beyond our ken

You were accused of being "determinedly hard of thinking" now if you can't work out that it means you were determined to pursue a stupid point then I can't help you. You ignored the material that would have saved you making an arse of yourself on that. Tell you what, I will apologise for that and just say that you declared something not to exist when it had already been put in front of you. Maybe you just wanted a go without checking you were on good ground, I dunno, maybe you can work THAT one out for yourself. As for made up, you seem to apply this term randomly to posters who have had a more interesting life than you. It says volumes more about you than anything I can come up with. You lied when you said i made up the passage that i subsequently posted and which you had already had the chance to read. Now if you are saying that you did not mean to lie and simply posted without checking then feel free to apologise. And, historically, on this forum, you stated that a member of my family was the outcome of interbreeding (a lie) and the former chairman of St Mirren was forced to stop on his way to a game at Ross County to phone me and apologise profusely for liking your post, which didn't get him off the hook. You never apologised but did, i recall, acknowledge and express regret for that so if you want recourse through legal means.....?

She was drunk so she deserved it, they were drunk and are therefore not responsible? Is that what you are saying? The defenders had the chance to offer their excuses in court, they don't need you to do it for them. Anyway, the defenders never offered any evidence on their own readings. Being drunk might be a reason for bad behaviour, but is never an excuse. Some people have really shown themselves up as what they are in this thread.

What we are seeing in this debate is the refusal to accept the competency of the judge in this case by people who would willingly rely on the same person to get them justice in a civil case (which does take part in a court of law, which is not defined by the presence of a "jury of my/his peers" as offered by one poster). One judge is sufficient and is relied upon in our system and there is nothing unusual about that. If Goodwillie and Roberston wanted the opnion of a panel of judges then all they had to do was appeal the decision instead of declaring themselves bankrupt to avoid paying compensation. They didn't even challenge the expert evidence or offer any of their own. Now this IS opinion, reading the judges comments and the summary it's my view that the whole defence case was based on damage limitation and avoiding self-incrimination while disposing of financial assets as damage limitation in the hope that this would all have gone away at some point. The only evidence they led seems to be from their own party of friends and their legal team were reduced to picking up on collolquial turns of phrase and an article in the record to try and offer some sort of defence.

The obvious point is about initiation, she initated the contact but did you think she was in a fit state to know what she was doing? You should remember that it is sexual assault up to the point of penetration, thereafter you are talking about a possible rape. The police will help you work that one out..

Unbelievable, you accused me of lying and complain about being called a muppet in return. We know who is rattled, you are not even in denial, just refusing to acknowledge the truth then brand ad "hearsay" some serious journalism that CLEARLY would have seen the reporter taken to court had it not been true since it is about rich and influential legal figures. You think the Sunday Post's lawyers would have cleared that if there was even a hint of untruth given the people involved? Really? Mty final word is that the evidence was considered by an experienced judge who was more than happy to convict, his opinion has never been successfully challenged. Goodwillie should pay up, he has the money now.

But your ultimate recourse would have been via a court that you would say is not a court of law, open & shut case or not. Anyway the idea of an open and shut case is made on previous case law where judges that you don't recognise have ruled now you are implying that the civil judgement is not a safe one because it was not made in your idea of a court of law, so hand back the money, eh? You are clearly not entitled to it.

Listen, you are the only liar on here just now, I already posted that but a muppet such as you is prepared to argue on without reading what is already there in front of him. But an apology is in order-I got it wrong. It was Goodwillie's solcitor whose funeral address was delivered by the Lord Advocate who made the decison to drop the charges based on a recommendation of a lifelong friend of Goodwillie's solicitor So for the determinedly hard of thinking (you) here is the relevant passage since you are so hot on "proof" Ogg, who died two years ago, would later say the decision was taken by then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland but on his recommendation. Goodwillie was then being represented by Paul McBride, a leading QC. He died suddenly in 2012 and Mulholland spoke at his funeral. Ogg was close to McBride and, after his death, said: “We have been very close friends all our professional lives and a light has gone out of the life of Scotland.”

