beyond our ken
-
Posts
5,612 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by beyond our ken
-
-
Would quite like a home game, actually. Get the shite home form of last season put to bed with a nice 3-0 win against Morten.
Aha!
Harket him!
-
Believe it or not, there will be a few business people who frequent our hospitality suite as a business expense without being very interested in St Mirren.
This provides work for the staff and earnings for the club. If you have the money then there are worse ways to spend it
-
So much for an organised launch though. No teaser adverts, no reveal with Thommo wearing it, it just suddenly pops up on the JD website. Surely to goodness JD can organise things better than this.
it would only ever be modelled by a signed player or a professional model. Maybe that is where Thommo is headed
-
Beat them and we get to keep Sheffield
-
Not my words. Personally I'd go for the lying bastards theory, as I've often said spinning a propaganda story that could have come from the pages of Der Sturmer. Anyway as I said, not my words, but the words of Alex Massie of The Spectator who very easily strips down the SNP claims about Full Fiscal Autonomy in one small and succinct article.
As a general rule I prefer the stupidity theory to the mendacity concept of politics. That is, if a politician says something obviously wrong it is more probably because they are thicker than mince than because they wish to deceive the public. There are some exceptions to this usual rule but, most of the time, dumb beats cunning.
Occasionally, however, dumb can also be cunning. Consider this statement from Angus Brendan MacNeil, MP for the Western Isles, as recorded by Hansard:
Now Mr MacNeil, bless him, often fumbles his way towards wishful thinking but this will not quite do. The Vow, no matter how ballyhooed it may be these days, said precisely nothing about Full Fiscal Autonomy. We know this because, helpfully, it was splashed on the front page of the Daily Record.Not that Mr MacNeil is alone. Paul Monaghan, the new SNP (of course!) MP for Caithness nobly decided Mr MacNeil should not zoom alone, tweeting:
Or to put it another way, It’s disgraceful that the Labour party did not support SNP policy even though The Vow said nothing like what we now claim it did.
There is, I concede, a difficulty with terms here. No-one has ever properly defined Home Rule or Devo-Max or even, in some respects (at least those assumed by the SNP) Full Fiscal Autonomy. The latter, for instance, is sometimes taken by enthusiastic Nats to mean that Scotland can have what it wants but that
subsidiestransfer payments, if and when necessary, should still flow north from London. This, according to Stuart Campbell, vicar of theWings Over Scotland parish, is what we were promised: the best of both worlds. (And of course the Nats think it was The Vow What Won It even though this, too, is not the case.)But the best of both worlds we actually voted for – closely, I grant, but also undoubtedly – was to be Scottish and British. I understand that still distresses some people but there we have it. As best as can be determined, the Scottish people – thrawn, contradictory, sods though we be – simultaneously desire a kind of independence within the UK so long as that does not mean anything like actual independence. That helps explain why they support the idea of the Scottish parliament controlling welfare and pensions but also think welfare and pension payments should be uniform across the UK. The possibility of change without the awkward reality of actual change.
And that’s fine, I guess. But, at the risk of repeating myself, the SNP’sdefinition of Full Fiscal Autonomy was never offered. No, not even in The Vow and not by Gordon Brown either. More powers for the Holyrood parliament was all that was offered. And whatever else you may say about it, the new Scotland Bill undoubtedly offers that. It does so even if you happen to think, as I do, that it could go further in a number of areas.
So what are the SNP up to? Apart from making it up as they go along, that is. Well, we’re back to our old friend the narrative. This time the story is a simple one, all the better for instructing the tender-brained and under-age.
Scotland, dear old Scotland, you see, is being betrayed again. They promised one thing (though they did not) and are not delivering it (though they kinda are, despite imperfections in the bill). Westmonster and all those Tories – of red or blue hue – are selling Scotland out again and isn’t it disgraceful.
Why, they even have the gall to insist that UK government policy should be set by the government of the United Kingdom, not the SNP. When-oh-when will they cease insulting us in this fashion? No time soon, that’s for sure.
