Jump to content

Ally Love


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply
So let me get this straight, just to summarise;

Love is guilty because he had a verbal exchange with Omar at some point in the game which Omar reacted to heatedly, and this was irrefutably a racist exchange because Omar said it was. This also justifies Love being attacked outside the stadium, and in any case he ‘looks like he is guilty’.

All good or did I miss anything? Clear cut case then surely.....

Well you presumably missed all the evidence presented and statements made to the tribunal which took days considering the matter - so without any real knowledge of that I doubt you can properly judge the reasoning for the decision made
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Not judging, merely summarising. Enlighten me please, what evidence was presented exactly?

All I’ve got is that they have a history, bad-blood over a love interest, and the balance of probability.

Sound about right?

No idea what evidence was presented same as you unless you were there
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clyde fans really are a disgusting lot.  Worse than the OF if you ask me.

Have to echo what Dindeleux said above, Clyde fans really are the lowest of the low. It’s genuinely staggering that almost their entire fan base is made up of utter, utter fucking vermin. 


[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3] What a couple of w*****s. [emoji112]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

The tribunal heard the evidence and made a decision. They don't need to tell us what it was.

I don't mean this in a tit-for-tat spirit, but it's implied in your post that the Clyde poster (You Only Live Twice) wasn't aware that the tribunal procedures don't require full, public disclosure of evidence, findings and rationale.

To my mind, that's part of his beef: that we could all - as anyone can in Goodwillie's case, for example - make our own minds up on the basis of a court report or transcript, were one available. I wrote earlier that it'd be best for tribunals like this which hear cases with outcomes which do profound reputational and occupational injury to people stick close to the safeguards we used to have in the courts in Scotland, but which are now heavily diluted as a consequence of left-made legislation since devolution and, in the rest of Britain, as a result of left-made legislation going back to the seventies, in fact.

The one safeguard I didn't mention earlier was what you might call 'open justice'; that the closed courts of South America, the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and the likes are no example of justice.

I'll say this: I don't think it's likely that many of our supporters had an interest in these 'big principles' up until it came time for their absence to hurt Clyde. However, I can bring-up posts on this forum and elsewhere which I've made going back before we signed the likes of Goodwillie, wherein I've said exactly the same thing. We're straying into politics now, of course, but many of our supporters will've voted for governments which were and are extremely keen to delete our inherited protections from the state. They, like almost every who's forgivably disinterested in politics, just didn't know it. If the state doesn't always provide these protections, why should a tribunal arranged by the governing body of a sport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, You Only Live Twice said:

Not yet, although failure to do so is surely an admission of guilt in itself!

In this country, aye; that's certainly how it's going. Of course, in reality, failure to appeal could've more to do with the absolute hopelessness of the avenue.

As I said before the Goodwillie appeal, there's absolutely no chance of a successful appeal. In Love's case, you'd be talking about overturning a positive finding on an issue which sees hugely disproportionate state and private investment (the discouragement of racism; implicit in which is that we're a largely immoral people who have to be tamed by advertising campaigns, vague laws and nice-making ceremonies that are patronising at best). None would admit it of course, but there's a superabundance of people out there willing-on Love to have done something meriting the racist label. Their livelihoods and performance-reviews depend on self-righteous, 'with message' behaviour.

All that said, if findings on Love's tribunal were made public and we could all read them, I'd shut up if they were compelling enough. Their move, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In Love's case, you'd be talking about overturning a positive finding on an issue which sees hugely disproportionate state and private investment (the discouragement of racism; implicit in which is that we're a largely immoral people who have to be tamed by advertising campaigns, vague laws and nice-making ceremonies that are patronising at best). None would admit it of course, but there's a superabundance of people out there willing-on Love to have done something meriting the racist label. Their livelihoods and performance-reviews depend on self-righteous, 'with message' behaviour.

All that said, if findings on Love's tribunal were made public and we could all read them, I'd shut up if they were compelling enough. Their move, really.

 

Or he could just be guilty as charged and realised he got off lightly.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SLClyde said:

 

I've heard differing stories to what the herald have ran with as well. 

 

You’d have to imagine that if the Herald story is bollocks Love will see them in court very shortly. Time will tell I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...