Rick Roberts - Troublesome tribalism: does it matter who asks the questions?

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

I can agree on the last part. 

But after going down the historical abuse enquiry then they have to look at all historical abuse or they simply saying that one abuse is worse than another. 

The first part, any enquiry should lead to criminal prosecution. If the criminality  is of such a level then bringing the game into disrepute should apply and sanctions imposed by the SFA those should include a scale of fines, points penalties and demotion to a lower league  

 

 

They aren't saying anything close to it. They focus is on what can be done to prevent it from happening again (and what failed to allow it to happen to begin with) investigating one environment over another isn't saying one is worse than the other.

The scale of sanction is already set although there's almost no chance of it happening imo. They'll never get to a position where it's anything other than individuals employed by celtic convicted rather than being celtic as an entity on its own. If that doesn't happen then it'll be almost impossible to make it stick against them. If it did, you'd be opening Pandora's box where clubs are liable to punishment whenever players/staff are convicted of an offence

[Smile 26,610]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So it's only multiple convictions that matter?

You do know Hibs have links to multiple convicted child sex offenders? 

Shouldn't the focus be on the offenders themselves who have been identified at (iirc) 15 different Scottish football clubs rather than simply ignoring 14 clubs only to focus on one? Do those victims not deserve justice because they wore a different colour of kit?

The Scottish FA have conducted an inquiry, It was published last year - with one section held back pending conclusion of ongoing criminal cases. 

I think the clubs with multiple offenders(ring) especially one who cleared all their coaches after an internal inquiry should be shut down.  

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Smile said:

I think the clubs with multiple offenders(ring) especially one who cleared all their coaches after an internal inquiry should be shut down.  

Tbh, there's more chance of celtic winning the CL this weekend than Chelsea being shut down.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

They aren't saying anything close to it. They focus is on what can be done to prevent it from happening again (and what failed to allow it to happen to begin with) investigating one environment over another isn't saying one is worse than the other.

The scale of sanction is already set although there's almost no chance of it happening imo. They'll never get to a position where it's anything other than individuals employed by celtic convicted rather than being celtic as an entity on its own. If that doesn't happen then it'll be almost impossible to make it stick against them. If it did, you'd be opening Pandora's box where clubs are liable to punishment whenever players/staff are convicted of an offence

It is when they point blankly refuse to even discuss an enquiry into football abuse. 

If you bring the game into disrepute by your actions then punishment should be applied, I’ve no problem with that. 

If the scum had turned in the peado’s within their club I wouldn’t looking to punish the club, but they didn’t the board running the club covered it up in fact they even brought them back and paid them off. That is where the line is crossed and the club have to be punished. 

Rangers as a club didn’t avoid paying tax Sir Minty did but the club was punished. 

[backup 4,724]

22 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Again, nobody has said anything different. You're trying to prove your intelligence by incorrectly correcting a post. 

Nobody has suggested that anyone other the COPFS are in control.

The sfa are irrelevant and not fit for purpose, they removed the need to report abuse from their rules, why the sfa are continually quoted is beyond me it is a criminal matter, is that easier 🤫

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

It is when they point blankly refuse to even discuss an enquiry into football abuse. 

If you bring the game into disrepute by your actions then punishment should be applied, I’ve no problem with that. 

If the scum had turned in the peado’s within their club I wouldn’t looking to punish the club, but they didn’t the board running the club covered it up in fact they even brought them back and paid them off. That is where the line is crossed and the club have to be punished. 

Rangers as a club didn’t avoid paying tax Sir Minty did but the club was punished. 

3

That's something totally different - although I'd hasten a guess that abuse in the care system was (and still is) far more prevalent than football.

Imagine the pissing when clubs get point deductions because a player was done drink driving etc

Again, that sounds very similar to several clubs. What people think is unique about celtic really isn't. Chelsea ad Crewe in particular down south.

Rangers as a club (company) did avoid paying tax. Minty was the one in charge at the time but it was the company itself that had the obligation to the taxman.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, backup said:

The sfa are irrelevant and not fit for purpose, they removed the need to report abuse from their rules, why the sfa are continually quoted is beyond me it is a criminal matter, is that easier 🤫

No they didn't. I've no idea where this myth appeared from.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/childrens-rights-wellbeing/for-clubs/

The reason they are continually being quoted is that they are the only body who has the power to issue sporting sanctions (unless it was to go to FIFA/UEFA although even then it would be referred back to Hampden first)

[Bad Robot 21,152]

26 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So it's only multiple convictions that matter?

You do know Hibs have links to multiple convicted child sex offenders? 

Shouldn't the focus be on the offenders themselves who have been identified at (iirc) 15 different Scottish football clubs rather than simply ignoring 14 clubs only to focus on one? Do those victims not deserve justice because they wore a different colour of kit?

The Scottish FA have conducted an inquiry, It was published last year - with one section held back pending conclusion of ongoing criminal cases. 

No and maybe you’ve missed where I wrote all clubs with a conviction.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Bad Robot said:

No and maybe you’ve missed where I wrote all clubs with a conviction.

So should I ignore the post I responded to that said something totally different and wanted to focus on celtic?

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

That's something totally different - although I'd hasten a guess that abuse in the care system was (and still is) far more prevalent than football.