I don’t quite know why Stewart Hosie, the party’s deputy leader, thinks that a ‘failure’ to ‘deliver’ new responsibilities to Holyrood would constitute grounds for another referendum but apparently he does think that. (To be fair to Mr Hosie, he bolstered his left-wing credentials by, quite correctly, arguing that tax competition within the UK would be a “good thing”. Tax competition, of course, is code for cutting tax.)
Does this mean that when the latest – but far from final! – Scotland bill is passed Mr Hosie will accept that the case for a fresh referendum has been lost? Of course not. That case will move on, like a Great Nat Shark, to another issue. Always forwards, never back.
Nevertheless, it does still remain modestly acceptable to disagree with the SNP’s view of things. And possible to do so without betraying Scotland. Indeed, one could make a more-than-decent argument that the wicked Tories, by refusing to grant the SNP’s wishes, are actually acting in the national interest.
Be that as it may, the utterances of SNP MPs does leave one in the desperate position of hoping they are simply thick. The alternative, that they are trying to con the Scottish people by insisting upon things that are plainly, in black on beige, untrue is too dreadful to contemplate. They wouldn’t deliberately seek to promote and perpetrate a lie, would they? Of course not. Which is why I assume that Messrs MacNeil and Monaghan, together with all who agree with them, are simply irredeemably stupid. Cunning too, perhaps, to indulge the national enthusiasm for victimhood in this fashion but, first of all, stupid.
could an article be large and succinct?
-
I got as far as question 5, I couldn't answer it as there is no "don't know" or "don't care" option. Either a survey compiled by idiots or one designed to get a skewed result.
how very public spirited
-
goody could probably land a contract elsewhere that falls somewhere between his previous salary and the 50% version that gives him the option to find another deal. I'd imagine if that happens then both parties will be happy to move on
-
Given that the incident happened at least a good 5 or 6 weeks ago, the player, his agent and legal advisers haven't been in a rush to bring, what looks like, a fairly straight forward claim against the club. If it's a clear cut case, and one that's usually dealt with in a routine and matter of fact way, why wait until now to raise it?
I know sod all about the legal side, and there are plenty on here who do. He's obviously perfectly within his rights to raise an action but, in football terms, the timing of this claim is confusing.
This is actually quite swift for a compensation claim. One our contractors suffered a de-gloving injury a full 22 months ago and I only recieved the request for information at the end of April.
Incidentally, what the Sun has reported as "legal action" will most likely be a letter from McGinn's solicitor requesting specific information that will allow them to assess if a claim is appropriate. I suspect that as a professional footballer he was steered by his agent towards having a medical expenses or accident policy that paid out in the event of his injury and that this could just as much be about the insurers trying to recoup some of their outlay than it is about McGinn "sueing" the club.
isn't it ironic? so many saints fans laugh at the old firm supporters because they are so easily whipped up by the gutter press, yet here we have a section of the support turning on one of their own because of a few lines in the Sun, of all papers.
-
Ok so club May gave a duty. But surely done sort of disciplinary must be taken for thomo.
it may already have been done-disciplinary action is confidential and will only be made public by Thommo
-
No, the reason I didn't do it is not bacause I didn't want sacked, or I am a shitebag. The reason I didn't do it is I don't go around assaulting people, Sevco wankers or not.
No apology required, even though I probably do deserve one.
You've clearly had a sense of humour lapse today
No apology offered, but you left the door WAAAAYY open to that one
-
-
Clearly Mcginn is trying get released so clubs don't need to pay a fee no player bigger than club I'd let him rot in the reserves
As previously pointed out, J McG is out of contract and can sign for anyone he chooses from a list of clubs that want him, can pay his wages and can pay us compensation. Or he can choose to take an offer from St Mirren to stay on for another spell. His claim has no bearing on his status at or outsidethe club.
-
if john could not play again can we sue thommo for loss of compensation we are due ,if he fails a medical and we are out the cash ,
no, we will be insured against such an eventuality. The insurance company might seek to recover their outlay from others if they think the money is there and there is a chance of success
-
i don't get it. At my last place of employment there was a daft boy in the finishing department with a hundred Rangers tattoos, who caused trouble at Manchester. I couldn't stand the wee knobhead. Still, if I walked up and planted a left hook on his pus, I don't see how either he or his lawyers could have an issue with the company we both worked for. I would be in trouble, but how the company would be sued is beyond me.
