zurich_allan

Do you mean look at reversing the burden of proof, or reducing the standard of proof? There are several mechanisms already in place to deal with the issue of problematic corroboration in sexual offences cases, but I agree that the current system does need overhauled - but how do you do that and still maintain the right of the accused to a fair trial? You can't just single out a category of mala in se offences for emotive reasons and say somebody can be found guilty on a lower standard - whatever is done has to be an overhaul of the whole criminal justice system and not just one category. The Carloway review has sought to address this with the removal of corroboration as a necessity for the facta probanda, but I don't think that's the way forward as no proper consideration has been given to appropriate additional safeguards in the absence of a requirement for corroboration.

I do have to say that in my opinion with cases like this, where it is often right that the complainer / alleged victim is afforded anonymity, that the same right should be given to the accused until AFTER the verdict. Very difficult to regulate as it would be a tricky borderline as to when anonymity ought or ought not be given to the accused, but I do think cases like this illustrate the problem where a legally innocent man's career could be over regardless of a jury finding in his favour. It's not an ideal system.

The name vaguely rings a bell, but I'd be lying if I said I'm certain or that I really remember. It's been probably 12 years since I did any serious sparring. When I went, I used to do a bit with some of the door staff from the time from the last post - I used to work with one of them in his second job.

Sigh.... Before I write this post, because I have no doubt several will disagree, I hope a number of you know from my posts that I am completely unbiased and try to be reasonable in whatever I discuss. Im going to come out and say it - you're all wrong... Okay, now for the explanation. I am a boxing fan and follower. At a personal level although I still do some basic boxing drills, I used to do some serious boxing training in the old YMCA back in the late 90's, and used to spar with a few of my friends at the time. I watch the majority of domestic fights shown, and since ESPN started showing the US Friday night fights on ESPN I have watched them too. I really started watching boxing around the late 80's with the Tyson / Bruno hype, but I was only a kid then and stared properly following it as a teenager following Eubank and Lewis amongst others. I've seen some huge controversies in that time, most of which I am in complete agreement. In the first Holyfield v Lewis fight, Lewis completely dominated and had that fight won by about 5 rounds, and yet the judges inexplicably awarded a draw. The biggest either incompetence or corruption I have ever seen was not a big fight however, it was a small one - in his early career, a fat unfit Tyson Fury took on Jon McDermott and McDermott absolutely wiped the floor with him - we're talking won every single round and taught Fury a boxing lesson. There was literally no explanation that could justify Fury being given the win, yet that's what happened. Ricky Burns is not a fighter I follow in terms of being a fan, but I have seen most of his fights, but I'm not fussed either way about him. So again, I'm completely unbiased. I didn't see the fight live, but saw the controversy and had the fight recorded so watched it. Now here's the important part - I watched it on mute, so that I couldn't hear the commentators / pundits. The commentators often get it wrong, or ARE biased, and often look for the wrong things, not the things that count when scoring a fight. When scoring a fight, you first look to clean punches landed, and also good defence and movement. When not clear who has won a round, it can be either scored as a draw or you look to the agressor, even if they don't land punches, but scoring in these close rounds really comes down to preference for style and is NOT a given - to emphasise, the ONLY way to guarantee yourself winning rounds is to land punches clean and ideally get a knockdown as that is a guarantee of points removed from your opponent. After watching the fight, I rewatched the fight with the sound on, and was not surprised to see that the pundits got it wrong. So here is my full rundown - and take note - you'll see that I can accept a points swing in some