH WERE AGAINST HIM....are any indication of sakchai himself....and since his supporters are effectively his representatives, you are NOT doing yourself any favours. RATHER THAN HAVING A GO AT ME BASED ON THE MISINTERPRETATIONS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MADE, STATING THINGS I NEVER SAID, TRY READING MY ACTUAL POINTS....THEN SHUT UP!!!! may i humbly suggest not taking other folks comments too personally. you seem to be fairly attack minded in your defence but i haven't read anything too malicious relating to yourself to warrant telling others where to go, especially if you don't want similar treatment back. for the record i'm largely in agreement with your points of view, perhaps they can be represented in another thread before we end up with a mk. III of this effort? I have been paying close attention to this forum thread since its inception but had yet to post. I just want to say a couple of things that spring to mind. Firstly, to all the people involved in the team from organising meetings, petitions, maintaining forum, etc - you guys are doing an awesome job. I am sure there are few places in the UK that could mobilise such a potent outpouring of community spirt. Secondly, I feel this thread has taken a sour turn in the last day or so with all the back-biting. In particular, I really dont see why people (esp. Segatrix) need to comment on whether they particularly liked Sakchai or not. That is surely irrelevent ( I am sure most thread participants would agree). The facts in this case are pretty clear cut and that should be the focus of attention - Immigration folks get their facts wrong and arbitrarily arrest someone who has the express support of the local community. It would be a shame to see this thread spoiled by uneccesary negativity.