Slarti

Maybe there's a new thread needed, "Absolute Total Cunts".

I did, and I know a few others who did. Then again, opinion isn't proof, no matter what some on here say.

You can almost smell shull coming out the Fiesta?

I'd assume that being as densely populated as London and having nearly half the population under 18 has something to do with it, too. Also, being a religiously motivated organisation, I would expect Hamas to have its fair share of young impressionable "boy soldiers". Again, to be clear, both sides are total cunts in this.

It's Callum, so that's a real possibility. [emoji16]

Callum might lend you his jet.

I never go by supporters bus - cos I don't want to associate with the likes of you. [emoji13]

You're just looking for double "likes", ya big "like" whore, ye. [emoji2957]

Hey!!! c**t, mate, not twat. Not a total c**t, though. That's a different thread, altogether. [emoji16]

You should know better.

Can't have that, it might make them feel at home.

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?

It was reported on Radio Scotland that Sevco had advised their fans to leave early due to expected heavy traffic. [emoji1787]

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.

They are required to by law. That doesn't mean that they will. After all, everyone is required by law to not rob banks.

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.

Maybe there are some "current workings" that need changed. And what Callum said above.

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.

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.

I'm going to assume that was deliberate. [emoji16]

I think Celtic and Sevco deal with away tickets for their bigots.

Quote mining at its best there, bud. 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.

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. Not that the club will actually do any of that, though, as it will cost money.