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

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, ger4life_1872 said:

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 

So I 'lied' except you don't actually know that I lied so just made it up? Odd.

[ger4life_1872 29,529]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So I 'lied' except you don't actually know that I lied so just made it up? Odd.

He claimed you lied about the threats , I have no reason too not believe him , it's funny you ignore the routes point again though , I know you arent gonna concede you dont actually understand the situation but done some cheap trolling , it's pretty clear that's the case though imo 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, ger4life_1872 said:

He claimed you lied about the threats , I have no reason too not believe him , it's funny you ignore the routes point again though , I know you arent gonna concede you dont actually understand the situation but done some cheap trolling , it's pretty clear that's the case though imo 

7

Because I'd linked to it but you decided not to click on it. Again. Odd.

[backup 4,724]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

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

Andrew Grays Mum challenged the sfa on the charmed life of section 9, so far she has not had the decency of a reply, new website or no new website.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, backup said:

Andrew Grays Mum challenged the sfa on the charmed life of section 9, so far she has not had the decency of a reply, new website or no new website.

It wouldn't be relevant to celtic/celtic BC as neither compete under the SSFA.

[backup 4,724]

Would be extremely unbecoming for this to turn into a point scoring thread, I am sure we all in our own different ways want to see different entity brought to the full force of criminal justice.

[ger4life_1872 29,529]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Because I'd linked to it but you decided not to click on it. Again. Odd.

I've just gone and read it , what loyalists threatened violence ? Because the quote in the article is 

 “One of the submissions reads: ‘If this goes ahead, me and my fellow Loyalist friends will do our utmost to stop it.’

 

That's 1 unnamed individual not a loyalist organisation? (Threatening violence is also a stretch) 

[backup 4,724]

Just now, The Dude said:

It wouldn't be relevant to celtic/celtic BC as neither compete under the SSFA.

Section 9 is/was about reporting abuse, Andrew was abused from schoolboy age.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

I've just gone and read it , what loyalists threatened violence ? Because the quote in the article is 

 “One of the submissions reads: ‘If this goes ahead, me and my fellow Loyalist friends will do our utmost to stop it.’

 

That's 1 unnamed individual not a loyalist organisation? (Threatening violence is also a stretch) 

I don't believe I said it was an organisation

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, backup said:

Section 9 is/was about reporting abuse, Andrew was abused from schoolboy age.

Right, but he wasn't playing under the Scottish Schools FA. That relates to school teams/competitions.

[ger4life_1872 29,529]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don't believe I said it was an organisation

Ok you said loyalists threatened violence ? Can we agree on that ? Now fancy providing proof ? Because like I quoted from your article it was 1 individual? Unless you know he is a loyalist spokesman and it just doesn't say in the article 

[Bobby Hume 13,098]

35 minutes ago, rabc10000 said:

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. 

👍

You are correct mate .... it's the new buzzword certain people of a differing breed from ours are trying to introduce to replace the now defunct (Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill ..... that was put in place to catch us ... but was rescinded when it became apparent the scum were also getting affected adversely.

 Strict Liability  .... if it arises as law .... could be used against any club ... making them liable for any fan infractions ...alleged sectarian or otherwise .... not 100% convinced if it can be used to nail them on the abuse cases though.

🇬🇧

 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, ger4life_1872 said:

Ok you said loyalists threatened violence ? Can we agree on that ? Now fancy providing proof ? Because like I quoted from your article it was 1 individual? Unless you know he is a loyalist spokesman and it just doesn't say in the article 

‘If this goes ahead, me and my fellow Loyalist friends will do our utmost to stop it.’

What do you think they mean by doing thir "utmost to stop it"?Standing singing songs?

The bit where he says "me and my fellow loyalist friends" would suggest that it was a loyalist. Might be wrong.

[Bad Robot 21,153]

36 minutes ago, backup said:

👍

 

That’s a complete red herring as it’s to do with the sfa and schools and nothing to do with youth or professional football. 

[backup 4,724]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Right, but he wasn't playing under the Scottish Schools FA. That relates to school teams/competitions.

All associations are under the sfa banner, specifically the league/assocciation celtic boys club (now st pats after £20K changed hands)  are/were affiliated to. 

[Bad Robot 21,153]

I think we need to keep victims names out of this.

if there were abuse to a child during an organised school association match then this is where this report would be of use 

[SonOfLuther 3,400]

This was a really good thread.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,729]

51 minutes ago, 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 

Yep. Threatening and abusive loyalists it was, yet the article he provided showed nothing of the sort, then he done the Houdini act. 👍

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, backup said:

All associations are under the sfa banner, specifically the league/assocciation celtic boys club (now st pats after £20K changed hands)  are/were affiliated to. 

But those aren't the SFA's guidelines. They are the Scottish Schools FA's. celtic FC/celtic BC/St. Pats were never affiliated to them so they bear as much relevance as the SRU's guidelines on child protection.

[rabc10000 5,061]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

‘If this goes ahead, me and my fellow Loyalist friends will do our utmost to stop it.’

What do you think they mean by doing thir "utmost to stop it"?Standing singing songs?

The bit where he says "me and my fellow loyalist friends" would suggest that it was a loyalist. Might be wrong.

Did u assume that they meant causing trouble or violance?? 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, rabc10000 said:

Did u assume that they meant causing trouble or violance?? 

What other inference is there to take from it?

[ger4life_1872 29,529]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

‘If this goes ahead, me and my fellow Loyalist friends will do our utmost to stop it.’

What do you think they mean by doing thir "utmost to stop it"?Standing singing songs?

The bit where he says "me and my fellow loyalist friends" would suggest that it was a loyalist. Might be wrong.

No a static protest in the road would do the trick with no violence , 

Unless you know he is a loyalist spokesman then he is an individual loyalist , so not loyalists threatening violence then , but an individual loyalist claiming he will try to stop the parade 

[rabc10000 5,061]

Just now, The Dude said:

What other inference is there to take from it?

Could mean many a thing, made that mistake many a time in the past by assuming one thing and later finding out I was completely wrong. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,729]

Just now, rabc10000 said:

Did u assume that they meant causing trouble or violance?? 

He stated that's what it implied. Because it was loyalists. He knows the law when it suits, but I'm certain that isnt the law breaking conduct he implied wrongly demonstrated by them. Rather than say he was wrong, he fucked off.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

No a static protest in the road would do the trick with no violence , 

Unless you know he is a loyalist spokesman then he is an individual loyalist , so not loyalists threatening violence then , but an individual loyalist claiming he will try to stop the parade 

Who is the official spokesman for all loyalists these days?