Slarti
-
Posts
3,467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Slarti
-
-
It was reported on Radio Scotland that Sevco had advised their fans to leave early due to expected heavy traffic. [emoji1787]When did they leave for the game?
I was in Dundee last night and all routes in/out were gridlocked due to the combination of roadworks and a bad accident.
As for flares ALL clubs should get rid of these idiots. -
Yep. But my point was that, just because something is against the law (in the case of directors/board members, acting against the best interest of their company), it doesn't stop people doing it.Robbery may be against the law but getting caught is worse
-
They are required to by law. That doesn't mean that they will. After all, everyone is required by law to not rob banks.And you took my comment off on some sort of an anti OF tangent, off topic too.
An anti Kibble shareholding rant would have been off topic too, but we are stuck with them for now.
Whoever the Kibble reps on our board support is irrelevant and off topic.
All board members MUST act in the best interest of the club.
My comment was to highlight the difficulties that the OP would have -
To be honest, I'm looking to take 3 points from them at least once each. Maybe I'm getting carried away but I feel justified.Games against the ugly sisters won't define our season. Any points are bonus points.
Sent from my SM-S906B using Tapatalk -
Maybe there are some "current workings" that need changed.To be fair, I care more about the individuals who seem to be hell bent on derailing the current workings of the club at every turn.
And what Callum said above. -
I'm in contact regularly with around 20 - 30 Saints fans from different walks of life, some of whom are members of SMISA, and not one of them could care less about the situation being discussed.
These are all guys in their mid-fifties and over. They're all relatively intelligent individuals.
Their teenage children are all Saints fans too.
Guess what? They couldn't give a shit either.
I'm sort of using that as a general indicator of the Saints support as a whole. Maybe I'm wrong and there a re thousands of fans losing sleep over this.
I don't think anyone is claiming to be losing sleep over it.
If you, and those you know, don't care about the integrity of SMFC board members, then that's your choice. -
So we're in our best position on and off the park for years and you're advocating change?
As much as this is debated on here, the majority of St.Mirren fans, even those who are part of SMISA, couldn't give a shit a bout this matter, other than to point and laugh at "Mr.St.Mirren".
How do you know the opinions of the majority of St Mirren fans? -
I think you'll find that's covered in all the other stuff - causing harm, infringing on the rights of others, etc.You missed a bit, maybe it didn't get past the proof readers.
"Other people usually suffer the consequences of the shit some people pour onto the world whilst referrencing their own right to "free speech""
-
Sadly caught by cancer................... and no he didn't charge me for that little gem of advice, which I have tried to follow to the best of my abilities.
Checking and double-checking texts and posts on here is hard going, especially with so many "learned" obervers out there............ I might catch on in another 15 years!
I'm going to assume that was deliberate. [emoji16] -
I think Celtic and Sevco deal with away tickets for their bigots.Probably be a packed end at their away games, full of banned GB (ironic abbreviation, eh?) fans who’ll turn up in their droves at away games.
Or is the Celtic club responsible for flogging away tickets to them? I saw no reference to Celtic stopping the pollution of other grounds. -
Quote mining at its best there, bud.I will quote the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“everyone has the right to free speech within the law” - https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/freedom-of-speech-challenges-and-the-role-of-public-private-and-civil-society-sectors-in-upholding-rights/
The principle is the same - criminalising speech. It's the punishment and the manner in which the law is framed that's different.
Only in this madhouse does a match thread descend into a debate on the definition of free speech! [emoji2957] I'll take responsibility for derailing this one and will bow out of this thread for ~25 hours, at least. [emoji4]
What about this, from just before your quote?
"Subsequent international agreements have recognised that the freedom is not an unrestricted right. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, was explicit that the right may be limited by law. Article 10 of the convention reads that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” and that this includes “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. But it adds the caveat that restrictions may be imposed for a variety of reasons, including to protect the rights of others:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has summarised what this has come to mean in the UK. It said that “everyone has the right to free speech within the law” and noted that “unless it is unlawful, speech should usually be allowed”. The committee’s summary continued:
The right extends further than just the right to make speeches. It extends to all forms of expression. Together, freedom of expression and freedom of association cover the right to form societies with lawful aims, even where those aims are not shared with the majority, and the right to peaceful protest.
Free speech is not an absolute right: it is right that there are limitations to ensure that it is not exercised in a way which causes harm to others. We note the law prohibits speech which, for example, incites murder, violence or terrorism; stirs up racial hatred, or hatred to other groups; causes fear of violence, alarm or distress, constitutes harassment or is defamatory or malicious. It does not prohibit speech which others may find upsetting or offensive."
Which is just a wordier way of saying what I said - freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequencies of your speech.
