That's got to be Rocket at the wind up under an alias? Honest to god where did you learn law Spin man? Seems like you've watched too many episodes of Ironside. Next thing you'll be telling us how "when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however unlikely must be the truth"? I'm afraid ranting on endlessly quoting "facts" (that are nothing of the sort) may go down like a house on fire over on Follow Follow or other one-sided bear pits, but when confronted with people who know better, conspiracies and malevolent tittle tattle fall down under even cursory scrutiny. The only people who say "big jock knew" are people who seem to have a loose grasp of the concept of "knowing". Jock Stein was not accused of "knowing" by any of the victims but as this heinous campaign shows, people like you are not interested in the feelings of said victims, all you see is a chance to have a go at Celtic.
I ask because you've already explained that to gain a conviction without physical evidence you need the testimony of more than one person. If that is the case then it must mean that no rapist has ever been convicted on the testimony of just one victim and I'd be staggered if that was the case. But I honestly don't know so perhaps you could tell me what happens in **** cases..? Do single victims never gain a conviction..? Or if they do then how..?
Gosh, I'm so easily confused! So you are saying here that "know your enemy/enemies" IS used in common parlance but that that CANNOT be considered to be "time-honoured"..? Goodness me! Is there a committee which makes these decisions..? And are you on it..??
"adminicles"... You've made that up haven't you..! So where the two pieces of evidence are testimony it has to be more than one person - no..? What would be the two pieces of evidence in a **** case where one claims consensual and the other ****..? Can you answer the question I've already asked you twice on this subject..
You've never beat me on here yet and when I threatened to kick your **** in you absolutely shat yersel! People on here were embarrassed for you though not as much as the time you posted your legal qualifications........ What a dick!!! I knew then we had a complete tit on our hands.
You seem to have a loose grasp of the concept of physically putting someone out of Celtic Park. How one could do that and not 'know' about it or not 'know' why one is doing it..? How on earth would the victims know that he knew..? I haven't seen anyone suggest that Jock Stein stood there and watched or even interviewed any of the victims himself. The allegation, made under oath in a Court of Law (in which you are an expert mind, although you don't seem to put much store in the system) was that Jock Stein was made aware of Torbett's activities. How he learned of this isn't properly explained I agree, but obviously he must have learned of it if he then personally ejected the offender from Celtic Park as is alleged on oath. I tell you what, you give me a good reason I should believe the word of a convicted *****phile, a friend of said *****phile who happened to be employed by said *****phile and a director of the organisation which would be greatly harmed if the allegation was found to be true. Tell me why i should believe them over the testimony of a man who apparently has no axe to grind against Jock Stein and which has been at least partially corroborated by a man i believe is commonly acknowledged as Celtic's greatest-ever Captain who said the knowledge of the abuse at Celtic Boys club was an open secret within the corridors of power at Celtic Park..? We are expected to believe that the Club Captain and Directors of the Club knew but the Manager didn't..? Squirm all you like, BIG JOCK KNEW... Your concern for the victims is touching. As is your obvious love and deep respect for your greatest-ever Manager. Just a shame he didn't share your concern for the victims or for future victims eh..?
Or it could be the fact that fans of his club were campaigning to get him awarded a posthumous knighthood and most decent-minded people don't think you should reward someone who protected a *****phile a knighthood.. And even to this day you laud him as a great man, which, as the saying goes, says more about you than cash ever can..
LOL - Scotscourts.gov doesn't have a definition for that term. i'm beginning to lose faith in that system - although i don't think I'm as far along that line as you are just yet... So, low but presumably not zero. I think I'll give up asking the question as you really don't seem to want to answer it.. Uhmm, by the same context isn't it only allegation that he didn't know..? By people with, to be perfectly honest, just about zero credibility to boot.. When it comes down to it I'm just never going to believe a *****phile and his mates. No rational person would.
Ah good! I'm glad you came back to this. I'm just going to repost my original replies: Where in any of those reports does it say that the Queen knew..? Where in any of those reports does it say that this guy worked for Rangers Football Club or any affiliated organisation..? Where in any of those reports does it mention that The Queen is an employee of Rangers Football Club..? Where in any of those reports does it mention or imply that the Queen protected a *****phile in order to protect the reputation of Rangers Football Club..? In short - what the **** are you talking about..? Don't pat your forehead bud, actually I do need it explained because I see no correlation between the two. I don't see any Rangers fans demanding explanations from Celtic over *****phile priests or the Pope/Vatican's protecting of them. Jock Stein was an employee of Celtic Football Club and, as evidenced in official court transcripts, he knew a *****phile was operating within the structure of the Celtic Boys Club. He did not call the Police or Social services but chose instead to quietly usher the offender out the door. Because this sick and twisted individual was not outed and caged he was free to later return to that organisation and commit further acts of abuse.. The man who ensured a *****phile remained free and unexposed was then later talked up for a posthumous knighthood. People who protect *****philes because to expose them may tarnish the image of the organisation they work for don't deserve respect, let alone a ****ing Knighthood..
Chip on my shoulder? You couldn't be more wrong. So I left school without any qualifications, big deal, never stopped me from going on to be a successful millionaire businessman did it? But I won't be posting any bank statements to prove it And you're not as smart as you like to think you are either, I continually bring you down to my level and promptly kick **** out you like the cowardly little ****ebag you truly are. Honestly, I keep ripping the pish right out of you and you never seem to learn - it's like ****in shooty - in
Who needs bank statements when you have Q7s/pictures of houses et all Show off **** that ye are Rocket...
We not due another round of pictures from Rocket showing off his new Rangers tap (that just happened to show off his house)
I'll ask you the same question I asked Rocket last week. If Jock Stein "Knew" Torbett was preying on young boys at CBC why did he let his own son George play for them at that time? Would you not think he may be concerned that his own child may be abused? Or is he such a monster that it was a chance he was willing to take or are you suggesting Jock did'nt really care abou his own son never mind the victims? Take your time.
As you know I am not Einstein, But could he simple answer be he might not have known until he sent his son?
One might reasonably expect it to be in the glossary - it isn't. Finding obscure latin-derived legal terms isn't high up on my list of priorities: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/publications/docs/glossary.pdf The Queen knew fine well - with the vetting and security surrounding her staff she and the queen mother clearly knew [/quote] PMSL - How would vetting show this up..? The only way they would know is if they actually physically spied on the individual concerned. Are you suggesting that every member of the Royal household staff is followed around on a daily basis..? *****philes by nature are sly and secretive and don't advertise their activities. Reading the report it appears that this animal began working for the royals in 1977, therefore he was would have been vetted prior to that date. His *****phile activities seem to date from the early 80's - in other words after he had already undergone vetting. Point to any evidence which suggests he was an active *****phile around the time he would have undergone vetting.. It doesn't make it a lie either, and there is no credible reason to believe Birt was lying. Unfortunately Stein never had to account for his alleged actions - or more specifically inaction - in a court of law and that is to be deeply regretted A *****phile and two of his mates said Jock Stein didn't know. I don't care whether that is an allegation, a statement, an opinion, an assertion or a hole in the ground. I'm not inclined to believe what they say. No rational person would. Like your opinion of Jock Stein your opinion of yourself is vastly over-rated..