Your claim may not have gone to court, if it had, the judgement would have been made by one person IN A COURT OF LAW. If an out-of-court settlement was made it ws because you had the civl courts to back you up and ensure justice was done. If the defendant had refused to pay the fact that the judgement was made in a court of law would have allowed a court to sieze assets, or appoint an agent to do so on your behalf. Are you saying you shouldn't have been compensated because your payout was made under the civil system, which is there to protect people by ensuring that remediation is made when harm is suffered?

guessing gets you fukk all in this game, i posted a referrence to the decision to drop the criminal case earlier. The decision was made by a man who took advice from another who spoke at the funeral of Robertson's solicitor. The victim had been previously told that the evidence was strong by the same man

You refuse to accept their guilt, that is fair enough. Maybe i recall wrongly, but did you ever mention collecting compensation for an injury? Maybe it was someone else.

They can and should say something like that, it would lead to their cases being re-opened but they would have their day in court and the chance to apologise to their victim Goodwillie has never paid a penny to his victim, so are GU proposing that they start payingoff his debt on the basis of appearances? are they fukk!

How many judges do you want? However you dress it up, many people are convicted on the judgement of one individual and in this case Lord Armstrong presided. You really think the opinion of a bunch of guys on the internet trumps that of a person of this experience and knowledge? Get real, buddy! Would you argue with the tetimony of the bouncers who watched them pour the girl into a taxi? Then get real on that score too. And if you think the background to the charges being dropped was sound, then get fukkin real, buddy because you are living in a dream world where it's OK for men to get away with these things just because there weren't enough judges to satisfy your arbitrary notion of the burden of proof. I don't think eother Goodwillie or Robertson has to carry the impact of this case for the rest of their lives, but they did it! They can leave it all behind if they 'fess up, apologise and demonstrate remorse. And my second statement is hypothetical, I don't think the fall back option of a civil case serves anyone's needs very well. Maybe i expressed a daft notion, it is not one that is half as daft as the ones being purported by the apologists though. You cite Glasgow United's claim that they are rehabillitating Goodwillie and performing a public service, well they should start with the crime and the interests of the victim instead of going straight to the defence of a person a judge found guilty of a serious crime. I'd have more respect for their so-called work in the community if they provided some proof of what they do for victims

already found guilty i know a lot of peple have difficulty with that

Unless some fecker hangs you in the meanwhile. It's a strange point you seem to be making, Goodwillie & Robertson served no time in jail and their opportunity to show how they have changed must involve contrition & remorse. They don't seem to have embraced either so the comparison doesn't work. And as for "forever branded", that is no worse than what they would experience after a criminal conviction. We are all the products of what we have done and if part of a person's make up is the fact that they committed a serious crime then that is what they are. What I would say is that the status of private prosections is not clear and the option seems to be there as a second attempt when the burden of proof threshold for a criminal case is not met. Private prosecutions should be discontinued or be given a special legal status whereby the crown has to look at the proceedings and decide if they need to review the original decision not to prosecute.

That bit is just silly.

