Crispian Crunchie

Guess what ? It is the name of a character in a book. A Pish book, mind, but still a book.

Can't get my head round this Rick? If I read you and a couple of others correctly you seem to be saying that Paedophile suspects, investigated by the police and the evidence considered by the CPS, then subsequently charged should be given special status?
Why stop at Paedophiles? Why not roll this special anonymity to Rapists, Terrorists, Murderers, Knife Crime suspects etc, etc....
You need to read up on Roache's charges Rick, he stands accused of two counts of Rape against a 15 year old girl, when he was 35.
Then again i'm sure like you say having lived with the guilt, shame, fear for 46 years the woman who was that 15 year old is more than happy to go through all that pain, suffering and trauma again... only this time all her family, friends, neighbours will know, she will have to come to court and recount every moment of her ordeal, and how it scarred her's and perhaps other lives forever.... just for the compo!
Ffs man, catch a hold of yourself. And point me in the direction of this mythical lynch mob, which town/towns are putting one up?
P.s. the nine year old was Hall's youngest victim, he was prosecuted for sticking his hand up her skirt. yeah he deserves special treatment.

So a victim has to live a life time of torture and trauma, having lost faith & trust in their fellow man, even when decades later they find the strength from god knows where to come forward and give evidence against their abuser?
But even when the police and prosecution service determine there is a case to answer the Abuser should continue to remain anonymous, as they have done for decades? never once seeking to take accountability for a life, or lives they have wrecked in fulfilling their criminal needs???
If someone is arrested and charged some 46 years on, don't you think the justice system have concluded there is a case to answer?
The institutions like the catholic church, the BBC, succsessive governments have colluded to cover up and deny victims the chance to see their abusers and colluders take accountability. It seems some on here back that state controlled collusion!
Any coincidence a couple of weeks back that out of no where Roache gives an interview to New Zealand TV insisting people accused of abuse should remain anonymous??? He knew what was in the offing, and the power he held over his victim to maintain his annonymity was being peeled away.
Yeah maybe we should all keep quiet, sweep it under the table, maybe they were asking for it? who waits decades to recount a horrendous attack that leaves them riddled with guilt, shame prone to suicide? yeah they'll be after money.
I feel genuine sorrow for my fellow man when even today they're are people prepared to question the motives of victims from decades ago, rather than condemn the likes of Saville and the BBC for suppressing, facilitating and covering up decades of abuse.

Can I suggest that the next person that pastes in the full text of the Hamas charter is run out of town?
Mainly because it's wasting acres of space. If Reynard wants an argument about the wacko self-justifications of one Palestinian sect instead of a discussion about a bloke unjustly getting his collar felt at a football match, I'd respectfully suggest that he goes and finds it elsewhere.

Can I suggest that the next person that pastes in the full text of the Hamas charter is run out of town?
Mainly because it's wasting acres of space. If Reynard wants an argument about the wacko self-justifications of one Palestinian sect instead of a discussion about a bloke unjustly getting his collar felt at a football match, I'd respectfully suggest that he goes and finds it elsewhere.

Can I suggest that the next person that pastes in the full text of the Hamas charter is run out of town?
Mainly because it's wasting acres of space. If Reynard wants an argument about the wacko self-justifications of one Palestinian sect instead of a discussion about a bloke unjustly getting his collar felt at a football match, I'd respectfully suggest that he goes and finds it elsewhere.

Can I suggest that the next person that pastes in the full text of the Hamas charter is run out of town?
Mainly because it's wasting acres of space. If Reynard wants an argument about the wacko self-justifications of one Palestinian sect instead of a discussion about a bloke unjustly getting his collar felt at a football match, I'd respectfully suggest that he goes and finds it elsewhere.

Can I suggest that the next person that pastes in the full text of the Hamas charter is run out of town?
Mainly because it's wasting acres of space. If Reynard wants an argument about the wacko self-justifications of one Palestinian sect instead of a discussion about a bloke unjustly getting his collar felt at a football match, I'd respectfully suggest that he goes and finds it elsewhere.

