zurich_allan

Fun fact (or not so fun depending on how you look at it). One of my distant relatives is / was the infamous former Paisley Pirates player / coach Doug Marsden who vanished along with a pile of cash that was donated to the Pirates about 10-15 years ago. We're related in some way through my dad's cousin who moved to Canada in the 1950s, so 4th cousins or something similar. I only ever met the guy once or twice in the 90s. He's still listed as a missing person (presumed dead) after going to Falaraki on holiday.

One of the most blatant examples of obstruction you could see, Rae correctly goes a bit mental when the referee indefensibly gives a goal kick. Ref should be ashamed when he watches it back.

My thoughts are that I don't think the board are right to do this for a variety of the reasons already discussed on the thread, however I have another dimension to add to the issue. In the west stand we have been treated like dirt for the entire season, not just one game. We have had to rely on one refreshment stand for a thousand fans, limited toilet access etc. If, like my dad in his 70s you are unfortunate enough to have the last seat before the canvassed off area they literally tie the cover over the seat next to you making it uncomfortable in terms of movement. Where the segregation was placed during the stadium design was poorly thought out and just doesn't work in practice. If the board make the £30k - £40k they are expecting from this game, they should spend some of it moving the segregation gate in the west stand to the centre of the north stand or the end of the main stand. If they really don't want to open the north stand for small supports then they could look at the feasibility of a 50/50 divide in the south stand even as the total of our existing season ticket holders there could easily fit into one side of that stand. Whatever the solution, it is NOT to continue forward for however many seasons we are in the championship giving such poor service to such a large section of the fanbase. I and others like me in the west stand have this season been paying a lot for a sub-par service. Maybe doing this might go a little way to improving the relationship between board and fans. Edited to add more detail.

It's never too late...

Oh aye, my grandad died in 2002... twice...

I should clarify, when I say 'June to be specific', I mean she died in June, not that her name was June. Her name was Mary. Thought I'd better clear that up as wars have started over lesser misunderstandings.

Mine too. June to be specific, and she was 82. From Partick though, not Paisley.

Accurate.

Solid win and good work rate from everyone. I know he gets a bit of stick at times, but I think Gow coming on changed the tempo of the game and thought he bossed the area between midfield and up front. Gave the ball away once or twice, but also had some very good touches and unlucky not to score with his volley. Webster was excellent at the back, and wouldn't really single anyone out as having played poorly. 5th place should be our aim now unless Raith collapse, which is unlikely.

Genuinely surprised at all the messages from everyone, very much appreciated!

On my Facebook page I have at the top a line in my profile that states that all comments are my own opinions and not those of my employers. I'm not worried about my work, it's just not worth the hassle.

Some of you might say 'great', but others might hopefully agree that I've really tried in the past to help when legal questions or issues have arisen on the forum. Sadly, I've made the decision to stop commenting on anything of that nature except via personal message. This quote of the post I have just made on Facebook should explain: 'Further to my post a few minutes ago, and on a sort of related matter; in the past on various occasions for friends and family I have given information and helped to clarify various areas of the law when people have encountered issues or even just been curious. I have also in the past challenged misinformation regarding the law on various public forums to correct it and avoid 'bad' law being picked up by other lay people. This morning an individual on a large Facebook group to which I subscribe was spreading misinformation regarding a recent court case involving private parking companies, to which I respectfully commented and gave correct information. The individual then clearly Googled my name as I had not made any reference to my employers on the thread, and told me that he had screenshotted my comment and sent it to them to see if they would support my comment. Thankfully I am always very careful when I comment on things like this to ensure that I could not possibly be deemed to be doing anything that might be interpreted as unprofessional and so I have no doubts whatsoever that the email (if it was indeed sent) will be ignored / binned. Sadly though, since this is the world we appear to now be living in, it's just not worth me risking my professional reputation, and so if anybody has any questions on anything that I might have addressed and helped with in the past, or if you have any future questions, then I can only deal with them via private message. A shame for the various people that I don't know but have tried to help in the past and would have in the future, but sadly I don't see that I have any other option.' A real shame that people are so offended at being called out when they are wrong that they resort to actively trying to fu*k up someone's life. In any case, I felt I should explain why I will be restricting my comments to the team and other football related stuff from this point on.

Video killed the radio star.