Imagine the pissing when clubs get point deductions because a player was done drink driving etc

Again, that sounds very similar to several clubs. What people think is unique about celtic really isn't. Chelsea ad Crewe in particular down south.

Rangers as a club (company) did avoid paying tax. Minty was the one in charge at the time but it was the company itself that had the obligation to the taxman.

Now there you go using a stupid example. 

No one is saying a club should get a points deduction for someone getting a DUI but they should be fined or even lose their job just like any other person. 

Then scum fc have an obligation to abide by the laws of the land one of those is you report child rape to the police. They didn’t so the club should be punished. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Now there you go using a stupid example. 

No one is saying a club should get a points deduction for someone getting a DUI but they should be fined or even lose their job just like any other person. 

Then scum fc have an obligation to abide by the laws of the land one of those is you report child rape to the police. They didn’t so the club should be punished. 

What is stupid about it? If a club is responsible for the actions of its employees then it would be a valid application of it.

Also, you're never going to get a club punished with a points deduction for stuff that happened 30 years ago.

[ger4life_1872 29,528]

1 hour ago, Courtyard Bear said:

And there you go, you’ve been told we want a full enquiry of all scottish clubs and you jump away to another country. 

Whataboutery at its best. 

Wasting your time hes a troll and nothing more , when hes finished making an arse of himself in here he will just fuck off for a few days and claim he got bored , same as the discrimination thread 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, ger4life_1872 said:

Wasting your time hes a troll and nothing more , when hes finished making an arse of himself in here he will just fuck off for a few days and claim he got bored , same as the discrimination thread 

Ah yes, the thread where cunts are claiming they are pyoor opressed

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

What is stupid about it? If a club is responsible for the actions of its employees then it would be a valid application of it.

Also, you're never going to get a club punished with a points deduction for stuff that happened 30 years ago.

It’s stupid because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. 

Why?? This is a watershed moment for Scottish Football it can get itself clean or be forever hampered by the abuse that happened on its watch. 

Extreme acts call for extreme measures to put it right.  

[ger4life_1872 29,528]

Just now, The Dude said:

Ah yes, the thread where cunts are claiming they are pyoor opressed

The thread you have lied in and been shown up in , yeah that 1 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

The thread you have lied in and been shown up in , yeah that 1 

Lied? Of course 😂😂😂

[ger4life_1872 29,528]

Just now, The Dude said:

Lied? Of course 😂😂😂

Yip , @SeparateEntityMyArse I'm sure it was too yourself that the dude lied about loyalist threats of violence? Before he disappeared from the thread when it was obvious he had lied and didn't know what he was talking about regarding alternate routes 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

It’s stupid because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. 

Why?? This is a watershed moment for Scottish Football it can get itself clean or be forever hampered by the abuse that happened on its watch. 

Extreme acts call for extreme measures to put it right.  

Maybe the punishment itself is ott but the idea of punishing clubs for such stuff will never happen. 

Serious question here, in what way will it be hampered and does that apply down south too (where abuse was even more widespread) 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

Yip , @SeparateEntityMyArse I'm sure it was too yourself that the dude lied about loyalist threats of violence? Before he disappeared from the thread when it was obvious he had lied and didn't know what he was talking about regarding alternate routes 

Correct. Threats made that whatever necessary would be done to stop a parade taking place if it was approved. 

[Bad Robot 21,152]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

What is stupid about it? If a club is responsible for the actions of its employees then it would be a valid application of it.

Also, you're never going to get a club punished with a points deduction for stuff that happened 30 years ago.

Yes there is vicarious liability and a company would get done if they willingly allowed a drunk to drive for them and an incident occurred.

I’m oot

[rabc10000 5,061]

3 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

Yes there is vicarious liability and a company would get done if they willingly allowed a drunk to drive for them and an incident occurred.

I’m oot

What was that phrase that was thrown about a wee whole ago strict liability or something along that lines where they were trying iirc to hammer the club for fans singing certain songs 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but would this be yet another case of changing the rules with buzz words and phrases to fuck us over. 

Surely if their was ever a time to enforce strict liability and enmmuse powers to hammer a club for actions of fans or employees now would be that time. 

 

P. S. I'm not sure if that was the correct phrase but I'm sure it was something along those lines. 

[backup 4,724]

30 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No they didn't. I've no idea where this myth appeared from.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/childrens-rights-wellbeing/for-clubs/

The reason they are continually being quoted is that they are the only body who has the power to issue sporting sanctions (unless it was to go to FIFA/UEFA although even then it would be referred back to Hampden first)

👍

 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, backup said:

👍

 

That's the Scottish Schools FA and it was removed because the SSFA moved to their own website.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

18 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Maybe the punishment itself is ott but the idea of punishing clubs for such stuff will never happen. 

Serious question here, in what way will it be hampered and does that apply down south too (where abuse was even more widespread) 

It will never be clean, it will always be stigmatised for whitewashing this scandal and the rest of Scottish Football should be telling the SFA to get it sorted as well. 

But sadly they would rather have a football system steeped in shame as long as it’s sticking 2 fingers up to Rangers. 

[ger4life_1872 29,528]

18 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Correct. Threats made that whatever necessary would be done to stop a parade taking place if it was approved. 

That's sema argument with you tbh I didn't read any of the evidence,  the alternate routes was my debate , if you wanna continue that we can in that thread but tbh it was clear you didn't understand the situation so theres prob not much point