rounds: Round 1 - 10 / 9 for Burns - close round, but Burns took it. Round 2 - 10 / 9 for Burns - Beltran did come on strong at the end of this round, but I checked, and it was at the 2.20 mark - i.e. in the last 40 seconds, the first 2.20 (more than 3/4 of the round) was all Burns. Round 3 - 10 / 9 for Burns - This was the round where Beltran broke Burns' jaw - and Burns didn't even go down from the shot! There were two flurrys of punches from Beltran in this round, but again, the clean punches throughout the round were landed by Burns (Jaw-Breaker aside!!). It was a close round, so I could accept it being given as a draw or 10 / 9 to Beltran, but I gave it to Burns. Round 4 - 10 / 10 - Uncontroversial round, it was tit for tat, so I gave a draw, but would accept the judges giving either boxer the nod. Round 5 - 10 / 10 - Again, a close round. I actually rewatched this round again to see if I could justify giving it to one or other, but ended up noting this as a definite draw and woudn't accept justification for it going to one or other. It was completely even. Round 6 - 10 / 9 for Burns - Another very close round. Tit for tat again, and this time I could see and would be happy for it to go either as a draw or as 10 / 9 for Beltran. Round 7 - 10 / 9 for Burns - This time on my notes, I have a big 'D' - which is again definite. So this was a Burns round and I wouldn't accept an argument to the contrary. I would note that on seeing the commentators score card on screen, the crucial rounds are 3, 4 & 5. They had them all 10 / 9 for Beltran, I had one a Burns round and the other two as draws. As you'll see above, I could see an argument for two of these, though not the other, but overall, there is justification for a potential 4 point swing between how I saw it and how the pundits were seeing it without it really being controversial. Also, to this point, if you watch the fight again and concentrate on this point you'll see I'm right - The entire fight up until this point - I didn't have Beltran winning a round. The odd single punch aside (including the jaw breaker), literally 95% of Beltran's punches were defended, only landing on the gloves or arms of Burns - the Burns defence to this point was phenomenal, though for some reason the commentators (odd throwaway comment aside) completely ignored this. Virtually nothing was actually getting through for all Beltran's effort. So onto the later part of the fight. Round 8 - 10 / 8 for Beltran - Very simple to score this one, knockdown and generally Beltran won the round convincingly. Round 9 - 10 / 9 for Beltran. This was actually a close round, generally tit for tat. I gave it to Beltran, but a draw or 10 / 9 for Burns are not controversial. Round 10 - 10 / 10. Again a close round, I gave a draw but would have been happy for judges to give it either way. Round 11 - 10 / 9 for Beltran. Another close round. I found out when rewatching with commentary that the pundits actually gave it to Burns, though again with it being close, I would have been happy with that or a draw. Personally I preferred Beltran. Round 10 - 10 / 10. Very close, no justification for giving it either way in my mind, though again the pundits actually thought Burns won it. In Summary - There were a LOT of close rounds in the early - mid stage of the fight, that the pundits gave to Beltran, where I either gave a draw or gave to Burns. I am going to emphasise again - in those early rounds, one or two punches aside, Burns landed 3 or 4 times as many punches as Beltran cleanly. 95% of Beltran's punches, for all his good effort, were completely defended. I have the fight 116 / 115 in favour of Burns, though looking at the close rounds there are justification for changing, I can see arguments ranging from Burns winning 117 / 114 all the way to Beltran winning 116 / 113. So I don't see ANYTHING controversial in either boxer being awarded the fight by NO MORE than 3 rounds. Anything within that 6 point swing (i.e. potentially just giving 3 close rounds one way or other) is unbroblematic. Looking at the judges scorecards, one gave Burns the nod by three points, one gave Beltran the nod by two points, and one gave it as a draw. If you take the commentary and crown noise out of the equation, and just focus on the boxing as I did - there is literally nothing controversial here. No corruption, and indeed complete justification for the result.

Lol, I'm likely just letting the side down by being too serious!!