-
So if the punishment is less severe and the prohibited speech not clearly defined, then it's free? I would argue the reverse is true, the vagueness of the law means that people are likely to be more cautious. However, the principle's the same: say the wrong thing and you will be punished. That's not free speech.
[mention=16936]Albanian Buddy[/mention] - do you not think it rather 'convenient' that the Celtic board are choosing this particular time to act on these alleged healthy and safety infringements attributed to the Green Brigade? Also, I like how they've left this until the day before tomorrow's game to give the shortest possible window they realistically can to prevent the organisation of demos, etc.
My plan for tomorrow night is to forget about the game completely. I will treat it like buying a lottery ticket - I would be ecstatic if we won, but I will essentially put it out of my mind and not seriously consider the possibility that we will get anything. I'm not even sure I will check the score, as I know I will get a number of messages if we pull off a shock result.
The principle is nowhere near the same.
And it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH, not FREE SPEECH. There's a big difference and probably why you disagree. You're disagreeing with something that doesn't exist. One is the right to say things, the other is no cost for things said. -
We should be more strict and tell them that if any bigoted songs are heard then their allocation will be cut in half. If it happens again, then quartered. A third time, a one game ban. A fourth a two game ban. Etc. Same for standing. If it's put out as a condition for all clubs then they can't complain of victimisation.Good on Celtic FC for taking action against the GB.
If only the other half of the ugly sisters would take similar action against the singing of mindless sectarian songs as wintnessed on their recent visit to the SMISA Stadium. Apparently they find it quite acceptable for their fans to be singing in earshot of national TV cameras ....."up to our knees in ******** blood".
Yet again the football and police authorities also choose to turn a deaf ear to this bile - I wonder why that is.
Not that the club will actually do any of that, though, as it will cost money. -
No, North Korea has laws against free speech. They specify things that you're not allowed to say. Here it's a more generic "likely to incite" sort of thing. Even then, you are still free to say them and take your chances in court if charged.I see, so North Korea also has freedom of speech...you're free to say what you like there, but the consequences are three generations of your family will be interned for life in a slave labour camp or killed. [emoji4] -
All that then "Best wishes"!!!! [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
-
I don't agree. What would be disgusting would be to stifle their right to free speech and expression.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech.
Everybody is free to say what they want, when they want and where they want. If what they say gets them banned from somewhere, charged with something or kicked in the somethings then that is part of the price of freedom of speech. -
Not really. [emoji1787]You need to ask? [emoji12] -
I found that comment to be very suspicious, as I cannot imagine an Arab having blond hair and blue eyes. All the photographs online indicate that he didn't!
I will have to look into this further, because my understanding was it was the Arabs who were offered the smaller portion of land and, quite understandably, refused the partition deal. However, this has made me rethink my understanding of the conflict.
The problem is that there's so much propaganda it's difficult to know what to believe. I might actually buy a decent book on the subject.
You could always ask[mention=15031]antrin[/mention] as he's been around since before the Israelites kicked out the Amalekites. [emoji16]
-
Bellingham or Albanian Buddy?Best Young Footballer in the world.
This boys is going to be a superstar.
-
Apparently, someone thinks that because the funding wasn't granted and, even if it was, it would have required SMFC approval for the plan to go ahead, that nothing of note has occurred. The fact that Kibble used the SMFC charity name in their proposal without consent and presented SMFC land to be used in their proposal without consent, seems to not matter a jot to someone.So , last year you say there was no plan put forward by Kibble , albeit at very early stage , to secure public funding for a project which used the name of other parties ( or party ) without their knowledge ?
So that did not happen at all - that’s what you’re saying ? Right ? [emoji848]
As I have previously said, it's about the trustworthiness of those involved. -
Which couldn't have been passed anyway without 100% Board approval. AW stirred up a hornets nest because he thinks he's relevant , when he clearly isn't ! IMO
The biggest point to me is, if they have done this once, how many other times have they done something similar, or how many times would they have done something similar if they had got away with this time.
It's not really about the scope of the "crime", it's about the trustworthiness of those involved.
-
The other folk ... and Cookie. [emoji16]So… Cookie Monster and myself are arses?
Or the people doing the political correctness?
-
That they are an arse.What does it tell you, then?
I attach no special value to generalised food product nomenclatures.
(apart from sometimes overdoing long, clumsy words…) -
Don't think it was ever officially "brae", though it was always referred to as such. Still is.Those two posts I pasted were really to point up “Brae”…. which is what I/we called it back in the day…
eta. And prob’ly “Murn”, too. [emoji4]
Flares
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
A bog like the old Love Street ones - roofless and basically just a wall to piss against. Is my dislike for them coming across enough?