Why do you think he, Medro and BH are banned from the Celtic board? (not by me I hasten to add.)
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Why do you think he, Medro and BH are banned from the Celtic board? (not by me I hasten to add.)
That and the fact that everything they posted on there was taig this, fenian that. Girvan and BH more so than Medro. Medro is just annoying ****
That and the fact that everything they posted on there was taig this, fenian that. Girvan and BH more so than Medro. Medro is just annoying ****
So you banned someone for being annoying?
Fenian and Taig do not harm me. Do you know what they mean?
Yeah, you banned BH and Girvan because they are bigots but you banned Medro for annoying you?
Who banned them then?
going back a bit,
The legislation is bullshit
They are using the proverbial sledgehammer in this case but perhaps it will be watered down a bit. However (you knew that was coming) in light of the recent not proven fiasco I think some people will suspect that new improved legislation will be needed.
If a reliable witness' - like the head of security at Hearts - evidence is not enough to convict a rat like the moron who attacked Lenny, then maybe we do need new legislation. I mean, if that guy can get off what chance do we have of a jury convicting anyone in a case less high profile or in one where the accused was not clearly as guilty as Lenny's attacker?
excellent point. I'd not suggest it is by design, but the result of that case certainly lends weight to the argument.
Again, exposing my ignorance of the scottish legal system, does there not have to be corroboration for things like that in Scotland?
Not when a private citizen is giving evidence in court as an eyewitness.
Corroboration is only required by the Police when making an arrest and giving evidence to what they witnessed. When they made the arrest they were unaware that a sectarian remark was made by the attacker, that charge would have been added when statements were taken from the witnesses.
The Jury had a simple choice to make when it came to deciding whether he was guilty, was he lying or was the Head of Security lying.
They chose to believe a Ned who had already admitted to attacking Lenny.
The one big issue I have with the OP is the argument that a democratically elected government of one country has by default a greater moral authority than that of a smaller country or group of people - by the virtue of being elected by a larger country only.
It would be worth remembering that although the British Army were and indeed are under the command of the elected representatives of a particular corner of Europe (most of England, a minority of Scotland and Wales and none of Ireland) that this by itself does not bestow moral authority over Ireland, in which not one person could vote for the British Labour or Conservative party.
It could be argued that the IRA under the guise of Sinn Fein had over 90% of the elected vote in the West Minster constituency of west Belfast and therefore had more legitimacy to be on active service within their own constituency than an army consisting mostly of Englishmen run by a government from England.
My point is of course bordering on absurd to most, but still it is just as absurd to give an elected British government a carte blanche on military morality in territories in which no one could actually vote for that government, whether it be west Belfast, Iraq or Afghanistan.
It would be worth remembering that although the British Army were and indeed are under the command of the elected representatives of a particular corner of Europe (most of England, a minority of Scotland and Wales and none of Ireland) that this by itself does not bestow moral authority over Ireland, in which not one person could vote for the British Labour or Conservative party.
It could be argued that the IRA under the guise of Sinn Fein had over 90% of the elected vote in the West Minster constituency of west Belfast and therefore had more legitimacy to be on active service within their own constituency than an army consisting mostly of Englishmen run by a government from England.
My point is of course bordering on absurd to most, but still it is just as absurd to give an elected British government a carte blanche on military morality in territories in which no one could actually vote for that government, whether it be west Belfast, Iraq or Afghanistan.
Starvin, on the whisky after being dragged home by the missus from an extended family day out in the Chimney Corner. She's lying asleep now beside me on the sofa while I'm refilling a wee hauf.
Trying to validate or invalidate the actions of the IRA is perfectly summed up by the cliche, âOne manâs terrorist is another manâs freedom fighter!â and you will never get concensus between factions who believe in opposing ideas, whether it be the occupation of the West Bank, a united Ireland or an independent Scotland. And anyway, the struggle for or against a united Ireland is not sectarian as not all catholics are republicans and not all protestants are unionists!
IMHO the most interesting point in the OP is the point about the British Army and John Reid.
How is it possible that the most millitant Celtic supporters accepted the appointment to their board of a man who in their eyes had been a member at the top-level of the hated, imperialist British government, who's decision it is to deploy the army, either legally or illegally.
Another perfect example of ignoring the facts to fit your argument, a talent which most radicals possess.
IMHO the most interesting point in the OP is the point about the British Army and John Reid.
How is it possible that the most millitant Celtic supporters accepted the appointment to their board of a man who in their eyes had been a member at the top-level of the hated, imperialist British government, who's decision it is to deploy the army, either legally or illegally.
Another perfect example of ignoring the facts to fit your argument, a talent which most radicals possess.
They didn't. The Green Brigade (who most people would regard as the archetypal 'militant' celtic fans [whatever that's supposed to mean]) have long made their opposition to Reid's position known. They have hung their banner upside down for 4years to symbolise precisely that.
To paraphrase: another perfect example of ignorance of the facts to fit your argument.
It was Celtic fans who started calling him Dr Death
Celtic board are not interested in fans opinions...just their money
Celtic board are not interested in fans opinions...just their money
They didn't. The Green Brigade (who most people would regard as the archetypal 'militant' celtic fans [whatever that's supposed to mean]) have long made their opposition to Reid's position known. They have hung their banner upside down for 4years to symbolise precisely that.
To paraphrase: another perfect example of ignorance of the facts to fit your argument.
Fair play, I stand suitably chastised.
However as the upside-down banner didn't work, it might have been better to have a banner like,
"No bloodstained politicians on our board".