I actually took the OP off ignore to read this thread as the various responses were interesting. What I've read doesn't surprise me as it displays an extreme immaturity and inability to think about the issue appropriately. It's very simple. The referee might be biased, he might not. He might be competent, he might not. However this is ALL completely irrelevant to the main issue - the fact that the coach intimated bias to his entire squad. The motivation for doing this, and the context in which it was said is COMPLETELY irrelevant. You said he was showing empathy and trying to calm the kids down - fine! But there are less brain dead ways to do this, here's a very simple example that sets the RIGHT tone: 'Right boys, you've had a couple of decisions go against you, but you need to calm down. The referee can only call what he sees at the time. He can only see it from the angle he's at and isn't standing where any of you are. In every game of football every day of the week, referees get most decisions right, and a few decisions wrong. Nobody is superhuman, and nobody can get everything right 100% of the time. But these things will balance out over the course of a game and a season, and to get frustrated and angry will not help you, in fact it's more likely to get you in trouble and make you play worse. Be professional, stay calm, accept the referee's decisions, because you can't change them. Remember that you're representing your club and your family out there.' It's not that difficult to think of something that shows empathy, lets the kids know that decisions aren't always right but aren't necessarily corrupt, shows respect for the officials and tells them to calm down at the same time. It sounds to me that this guy shouldn't be coaching if he's going to pass on this conspiracy garbage to the younger generation, again regardless of context or motivation. And no, I'm not coaching right now, but I have in years past having been a coach for u12's - u15's about 10 years ago. I've also been a referee for a number of Scouts tournaments in years past, so I can see it from both perspectives.

A lot of analysis and possibly over analysis here. Losing the dressing room can be as simple as a large proportion of the players, who by the time they get to a first team premier league squad will have been coached by dozens of quality coaches and managers, collectively coming to the same realisation that their current coach or coaches either don't know what they are doing, aren't tactically aware etc. All it takes is for it to be mentioned in some context between squad members before it spreads. I'm not speculating as to if that's what's happening here or not, but what I am saying is that just because a coach might have lost the dressing room doesn't necessarily mean that the players aren't still trying, but it can mean, and often correctly, that they have no faith in the tactics being used. I've played under a number of coaches through the years, some good and some bad, some that the 15 year olds in the team could have genuinely put together a better formation, but I've never given any less than 100% for any team I've played for.

Sadly this whole scenario rings very true to me.... and when this constant change happens in the middle of games can lead to mass frustration within a team and nobody really knowing what they are doing, especially if communication on the pitch is not prioritised.... I knew it could happen in a bounce or fun game, but never in a million years did I think it could be the case in an actual league match. This is very saddening to hear.

Yeah, I must have read your post wrong - I was sure you were talking about their second.... Apologies. But either way, that shows that two of our players (our most inexperienced players too sadly) weren't tracking back at various points, which when playing in midfield is an absolute must. A few of us were saying at the start that McGinn and McLean are both very talented, but at this stage of their careers it should be one or other on from the start, not both, as some experience is needed in the midfield positions. You'll never win anything with kids.....

I'm really conflicted, because I really think Lennon is a good guy, and I believe that he is trying with everything he has. Off the field he is a great ambassador for the club. So I'm certainly not being a boo boy, or abusive when I say that it really pains me to say that I just don't think he's 'got it', I just think he isn't tactically astute enough at this level. As I say, I don't like saying it one bit, I'm not going to go overboard it's just a bad, gut feeling that I have...

You've misse the whole reason the ball was there to begin with. We were 10 yards into the Thistle half, McLean gave the ball away then didn't chase / track back when Thistle had two players wide. Had McLean put in any effort, he would have got between the two. The goal came directly from that, as was discussed between three or four of us the instant he lost it, but before the ball went in the net. It was McLean.

davidg - it wasnt McGinn caught sleeping for the second, it was McLean.

