W6er

3,014 now sold! Still less than 50% of home capacity, but then I'd expect a few hundred tickets to be sold tomorrow. I predict a crowd of 5,300.

Wow! They sell some really nice stuff...though no scarves! LOL Thanks.

I searched the internet, but didn't come up with much. Care to share?

Aye, I've actually ordered one now which I hope will come tomorrow or Saturday morning. Thanks.

Whaaaat?! Typical. You know I couldn't even buy a plain black and white bar scarf from the shop, either!

LOL I actually don't care! I suppose that does make me a sad b***ard really, as pfffffff my evening has gone...spent debating a subject I care nothing about with complete strangers. But then I also spend my time counting the tickets we've sold for Saturday's game, though.

I hope I don't seem contrary, but do many families really go away in February? The forecast is terrible, which I'd have thought would put people off going out altogether. Does it? I have never monitored the ticket situation as closely as this before but as of about five minutes ago, we've sold 2,938 plus the 1,600 to visiting fans. Ordinarily I would expect a bigger attendance for a Saturday game, but as it's not included in one's season ticket, the weather is miserable, the side is struggling and people are skint after Christmas in many cases, I'm not overly optimistic. See my reply to Pod. How were they prevented from buying tickets?

In your opinion. I actually do not care, to be honest. Going by the comments here and offline, I'd suggest the consensus is that the age of consent is too low.

It's not illegal to fart in a crowded restaurant, but it's not acceptable behaviour. Like it or not, and you clearly do not, but people will disapprove of a sexual relationship between a 42 year old and a 16 year old.

My point was essentially that either the age of consent is too low or one should accept that someone age 65 can sleep with a sixteen year old. I also agree that assuming MacKay hasn't used his position to coerce the sixteen year old or harassed him, then, aye, he has done nothing illegal. It's considered good social etiquette. People can and do judge other people all the time, unfortunately. Also you used the term 'adults' which isn't strictly true in this case, as the boy was sixteen. Just so there's no ambiguity, I agree with you that people should respect the law and leave the law abiding to get on with their lives free of harassment. My point earlier was whether the law is correct, or should the age of consent be raised?

Yes that age is 16. You seem to be getting a few things muddled here TRAFKATS wins the debate. I throw in the towel...

Aye, there's some sort of rule - I think you half your age and add eight. Though, I've always gone for older women - I have had girlfriends eight, ten and thirteen years older than me!

No, it implies that they are more susceptible to grooming type behaviours. Either you believe a sixteen year old is capable of making a rational choice about their sexuality and with whom they would like to have sex with, or they're not. Define 'grooming'? If I make discrete enquiries about a girl to check her availability, send her flowers and contrive to bump into her and engage her in conversation, am I not 'grooming her'? Anybody can block a telephone number, or tell somebody they're not interested. Of course there are situations whereby somebody can use their position of authority or seniority to coerce somebody, but that's a different thing. There has to be an age where people are allowed to make their own decisions about important matters, whethere that's 16, 18, 21 or 25 is up to society.

Precisely! That would imply that a sixteen year old is not mature enough to make decisions regarding their sexual partners.

Don't k iw about angry but I think society is uncomfortable with a 42 yo harassing a 16 yo and abusing their position to do so. Ah! To be honest I haven't actually read the story, though my Mrs did tell me that he'd sent 100 texts to the boy. I said to her that those 100 texts could have been over a period of months, and part of a conversation in which the boy had frequently replied. Equally, it could be that the politician harassed the boy and was trying to coerce him into sexual activity. The media can present facts in such a way as to make an innocent person looks bad. Would you be comfortable with a fully consensual relationship with a 42 year old man and a 16 year old boy? What about a relationship between men of 25 and 51?

Do you think the age of consent should different for males and females? Or heterosexual males and homosexual males? No. I think there should be a universal age agreed upon when somebody is considered mature enough to make decisions about their life, and that should be it. I cannot see how one can be mature enough to make decisions about their sexual conduct, i.e. potentially procreate or contract STIs, but not be mature enough to buy cigarettes/alcohol, drive a car or vote. If sixteen is a legitimate age of consent, then why are people so angry about this? To me it implies society is uncomfortable with it.

Ach, I heard about this earlier. It certainly is creepy, but I have to wonder why the age of consent was lowered to sixteen? I mean if you cannot vote at sixteen, and you cannot drink alcohol or buy cigarettes, then why is the age of consent 16? Either someone of that age is mature enough to make decisions about their life or they aren't. I cannot help but think the legislation was passed to appease Peter Tatchell and other gay rights lobbyists.

That's why the Arbroath game was abandoned: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-keeper-conceded-a-corner-from-his-own-kick-out-strong-winds-force-match-between-arbroath-and-stranraer-to-be-abandoned/ Not to my knowledge. If the wind is the same speed throughout the game then arguably conditions are even. But if you're playing into a 45 mph wind, I'd suggest it must have an impact on you.

I think one is always better playing with the wind. If we win the toss we should definitely decide to play with the win, as it could die down in the second half. Furthermore, playing into the wind is tiring, and if we took a two goal lead into half time, they'd feel despondent as well as tired. It will make the game more unpredictable.

I'm not sure there would be a health and safety issue do to winds of 45 mph, but I'm wondering whether it would make a farce of the game. If it goes ahead I'd be pleased, as it's the same circumstances for both teams, unless the wind dies down in one half! It could make for a very interesting cup tie and might suit us more.

I thought he was going to play for Raith?! Strange, because I would think he'd still be good enough to play in the third tire.

I can remember being at some windy games, but I don't think 40+ mph.

Aye, happened in Arbroath last year. 45 mph is enough to bring down branches, so I think it might be enough to stop the game.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2640677 Apparently there will be 44 mph winds! Surely the game would have to be abandoned in that weather, as it would be farcical?

Some of the Motherwell fans aren't very optimistic about their team's chances, following their loss away to Livingston and thrashing at the hands of Sellic: https://www.steelmenonline.co.uk/forums/index.php?/topic/16098-scottish-cup-2019-2020/page/12/#comments Ach, I can't wait for this.