One Scotland - Zero Moral Bearings

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

You seem to be contradicting yourself now BP9.

So are you now saying its okay to declare someone guilty so long as some some sort of investigation is undertaken ? So at what point in the investigation do you make that significant shift ? Who makes that decision ? What do they base it on ?

As for Savile - I personally, have arrived at the conclusion that he is guilty of the allegations - not because of the huge amount of witnesses who have come forward but applying a legal ruling known as the Moorov Doctrine. Had the mechanism existed where he could have undergone trial, I would have reserved judgement.

I do uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty. But as is the case with Savile, that mechanism is not possible due to him being deceased.

As for the failings at the BBC - they are there in black and white within the Hutton Report.

Does the Moorov Doctrine not require, at the evry least corroboration of evidence and that the corroboration can be applied over a time line? - Numerous allegations over time is not enough - it is corroboration that counts (I believe - we are now getting into legal arguments and beyond my pay grade) Hitler's guilt of (many) offences was corroborated - Saville (at this moment is time) has no corroboration only the weight of numerous, similar allegations. That alone should not be enough to find him guilty - but investigations (now being carried out) are likely (but not guaranteed) to find that corroboration - thus I will have him innocent until proven guilty!

But basically to get back to the point -it seems you application of "Innocent until proven guilty" is tinged with blue!

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Does the Moorov Doctrine not require, at the evry least corroboration of evidence and that the corroboration can be applied over a time line? - Numerous allegations over time is not enough - it is corroboration that counts (I believe - we are now getting into legal arguments and beyond my pay grade) Hitler's guilt of (many) offences was corroborated - Saville (at this moment is time) has no corroboration only the weight of numerous, similar allegations. That alone should not be enough to find him guilty - but investigations (now being carried out) are likely (but not guaranteed) to find that corroboration - thus I will have him innocent until proven guilty!

But basically to get back to the point -it seems you application of "Innocent until proven guilty" is tinged with blue!

Its is guided by a timeline - but there is considerable scope within that timeline. ( It created a "course of conduct" which related from a connection of special circumstances, such as recurring sexual offences, similar to the case itself. The course of conduct is sufficient as it determines the use of corroboration for each victim involved.)

A number of the testimonies I have heard and read so far - would see the application of Moorov appropriate.

However in addition to the Moorov principle we have the unusual feature in this case that it is supported by direct evidence - which of course had this been a trial would have been viewed as a better standard of evidence - independent witnesses who are attesting to Savile's conduct.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Its is guided by a timeline - but there is considerable scope within that timeline. ( It created a "course of conduct" which related from a connection of special circumstances, such as recurring sexual offences, similar to the case itself. The course of conduct is sufficient as it determines the use of corroboration for each victim involved.)

A number of the testimonies I have heard and read so far - would see the application of Moorov appropriate.

However in addition to the Moorov principle we have the unusual feature in this case that it is supported by direct evidence - which of course had this been a trial would have been viewed as a better standard of evidence - independent witnesses who are attesting to Savile's conduct.

Direct evidence? missed that - many allegations so far - but not seen direct evidence!? and are not witnesses viewed as the most unreliable witnesses?

anyway in car for next 4 hours then getting pissed for 2 days so I may not be back for a while - don't miss me to much!

[bluenose48 956]

Another great article D'Art.

One reason Scotland along with a few other nations have become morally corrupt is political correctness.

We have become so frightened by the vocal minorities and their claims of racial and or religious intolerance that we no longer speak freely about issues that we believe affect our rights.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Direct evidence? missed that - many allegations so far - but not seen direct evidence!? and are not witnesses viewed as the most unreliable witnesses?

anyway in car for next 4 hours then getting pissed for 2 days so I may not be back for a while - don't miss me to much!

An elderly woman has appeared on TV a few times now. She recounts an incident where she watched as Savile "molested" (her words) a victim who was suffering from brain damage.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

If you want to take some moral high ground at least try to be consistent about it - other wise you very quickly lose that ground if you only choose that path when it suits you.

we have this concept of not-guilty until proven innocent - something I believe in - something you believe in when it suits you.

That's odd. Most odd.

Didn't you offer support for the views of the Morton Chairman when he declared we “have cheated consistently over the last number of years."

Yes, you did. And - amazingly - offered the support without any consideration for us being not guilty until proven otherwise at the time. As if that wasn't bad enough, you then went on to tell us even McCoist agreed with Rae's lie.

But, here you are, trying to stick it to D'Art with a spurious, self-created attack over something you are actively known for on this board?