This game is very simple to summarise, the reasons behind our crapness aren't... Today - first half was diabolical from both sides, though Thistle looked hungrier, were first to every ball, and could consider themselves unlucky to be level at the break. Second half, with Teale on, instantly we looked a better side and at the time deservedly took the lead. Then the collapse... Ref incorrectly gave the freekick against Goodwin, which was utterly inexplicable as he had a clear view. It looked like he instantly knew he got it wrong too by not booking Goodwin and in fact not really rebuking him for the challenge at all. Goodwin clearly took the ball very cleanly. That freekick led directly to the equaliser. Saints heads were down after that, and McLean was the player 100% at fault for the Thistle second. He lost the ball, then rather than chase back when the player was barely a yard ahead of him, he lazily and unacceptably chose to lightly jog back, not even briskly. He wasn't tired, there wasn't any cover for the two Thistle players there - he was just a lazy oaf, and no argument can be presented to the contrary. Throughout the whole game there was no urgency displayed from our side. Constant lack of communication between players (when ball between two of our players at multiple times when both could have got to it first, both abdicated responsibility, neither chose to talk to the other and a Jags player nipped in to take it. Must have happened a dozen times. We never looked like being direct, with the exception of the utterly aimless long balls played throughout the first half - NOTE TO LENNON IF YOU HAPPEN TO READ THIS - JUST BECAUSE PLAYERS ARE TALL DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN THAT THEY ARE BEST WITH A BALL IN THE AIR! Yes, Thommo is good with a ball in, but he is BETTER with balls played to feet, and by the looks of things, our new French forward likewise prefers a ball along the deck. So why the long ball, which DOESN'T suit out game?? Unacceptable and tactically naive. Very poor all round, only pass marks go to Teale when he came on (why was our consistently best player for the past 18 months on the bench to begin with? VERY strange decision), Goodwin, who dealt with a lot at the back, and Thommo who won a lot in the air but had little support. Harkins tried and at times was okay, but too often overplayed the ball when he should have released a pass much earlier. So the problems then? Very difficult to put a finger on it. Our players are better than what they are showing at the moment. Player for player we should be a match for most other Premier league sides. The issue is either the tactics being used, or the players on the park not knowing how to put the tactics into place when on the park. Either way sadly, I belive it is a management / coaching issue, as these problems have been obvious for a long time, yet not resolved.

shull, you are getting earlier and earlier in your efforts to be unbeaten as the forum death reporter... :-)

Poz, I agree with everything you've said. With drugs though it is a very difference viewpoint taken across society as compared to alcohol, I've seen it so often, one of the major problems is that when these issues are mentioned a lot of people have the mistaken assumption or vision of drug abusers being solely the traditional 'junkie', and whilst a lot of them of course are, there are a high proportion of ordinary people from a 'normal' (if there is such a thing) background and upbringing that end up mixed up in issues, often through getting with the wrong person, or joining a new circle of friends through a social scene or work colleague etc. With some of those there are background issues, with others it is simply being young, curious, and with that 'invincible' attitude that many youngsters have. With some of these drugs, it is possible to become addicted after an incredibly short period of time in comparison to many other substances such as alcohol that take a long time to develop a dependence on. The problem then is that even with the best support in the world, and the individual themselves literally crying out to become clean, it can still be an incredibly uphill battle that isn't always possible to win. It's a very sad state of affairs all round, and people often forget that they're not just talking about a single situation, but talking about people. Whether it's an addict or a mule. Those people have done something that is indeed incredibly stupid. Some pay the price by inadvertantly destroying their families, some pay the price by doing prison time, others sadly pay the price with their lives. Personally, although many can, I cannot separate an incident from also thinking about a person's whole life though. I don't know enough about the Peruvian legal system to know the intricacies of it, but certainly in the UK I'm glad that our legal system does to an extent recognise this by having background reports and mitigation as factors in sentencing. I don't think 'those poor girls', however since the media coverage began many things have gone through my mind - 'I wonder what they're home life was like - was it normal and supportive or was it disfunctional?', 'I wonder who a decade ago could have predicted when they were 8 - 10 year old girls playing with their friends or at school, that now when their lives should be just beginning, they would be banged up in a jail in Peru?'. I've looked at other young children of friends and family in the past couple of weeks and thought 'If the same thing happened to them in 10-15 years time, could I have the heart to just condem and write them off?' I can sense I'm beginning to ramble here, and maybe I look too deeply into these things, but I'm just not comfortable with how easily some people do seem able to make many comments I've read in the various response comments across the media. It just seems callous to me. That said, I can also recognise that I am perhaps too close to the issue, and that it's in my nature to always quetion things. Not everybody else is in that same situation.