Simple analogy:Somebody kills somebody else. Is it murder? If the mindset of the accused was the intention to kill, it's murder. If they didn't intend to kill, but were simply reckless in some way with their otherwise legal actions then it is culpable homicide. If the accused was a Doctor and the deceased was a patient in their care, and the doctor's actions fell far below the standards expected of them resulting in death it is malregimen. If the accused can show that although their actions resulted in another's death, but they can show that they were acting in genuine fear that their own life was in genuine danger and that they had no other feasible course of action they could take, it is possible that the accused has charges against them dropped altogether. The end result is the same in all four cases - somebody killed somebody else - but other factors help to determine what the actual crime, if any, has been committed.

I'm going to add my thoughts here, and it's not splitting hairs. In any potentially criminal act, it is not just the end result that dictates what the eventual conviction might be. It is a combination of that act plus the establishing of the mindset (mens rea) of the accused i.e. was there an intention to cheat? Was it reckless? Was it careless? Even with the mens rea established and linked to the act, there are still other factors that would have to be established including aggravating or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors could make things worse for her, and mitigating factors if accepted could either reduce the sentence or even reduce the nature of the conviction. Even with strict liability drug related offences it is still perfectly possible to rebut the inferred mens rea as long as evidence exists that supports the defence. Personally I don't think it looks good for her, but being aware that we don't know all of the relevant facts yet, I'm reserving my judgement until more accurate details come out.

Ah, the old double bluff!!

See, that's appropriate use of a smiley!!

I hope so, the smiley used doesn't really show that tbh though... A wee cheeky tongue out or a wink would do the job - sarcasm fail IMO!

There has been literally no proof that he is not the answer. He has taken the same squad plus one or two better players and has made them an infinitely better team. With no opportunity yet to build his own team, and no pre-season behind him, it is simply not possible to draw that sort of conclusion.

Totally unfair to label Leicester's position being due to other teams' failures. Regardless of other team performance Leicester have genuine quality, players that have demonstrated excellent individual skill, have been extremely well organised in their formation, have managed to keep the majority of their first 11 injury free, and to me have looked by some margin from front to back to be the fittest team in the division. Add to that the fact that they play as a team. They are where they are on their own merit.

In a way I agree with you as 5 years seems quite short, but the judge's hands were tied as 5 years is the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving, and the specific actions here sadly wouldn't be able to be classed as dangerous driving (which carries a maximum of 14 years) because it was a single incident and not a prolonged course of bad driving. I'm not saying I agree with the maximum sentence btw, but knowing the difference between the offences I can understand it. To me though, there is a problem when the judge has little or no discretion in even the most serious of cases like this.

No, it most certainly does not boil down to just that, it's a very shallow, surface level argument. It is a valid point, but only one of dozens of genuinely valid issues that directly and fundamentally affect people relating to EU membership.

For what it's worth, I think it's more important to stay within the EU rather than be an external State to it; particularly because it is inevitable that we would want to retain at least some links whether as a member of the EFTA or through bilateral arrangements. The problem is that under those arrangements you are subject to the rules and regulations created by the EU, yet have very little if any input into how those rules and regulations are framed. The other option would be to not have such agreements in place and simply trade, but by doing that you leave the country open potentially to numerically uncertain, but certainly increased, levels of import and export taxation. There are a lot of both positives and negatives to being a Member State, and I'm going to be doing some writing on the subject in the near future - undecided as to whether or not to make it published work or just to put it on my blog, will see how it looks when written. I'll probably cover the issues of: Trade laws, economics & taxation, employment laws, free movement, terrorism & counterterrorism, criminal justice, democracy, education, infrastructure, and global politics. Possibly more, that's just off the top of my head.

Maybe I am not explaining what I mean very well. I'm saying that in general a full time club such as St Mirren should not struggle against any part time team, whether Dumbarton, Alloa, or any other. Of course there will be the odd blip which happens to all teams, but that blip absolutely should not be due to a lack of effort. If the other team outplays you, fine. If the other team has a couple of fantastic examples of individual skill then fine. But not because we don't put the effort in. In my book that's never okay. We got away with it today, which is great, but we shouldn't hide the fact that this was exactly what it was; getting away with it in spite of a distinct lack of energy.

I agree 100%, and I actually think Rae will end up getting us to 4th or 5th, because we do have that potential and thankfully are now building up a good lead on the bottom 2. The team just need a kick up the backside after today. To me the positives of the season so far are that Mallan has come on a lot, Shankland does know his way to goal, Baird is developing well, Webster is leading quite well, and Goodwin is still a rock in midfield. We have a good spine. A bit more effort on a consistent basis will see us win more than we lose.