You're a complete fucking hypocrite - fuck knows why you are still allowed to poison this board with your deceptions, lies and Rangers-hating double standards.

PS: Your whory, redundant line of defence regarding the partial referencing of posts is now up in smoke thanks to your own two-faced cuntery.

Tick tock

[Adoniram 1,919]

Great post again D'Art.

You know, when I was younger and more naive, I always believed we had the best systems in society eg law and order, tolerance and human rights to name a few. Now I think what a lot of pish.

Always believed the best way to voice an opinion or propose change or demonstrate opposition was by reasoned debate. Now I think fuck it, take to the streets and be visible and heard.

Anger is an emotion I have a lot of nowadays bro.

We did....and here's where I get called a bigot.

Once Catholics got in to positions of prominence and power this country fell apart.

They had the cheek to accuse us of bigotry and nepotism.....ironic that once they get in to power they do the exact same only on a much wider and brazen scale.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I can't believe this board tolerates bp9.

He has turned a good thread with an excellent OP into one about a paedophile.

And he's on the paedophile's side, go figure.

[Adoniram 1,919]

I can't believe this board tolerates bp9.

He has turned a good thread with an excellent OP into one about a paedophile.

And he's on the paedophile's side, go figure.

Not often you and i agree but on this occasion i most certainly do.

It's ok having different beliefs or trains of thought but it is amazing how every important thread is spoiled by him.

Another "look at me" and i have to ask the question...Has anyone on here met him at a game?

[eastcoastbear 122]

We did....and here's where I get called a bigot.

Once Catholics got in to positions of prominence and power this country fell apart.

They had the cheek to accuse us of bigotry and nepotism.....ironic that once they get in to power they do the exact same only on a much wider and brazen scale.

And seemingly get away with doing so unchecked by the media or general population. I would get lifted if I put my full opinion on here. Let's just say that Johnny Cormack (Protestant Action) met with my approval ;-)

[anortherngentleman 5]

“The moral compass of any nation can be judged, not just by the conduct and character of the accused, but the conduct and character of the accusers”

(Anonymous)

I despair. I truly despair. I feel powerless. Is no-one else seeing this ? Is no-one else feeling this ? Has our country become a nation where our opinion leaders, our politicians, our journalists have become afraid to speak out and reset a moral compass which is spinning out of control ?

Let me re-phrase that – spinning dangerously out of control.

For I’m not alone in the feelings I’m experiencing. Anger, indignation, resentment, but most of all…… a complete lack of representation. Its ironic to think now that not so long ago 2 bears were ejected from Ibrox for displaying a banner “One Scotland – many cultures – except Rangers” I don’t know about you but that’s certainly an accurate reflection of how I feel today.

The most fundamental of human rights – innocent until proven guilty – have been totally discarded where Rangers are concerned. It’s a sign of the times that its only recently that some journalists such as Traynor and Hannah broke cover to reveal they had seen the contents of a document which declared Rangers “guilty” without charge or trial. That in itself tells its own story.

But months ago I listened to Brian Taylor’s Big Debate on BBC Scotland where the terms “dual contracts” “financial doping” and “cheats” were thrown about without censure in a debate about our club. Not once did Taylor, the facilitator, step in to remind the audience and the panel, that such allegations were as yet, unproven.

But of course the scene has already been set. Which appropriately, brings us back to my opening quotation.

Just who are the accusers of Rangers and how does their character and conduct stand up to the type of forensic examination being carried out in respect of our club ?

Let’s start with Phil Mac Giollbhain…also known Phil Gillvan…also known as Phil McGillvan. A man who seems to have great difficulty not only remembering his surname, but also the age of his daughter, how many brothers and sisters he has, the licensed premises he frequents and also his occupation. 3 names will speak about a lot of things – surprising then that he never seems to mention his employment as a social worker in Glasgow and the reasons why he no longer holds such a position.

http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=267:phil-gillivan-qaa

Not for the first time, I find myself indebted to Vanguard Bears and their research.

Of course recently, the Sun newspaper were going to run serialise 3 names blog in their newspaper until an upswell of anger caused a change of direction. 3 names was accused by the newspaper of being “tarred with a sickening sectarian brush”. Its probably one of the few times in recent years that said newspaper had actually been accurate in its reporting.

I think for those of us who still aspire to some kind of moral compass the description of 3 names as a “tactical bigot” by a Southern Irish journalist probably carries a lot more weight and authority than a tabloid who sought to feed the bloodfest of hate against Rangers by serialising his book.

