WishartsAshes

So what you're saying is you don't know but you're prepared to have a guess.
You haven't seen any evidence. You've not heard any testimony for or against. In fact, you've not even seen any evidence that anybody's actually been banned.
And yet you're prepared to guess that somebody, we don't know who, is probably guilty of we don't know what and deserves any punishment anybody wishes to administer.
The rule is: innocent until proven guilty.
Not: I don't know but I'll have a guess and hell slap it intae ye.

So what you're saying is you don't know but you're prepared to have a guess.
You haven't seen any evidence. You've not heard any testimony for or against. In fact, you've not even seen any evidence that anybody's actually been banned.
And yet you're prepared to guess that somebody, we don't know who, is probably guilty of we don't know what and deserves any punishment anybody wishes to administer.
The rule is: innocent until proven guilty.
Not: I don't know but I'll have a guess and hell slap it intae ye.

Lol.
First of all, you're comparing your guess with a reasonable standard of justice and fairness. In that comparison it is not "as good as anybody's".
Secondly, if the subject of the allegation has purchased a Season Ticket then contract law applies which includes innocent until proven guilty albeit with a lesser standard of proof (probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt).
And finally, I did read your post through.
So guess again!

So what you're saying is you don't know but you're prepared to have a guess.
You haven't seen any evidence. You've not heard any testimony for or against. In fact, you've not even seen any evidence that anybody's actually been banned.
And yet you're prepared to guess that somebody, we don't know who, is probably guilty of we don't know what and deserves any punishment anybody wishes to administer.
The rule is: innocent until proven guilty.
Not: I don't know but I'll have a guess and hell slap it intae ye.

Can we not all agree that it is wrong to punish someone simply because they are the subject of an allegation?
Can we not all agree that it is wrong to punish someone in order to gain a position of power and that such a scheme would amount to corruption?
The club are clearly in the wrong here. If it's an error on their part it should be corrected. If this has anything to do with getting a seat at the SPFL table then, as a club, we're well and truly fucked.

The law allows you to act proportionally in self defence. If you are under the threat of attack you are allowed to confront that attack.
Secondly, there's the safety aspect. With Hivs fans rushing at the Rangers end, it is reasonable to suppose that there might be crushing at the exits. It was therefore reasonable to leave the stand via the field of play.

The law allows you to act proportionally in self defence. If you are under the threat of attack you are allowed to confront that attack.
Secondly, there's the safety aspect. With Hivs fans rushing at the Rangers end, it is reasonable to suppose that there might be crushing at the exits. It was therefore reasonable to leave the stand via the field of play.

The law allows you to act proportionally in self defence. If you are under the threat of attack you are allowed to confront that attack.
Secondly, there's the safety aspect. With Hivs fans rushing at the Rangers end, it is reasonable to suppose that there might be crushing at the exits. It was therefore reasonable to leave the stand via the field of play.