Think we probably need to focus on the precise legal justification for the action that was taken against DSS. At the very least it seems questionable, and particularly in the context of the apparent lack of action against significant numbers of Celtic/OF fans chanting rather more offensively tendentious political sentiments. The question of the quality of the stewards that other large clubs bring to Greenhill Road is definitely one that urgently needs raising in this context (it's otherwise a very good idea).
The intention is to clamp down on racist or sectarian abuse at football grounds, which is laudable, and which I'd suggest nobody could reasonably argue with. However, there does seem to be some confusion amongst stewards and supervisors as to what does and does not constitute this sort of abuse. A Spotters' Guide might be the solution, but at the very least I think that a measure of improved training of all ground supervision staff wouldn't go amiss.
Too many people are focusing on the red herring of why would DSS want to shout "Free Palestine" in the first place. People have been screaming all manner of odd things from terraces at Love Street and at Greenhill Road for 140 odd years. Yes, "Free Palestine" is political. But it's not exactly sectarian, nor racist, nor even particularly hateful. As Bluto points out, it's an assertion of a legitimate human rights aspiration, perhaps a little out of context at Greenhill Road, but then when were human rights aspirations ever limited by the specifics of geography?
Given that Sunderland FC have just appointed a fascist sympathiser as their manager, and that their chairman has disgracefully tried to justify this gross offence to the sons and daughters of Sunderland that fought fascism in war to protect their way of life by asserting that politics should be kept out of sport, but the people of Sunderland are showing signs of having none of this nonsense, we need to remember that keeping politics and sport separate is not only impossible, it's not actually very desirable.
I really don't think that there is any imminent danger of Scottish football being infected by Israeli/Palestine sectarianism in the way that Northern Irish sectarianism has blighted the game for generations. Though of course we need to be wary, arresting people for espousing a free Palestine at football matches is just un-necessary.

Think we probably need to focus on the precise legal justification for the action that was taken against DSS. At the very least it seems questionable, and particularly in the context of the apparent lack of action against significant numbers of Celtic/OF fans chanting rather more offensively tendentious political sentiments. The question of the quality of the stewards that other large clubs bring to Greenhill Road is definitely one that urgently needs raising in this context (it's otherwise a very good idea).
The intention is to clamp down on racist or sectarian abuse at football grounds, which is laudable, and which I'd suggest nobody could reasonably argue with. However, there does seem to be some confusion amongst stewards and supervisors as to what does and does not constitute this sort of abuse. A Spotters' Guide might be the solution, but at the very least I think that a measure of improved training of all ground supervision staff wouldn't go amiss.
Too many people are focusing on the red herring of why would DSS want to shout "Free Palestine" in the first place. People have been screaming all manner of odd things from terraces at Love Street and at Greenhill Road for 140 odd years. Yes, "Free Palestine" is political. But it's not exactly sectarian, nor racist, nor even particularly hateful. As Bluto points out, it's an assertion of a legitimate human rights aspiration, perhaps a little out of context at Greenhill Road, but then when were human rights aspirations ever limited by the specifics of geography?
Given that Sunderland FC have just appointed a fascist sympathiser as their manager, and that their chairman has disgracefully tried to justify this gross offence to the sons and daughters of Sunderland that fought fascism in war to protect their way of life by asserting that politics should be kept out of sport, but the people of Sunderland are showing signs of having none of this nonsense, we need to remember that keeping politics and sport separate is not only impossible, it's not actually very desirable.
I really don't think that there is any imminent danger of Scottish football being infected by Israeli/Palestine sectarianism in the way that Northern Irish sectarianism has blighted the game for generations. Though of course we need to be wary, arresting people for espousing a free Palestine at football matches is just un-necessary.

Fair enough bud, I can't criticise anyone for feeling like that.
I too am disgusted by the proposal and particularly the way it has been worded, but I see the strength of feeling all the way through the leagues and believe the fans will ensure this fudge doesn't happen.
Rather than try and kill our own club, we should be trying to kill the proposal. In my opinion.

I'm (not really) surprised that Liverpool Bud's helpful and relevant suggestion has been ignored in the rush to bash the politicians and suggest that a takeover by Bashr Al-Assad would be preferable to any council involvement.
It really is worth looking at the highly successful relationship between Wirral Borough Council and Tranmere Rovers. As Liverpool Bud says, the borough council pumped essential funding into Rovers that kept them alive in return for a long-term sponsorship deal. To this day, 20 years on, "Wirral" is the only name that appears on Rovers' shirts, and not some commercial sponsor, a source of tremendous pride to my Rovers-mad friend, and thousands of other Rovers fans on the Wirral peninsula. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby the borough council benefits from the sponsorship exposure, and the club benefits from a local authority genuinely investing in what's important to local people. There is no council involvement in the management of the club beyond the funding and sponsorship.
So before you kick off on a predictable anti-council rant, why not have a look at what the district council is proposing, and see whether it may be worth looking at with the Tranmere model in mind? Seems to me it could be well worth looking at.

AM 180 - by Grandaddy.