But a theme is developing here. For its not only the Sun which seeks to feed that bloodfest. The editor of the Daily Record, Alan Rennie, has been begging the authors of The Rangers Tax case blog to contribute to the opinion forming columns of their publication. If anyone has any doubts please feel free to check the aforesaid Rennie’s tweets.

There has of course been considerable speculation, let alone evidence, that one of the Rangers Tax case authors is none other than Paul McConville. A quick search of google will acquaint you with both the conduct and character of Paul McConville.

In fact I wonder if the terms of his supervision order extend to his blog “Random Thoughts re Scots Law”. It seems Mr McConville has as much difficulty with the term “random” as he does with the term “justice for miners”. 291 articles about Rangers, 109 about Charles Green as well as numerous other “random thoughts” concerning our club and its employees.

Its perhaps remarkable that a man who started a blog because his wife was sick to death of his waffle on legal matters, can attribute hundreds of random thoughts to Rangers FC and yet only one, (yes one) to the legal minefield which is Mr Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber whose conviction and subsequent release on compassionate grounds led to something of a diplomatic fall out with our closest ally.

It is worth asking the question why 2 of Scotland’s biggest selling tabloids sought to bring on board persons whose integrity, character and conduct is quite clearly flawed. Or does that not matter if they are bashing Rangers ?

But I’m not finished yet. In fact I’ve barely started.

But I will conclude this article with another of our accusers who have been something of a critical thorn in the side of our club for a long time – the BBC. A publicly funded company whose conduct in the last few months has seen them banned from Ibrox due to a tasteless depiction of Ally McCoist falling to his death. A sketch which the Samaritans took time to criticise. And yet the BBC were unapologetic.

It came as no surprise to me. They were also unapologetic at the time of the Andrew Gilligan affair. When the Hutton report was published it showed considerable failings within the BBC ). So much so their director general Greg Dyke resigned.

Many years on the failings and arrogance of this organisation have come home to roost. The revelations surrounding Jimmy Saville have shocked a nation. Perhaps the failings of the BBC have shocked the nation even more. For those BBC apologists who are saying it was a long time ago and the culture etc was different blah blah blah….tell me then why did the BBC cancel a Newsnight documentary last year which sought to expose this perverts’s conduct ?

I hope this latest revelation will be the final nail in the coffin for this organisation. Its time they were relieved of the right to demand a licence fee, I hope the next government review remembers both their character and conduct.

For a Scotland whose moral compass seems to be in turmoil I will leave you with an observation and reflection from Freud.

“A civilization which leaves so large a number of its participants unsatisfied and drives them into revolt neither has nor deserves the prospect of a lasting existence.”

agree with everything you say...the question is though, what can be done about it?

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Great post again D'Art.

You know, when I was younger and more naive, I always believed we had the best systems in society eg law and order, tolerance and human rights to name a few. Now I think what a lot of pish.

Always believed the best way to voice an opinion or propose change or demonstrate opposition was by reasoned debate. Now I think fuck it, take to the streets and be visible and heard.

Anger is an emotion I have a lot of nowadays bro.

Very well said mate.

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

Only a mhank/bheast would stick up for a paedo. 120 young girls from all over Britain cant all be lying you clown

As of today, there's 340 - talk about saville row.

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

In light of all this - and penn state - & the penn state pioneers. when is the Scottish polis going to have an investigation into this.

[jack1690 793]

As of today, there's 340 - talk about saville row.

I know BP9 is harping on about innocent til proven guilty, but that is a lot of "liars" coming forward.

[jack1690 793]

In light of all this - and penn state - & the penn state pioneers. when is the Scottish polis going to have an investigation into this.

Erm.... let me think...........never?

[jack1690 793]

This country has a not guilty until proven concept - if we are to use the weight of accusations - where do you draw the line ? Are the SFA not correct in finding us guilty of double contracts using your methods? No they are not !

If we want to take a moral high ground stance we cant use that tactic only when it suits us.

I'm sure I read, in one of your posts, you had a daughter.

Let me ask you this.....If one of savilles "victims" was your daughter, would your stance be the same?

Or is it only "innocent til proven guilty" for everyone elses daughter?

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

Septic fan, Susan Boyle believes Jimmy Saville is innocent 'cause when she was on Jim'll fix it as a girl, he never touched her.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I'm sure I read, in one of your posts, you had a daughter.

Let me ask you this.....If one of savilles "victims" was your daughter, would your stance be the same?