I have very mixed feelings on this subject. Drug addiction and abuse is a very serious and complex issue, and not one that can be solved by flippant and throwaway remarks. My own older cousin whom I absolutely adored and idolised and was one of my best friends died of a heroin overdose a number of years ago aged just 22. Had any of you known or met her in her teens shortly afterward you would have said that she was one of the least likely people you could ever imagine getting mixed up in that sort of thing. She was very bright and hard working, achieved a good set of exam passes at school and had a stable job after finishing her course at college. It simply isn't as simple as saying 'well they shouldn't have taken it then'. So many circumstances come into play with these types of issues, and a severe ignorance is often displayed by many on this issue who seem to think the matter is simple. It is not. So I have a conflict in my mind on this issue. On one hand, I think that the law should come down like a tonne of bricks on any attempts to smuggle illegal drugs of this nature, as their continued existence causes such heartache to so many individuals and families. On the other hand, I also am of the opinion that indeed these young ladies are adults, but I interact with dozens of people of this age bracket (17 - 23) on a daily basis at my work and can safely say that it is often only by their final year of studies (i.e. by the time they are in that 21+ age group) that they really develop any kind of what I would deem to be maturity in terms of their broad outlook. That's not to say they are not intelligent, but knowledge - understanding is a completely different thing from emotional intelligence and maturity. It is very sad that they have ruined what is likely to be close to if not more than a decade of their own young lives by getting involved in such an activity. On balance I think that the example of the law coming down harshly on their actions can only be a good thing, with the high profile nature of the case acting as a deterrent to other young people. Just a shame that the girls in question did what they did. I feel sorry for their families.

I don't get the first two lines here, the offences in question are not civil laws, they fall under the criminal law, albeit mala prohibita as opposed to mala in se. It's due to the mala prohibita nature of these crimes that most are able to be treated as strict liability and punishable via a fine and / or points in the first instance. They are however criminal laws nonetheless.

Not really, both of those players were at those clubs in their younger days, so there was a link there. We don't struggle to get forward players, for some reason (unknown to me) we seem to fail to be able to get the best out of them whilst they are with us, or fail to hang on to the ones who do perform. See Dargo, Nigel, Guy, Sutton, Higdon, Parkin etc. Imrie could also be put into the same bracket. All players who fall into one category or other from the past 6 or 7 years. This is the first time we've really struggled to get anyone at all, but I get the impression that it's more bad luck and timing than anything more sinister. I'm sure we'll get someone in the door over the next week or two.

Jonah Falcon is the owner of the world's biggest Penis - a knee trembling 13.5 inches. Funny, I always thought the world's biggest Penis was Kenny Shiels...

I still remember my first day at Bridge of Weir primary in August 1985. Same as Poz with the plasticine being the first thing given to do. I have some bittersweet memories of that day though, having gone that first day with my friend Neil. We had our pictures taken together outside the school gate and both laughed as a dog had escaped his lead and ran over to us with the owner in pursuit. Happy days. Neil was a great guy throughout primary and high school, you honestly couldn't find a nicer guy. Then after leaving school he had some mental health issues, which he was overcoming well, before he was also then diagnosed with a form of cancer. Neil died around 2004 / 2005 aged about 24. I still have those first school day pictures, and looking back I can't believe all that has happened, how long ago it all was, and now even how long Neil has been gone. So yes, bittersweet memories, though the days themselves were fun.