On the term "Mickey" or "Mick" "Technically speaking it’s not a racial slur. For something to be a racial slur, it would be a pejorative used to degrade a racial group. Irish people are an ethnic group. The race is White/European/Caucasian. So with that out of the way let’s look at why it is indeed an ethnicity-based slur to insult and degrade people of Irish descent. The cultural and historic ties between the Scots and the Irish are deep rooted; everything from the language, people, customs, food are connected. The word Scot (and therefore Scotland) originate from a prominent tribe of Gaels who lived in the Irish provinces of Ulster and Connaught, the Scothii. The Scothii migrated to modern Scotland, then called Pictland, where they then interbred with those who already inhabited it, the Picts, descendents of Norse and Anglo settlers in the area. They formed their own kingdom for a while called Dalriada, which included large parts of their ancestral homeland on the island of Ireland. They eventually spread throughout Pictland, and both Dalriada and Pictland united to form the Kingdom of Scotland. Therefore, Scots are essentially displaced Irishmen" So with all that in mind, unless it can be proven that those who delivered the insults were of a different race or ethnicity to McGeady or most of our good selves, then this was a personal insult issued to and from people of the same or similar racial and ethnic background. That doesn't make it OK, it just means that it is unpleasant, personal, intended to be hurtful and in this context not racist. I am still on good terms and happy to meet, however rarely it happens these days, with a guy who used to refer to me and some of our group of mutual friends as "mickey rebel bastards". It was funny and I'd still laugh today despite being mostly of Irish descent. St Mirren fans should be careful not to jump wholeheartedly on anything the record prints, in this case they described McGeady and his Celtic team-mates as "old-firm" as they tried to stoke the fires of faux-outrage and spread the debate. One person shouts one word and the record has a headline about "racist" st mirren fans and 15 years later we are still wielding their rod on our own backs. What a laugh! We are starting to resemble the German guy in Harry Enfield who perpetually apologised for the war. And Needham's comments about wishing the drowning of scores of Rangers fans are every bit as bad as that one guy's insult a decade and a half ago, even if he didn't mean it. It was abusive without being racist and we don't all need to cream our jeans (genes?) about it just to prove how un-racist we are. As I said, it undermines any anti-racist stance to declare things that are really not racist to be racist abuse.

I think there is a cash gate at Central Park. I recall paying cash for the friendly a year ago Just got this from their website, please note the kind invitation to enjoy a pre-match pint in the ground Tickets Available - St Mirren Posted July 23, 2023 Tickets are now on sale for the Viaplay Cup Group H match v St Mirren on Tuesday 25th July - 7.45pm kick off. Secure your place now by clicking here and purchasing your ticket online. The QR code you then receive can either be printed off or shown on your mobile phone at the Central Park turnstiles where it will be scanned for admission. "ticket prices for this match are £14 adults, £8 concessions (65 and over, Ages 13-16, disabled) and 12 & under are £5. There will be a Pay at the Gate option on the day. Season tickets are not valid for this game. Turnstiles will open at 6.45pm as will the club bar in the Andy Matthew Lounge inside the stadium - home and away fans are invited to enjoy a refreshment in the lounge prior to the match."

None of which I disagree with, although i think you would like me to. My point stands, you can't display racist behaviour towards people of the same race as yourself That doesn't mean I condone the abuse, which must have happened since it was in the record.

But you undermine the harm of true racism by branding personal abuse as racist. McGeady was abused all over Scotland for turning his back on his nation of birth to play for a nation that he was culturally more aligned to, a personal decision and not one based on his "race". All of it was unnecessary as he turned out to be well short of the standard Scotland needed and also to be fairly injury prone

The irish are not a race, just as the Scots aren't

having another solid week of training and coaching should see us improve over recent weeks, if nothing else it puts some positive pressure on the players to do better and take on board the comments of the coaches. Thre is no doubt just about everyone has to be better today than they were recently and a week on the training grounds should really show through. Unless.....

🤪

This seems like nothing more than an attempt by certain people to make a grab for Wardrop's assets and possibly to head off any action he is thinking of taking against either the club, kibble or individuals. The controversy is done, with no word of it over months now and any damage to anybody's reputation is questionable. The first point they need to prove is that what was said was wholly or largely untrue before determining that it was actually defamatory to anyone, then they need to prove that it was particularly damaging to themselves and not the club or any of the stakeholder organisations and they then need to move on to what actual damage was done and continues to be done to them. That is a high mark that they have set themselves and I doubt any party has the funds to take this all the way to a court door, it is potentially ruinous for all concerned and can only bring harm to the club.

I like the fact that he is hopeful, let's hope it is based at least partially on facts. A good LC run or at least a good draw in the next round, with maybe a fee of some sorts for Carson, will help us find the right striker in good time.

I rarely moan, I am quite happy with our situation I just like to completely realistic