The company would almost certainly have a policy to prevent workplace violence. The reason you didn't do it is either because you didn't want the sack or you are a shitebag
Horseplay is another matter, if tolerated the company can be seen to condone this type of nonsense. Thommo mis-used company equipment and in another company he would have lost his job. The club COULD be at fault for not controling the training ground more effectively. it will take an examination of the facts to establish this and no-one will examine them if there is no claim.
But for heaven's sake, the company insurance will be in place to compensate people who suffered a workplace injury and McGinn was NOT AT FAULT. He is due compensation commensurate with any harm suffered and needs to make a claim to get his process going. it is company insurance so the trail starts-guess where? WITH THE COMPANY!
-
these 2 will look good and feel good in a championship where we will have more big crowds than we will in the bottom 2 of the premiership
-
good luck DVZ, nice to see he continues his career
-
Just a ploy to engineer his move away from the club.
Really, this free agent called John McGinn? He can sign for who he wants as long as they can pay saints the compensation. He doesn't need to engineer hee-haw
-
More bad press that the club could do without.
This surely could of been dealt with internally.
could have
-
Thommo will be squirming over this more than anyone. It's certainly going to affect McGinn's relationship between the club and Thommo. Hopefully we will get decent compensation for him and he moves on sharpish. Crap note to leave on though.
Why should it affect any relationship between club and player? I handle claims like this from time to time and the outcome is very often delivered with a smile and a handshake (though rarely an apology), especially when there has been real and proven harm to an employee who carries absolutely no blame. it would be immature, mean spirited and irresponsible of any employer to sour the relationship with someone who was a good employee affected in this way.
John Hillcoat took legal advice to get released from his contract when he was a junior player and was welcomed back to the club several years later. It will only be ill-informed supporters who think there is some disloyalty or acrimony here-everyone else will be business like and professional about the whole thing.
FFS, is the guy just meant to take something like that
The club will undoubtedly close this out with dignity and maturity, i wish some of the posters on here would do the same
-
Don't see how he would win a case against St mirren How would they foresee a player throwing a post like a spear. What workplace regs have they breached. Not telling staff it is unacceptable to spear their colleagues? Have you been told this at work? No. He would have to sue Thompson!
It's a discipline & workplace control issue and Saints are vicariously liable for the actions of employees whilst at work. if the spear-chucking was typical of training-ground pranksterism then i'm afraid it is something the club should have thought about and adressed before someone got hurt.
Individuals are also liable though and it could be that the action is deflected, partially or wholly, onto Thommo.
McGinn was at work and doing what he was paid for when he innocently and blamelessy suffered a potentially serious injury. He could suffer ill-effects from that for years to come and is right to look after his interests. He could have fully recovered already or the scar tissue, which can be much tougher and less pliable than the rest of him, could cause secondary tears and tightness at any time.
-
Hearts introduced additional training sessions last year which resulted in them winning the league at a canter.
Bring it on I say.
COYS.
But it's not an additional session, it is moving the Monday session to Sunday
Loads of opportunities exist to misbehave on a Sunday night
Changes should only be made if there is a purpose OTHER than to show who is the boss
-
Am I not getting something?
Sunday training, as an extra day or as part of a regime to aid recovery from matches, might be just what some players need. But Sunday training and Monday off?
Why is training on a Sunday better for anyone than training on a Monday? Unless a manager has Monday childcare issues, or a weekly golf match lined up
-
It's not a Thread about Drivers who make mistakes. If it was I would be the first to hold my hands up as I have made plenty.
Just about bad drivers.
I've never met a good driver, only people who think they are
Dangerous buggers consider themselves good drivers
-
To satisfy all the previous suggestions
How about we serve only english ale and call it the Bitter suite
Fixtures Released
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
the last opener we had over there went pretty well