Potential scrapping of the minimum wage is not a simple issue. Some people seem to think that it's as easy as just ripping it off like a plaster and all will be well. How ridiculously ignorant. The national minimum wage is not just some arbitrary number plucked from the sky, it is a reviewable figure that comes from recommendations from the low pay commission, who work week in week out looking at hundreds of factors that affect cost of living in the UK, from rent / mortgage costs to inflation rates, from all of the different cost indices to inflation, and anything else that goes into creating our general economy. The figure is then recommended by the commission to the Government based on the absolute minimum a person needs to earn to be at the lowest take home figure possible to live on without being reliant on any form of benefit. If you remove the minumim wage then you also bring on the certainty (not possibility - certainty), that many of those on lowest wages will also have to rely on other state benefits in conjunction with their wage. Failure to allow such reliance would then bring about massive increases in those living in real poverty, overburdening of varius other State provided services, and just leading to general misery. It's quite clear to me that those advocating the removal of the NMW simply don't have a clue about the system any deeper than their surface misunderstanding, and are talking out of a hole in their ar*e.

Indeed - best not take the risk!!

Sorry Oaksoft, a typo as a result of having to type in a hurry (my tea was going to be out in 2 minutes, and you don't want to upset a 6 month pregnant woman and be late!!) - in 1. it should have read "as long as you have worked for 12 consecutive weeks without a break of a full working week" So even if you only worked one hour in a week for one of the 12 consecutive weeks, that's still enough for holiday purposes. In 2. it doesn't matter how many hours you have worked - all that are important are your legal worker classification (if not explicit in a contract then it can be decided by a court or tribunal), and length of service (some rights and protections are automatically acquired due to classification, and others are only acquired or added on through passage of time). For 3. you absolutely have my agreement. The courts are by no means perfect (far from it), but they do have a pretty big degree of flexibility when it comes to interpretation of statutes. This is mainly because some statutes can be on the books for an incredibly long length of time without being reviewed, abolished or superseded. It's quite complex, but in those circumstances (when faced with a piece of legislation that could be 30, 50, 70, even 100+ years old), the courts have a remit of interpreting old laws in light of the current will of parliament and contemporary acceptable norms. This is most commonly carried out when the courts are reading old legislation that prima facie appear to breach either EU law (and as a result a hige amount of employment legislation), Human Rights laws, or other international laws, as well as some areas of criminal laws.

There are quite a few miconceptions on this thread, too many for me to pick up and comment on in one post, however - to correct a couple of the main ones: 1. It doesn't matter if a contract is zero hours, 5 hours or 37 hours - as long as you are legally classed as an 'employee' then you have a legal entitlement to holiday pay so long as you have worked for 12 hours without a break of a full working week, your basic entitlement is an average weekly wage based on the amount of hours you have worked in that 12 week period. This is not optional, but a clear entitlement. 2. Employment rights are not based on the number of hours in your contract (zero or otherwise), they are based only on a combination of your true status as a worker (so whether you are an employee, an independent contractor etc.), and your length of service. 3. Someone, somewhere in the thread said something about not blaming the Government for writing crap laws with loopholes, and instead get the courts to look to interpret them in line with what is actually intended. This is already the case with the courts and always has been. They do not look to the letter of the statute - the letter of the statute is taken into account, but they also take into account what the intention / will of the parliament. 4. Yes, fees for employment tribunals have been brought in - which is entirely against the whole rationale for the existence of the tribunals in the first place (which is supposed to be able to provide open and accesible justice that is unrestrictive and meant to rebalance the uneven distribution of power held between the employer and employee (i.e. the employer usually holds all the cards and these tribunals are supposed to help the employee). However, you can, and always have been entitled to take employment matters through the ordinary civil court channels, as an alleged breach of an employment contract is still simply a breach of contract in a civil sense, albeit a special type of contract. On the flip side though, unless it is a small claim (which it might be), then you would have to shell out for a lawyer, but then as that seems to be the way that the tribunals are going also, there's not really any disadvantage in doing this now...

Expired in 1996. I saw him on stage in 1989 and met him in 1993. He was a true gent.