Or is it only "innocent til proven guilty" for everyone elses daughter?

my daughter would not have kept quiet for 30 years and spoken out a year after his death - she would be more likely to have broke his arm or kicked him in the goolies! It is also , as you well know not the point. d'art can't bleat on in one sentence about 'innocent till guilty ' being a fundemental human right and in the next use an example where a man has not been found guilty. you either believe in the rights for all or not but you can't pick and choose who those rights are for!

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

That's odd. Most odd.

Didn't you offer support for the views of the Morton Chairman when he declared we “have cheated consistently over the last number of years."

Yes, you did. And - amazingly - offered the support without any consideration for us being not guilty until proven otherwise at the time. As if that wasn't bad enough, you then went on to tell us even McCoist agreed with Rae's lie.

But, here you are, trying to stick it to D'Art with a spurious, self-created attack over something you are actively known for on this board?

You're a complete fucking hypocrite - fuck knows why you are still allowed to poison this board with your deceptions, lies and Rangers-hating double standards.

PS: Your whory, redundant line of defence regarding the partial referencing of posts is now up in smoke thanks to your own two-faced cuntery.

Tick tock

... let your bitterness out .. it will do you some good .. calm you down .... perhaps give you a chance to think for yourself once you get that bitterness ex punched and take a look at the world beyond your bedroom door!

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

my daughter would not have kept quiet for 30 years and spoken out a year after his death - she would be more likely to have broke his arm or kicked him in the goolies! It is also , as you well know not the point. d'art can't bleat on in one sentence about 'innocent till guilty ' being a fundemental human right and in the next use an example where a man has not been found guilty. you either believe in the rights for all or not but you can't pick and choose who those rights are for!

BP9

Your contradictory stance throughout this debate is becoming increasingly amusing.

The exercise of the fundamental "until proven guilty" is no different to that we faced with regard to Hitler who you have already declared in this thread guilty. In the absence of a recognised judicial process for determining guilt or innocence such as a trial before a court of law, people will refer to the evidence and facts available and make a judgement.

Like it or not whilst the law is a useful compass it does not and cannot provide an answer for every eventuality which life throws up. Savile, because he is deceased, will never be able to defend himself. I have already answered you in a previous post that had he been alive and capable of defending himself in a court of law I would have reserved judgement.

But notwithstanding Savile, there is a significant difference between his circumstances and those of the SPL/SFA in their declaration of guilt regarding Rangers without trial or hearing, and one which you continually fail to grasp or acknowledge.

Rangers were not deceased when the SFA/SPL breached that fundamental. The opportunity existed for them to refer their suspicions or allegations to a judicial process and for Rangers to defend themselves. In fact, again as I pointed out to you earlier, a process was already underway in the form of tax tribunal which will go a long way to determining our guilt or innocence in this matter.

[eastcoastbear 122]

my daughter would not have kept quiet for 30 years and spoken out a year after his death - she would be more likely to have broke his arm or kicked him in the goolies! It is also , as you well know not the point. d'art can't bleat on in one sentence about 'innocent till guilty ' being a fundemental human right and in the next use an example where a man has not been found guilty. you either believe in the rights for all or not but you can't pick and choose who those rights are for!

Seen as how you've managed to fuck this thread up....

How do you know your daughter wouldn't have kept quiet for 30 years? Have you ever known anyone that was abused as a child? Are you aware of the mental harm caused - the fear of people's opinions, the shame, the self disgust, the wish to block it out? It is only when the abuser is dead that many victims feel able to speak.

Basically you are an ignorant cunt.

And no, it wasn't me.

[StrongbowLoyal. 36]

Totally agree with all you have written. Great read as per

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Seen as how you've managed to fuck this thread up....

How do you know your daughter wouldn't have kept quiet for 30 years? Have you ever known anyone that was abused as a child? Are you aware of the mental harm caused - the fear of people's opinions, the shame, the self disgust, the wish to block it out? It is only when the abuser is dead that many victims feel able to speak.

Basically you are an ignorant cunt.

And no, it wasn't me.

ah the Moses McNeil debating style of calling people by the 'C' word - I ain't defending Saville - you either believe in innocent till proven guilty for all - or for none - you obviously believe every one accused is guilty and by that standard of thought Rangers would be found guilty - it may be shit but you can't have it both ways.

[eastcoastbear 122]

ah the Moses McNeil debating style of calling people by the 'C' word - I ain't defending Saville - you either believe in innocent till proven guilty for all - or for none - you obviously believe every one accused is guilty and by that standard of thought Rangers would be found guilty - it may be shit but you can't have it both ways.

Was talking about your daughter example dickheid.