Dee Man Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I was thinking more along the lines of ......... So that regardless of which team someone plays for, the NEXT time anyone is accused of any (serious) offence, that there will be independent, corroborative evidence. The rules are there to be obeyed & they have decided Tonev is guilty. I'm ok with that. However, any rule whereby I can claim, or even mishear a racist comment, & someone can lose his job on my say so, is clearly flawed. So you reckon we should change the rules to give the green light to racists like Tonev to whisper their abuse outwith earshot of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'll answer by way of example. I know that when you wrote "...there's a very good reason why legal courts do not rely on the balance of probability,..." you were talking pysh because that statement was factually incorrect. On the balance of probability, you are an ignoramus when it comes to matters of the law. Glad I could help. aDONis P.S. I'd rather be seen as pompous than a fvkkin idiot That is utter shite, you avoided the question by answering a completely different question. Did you study politics too? I understand what the words mean I asked you for an alternative in that context, you might like to think I'm a 'fvkkin idiot' but I'm actually 'no that fick pal'! I'd rather be seen as an idiot and know different than be seen as pompous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Left Wing Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Who can lose their job based on the outcome of an SFA hearing? Any club could & should sack anyone guilty of racist remarks. We should bin Tonev. He was found guilty under current rules, was he not? Personally, I think Logan should have made a complaint to police. Maybe he did, I don't know. What I do know, is racism is wrong. Always. As is taking one persons word over another, no matter how more credible that person may seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 That is utter shite, you avoided the question by answering a completely different question. Did you study politics too? I understand what the words mean I asked you for an alternative in that context, you might like to think I'm a 'fvkkin idiot' but I'm actually 'no that fick pal'! I'd rather be seen as an idiot and know different than be seen as pompous. I'm sorry you didn't understand the examples I obviously mis-judged my audience. I'm sure others did understand it though I'm afraid though, that I don't think I can compensate for your ignorance of the law and dispute resolution in general. If you insist on using 'absolute' terms in inappropriate circumstances, and also insist that decisions and judgement can only be made with absolute certainty, then you'll never get it. What I would counsel you on is, that if you don't know what the fvk your talking about (in your case the law and burdens of proof), don't pontificate about it as if you do. Yours, ever pompous. aDONis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I'm sorry you didn't understand the examples I obviously mis-judged my audience. I'm sure others did understand it though I'm afraid though, that I don't think I can compensate for your ignorance of the law and dispute resolution in general. If you insist on using 'absolute' terms in inappropriate circumstances, and also insist that decisions and judgement can only be made with absolute certainty, then you'll never get it. What I would counsel you on is, that if you don't know what the fvk your talking about (in your case the law and burdens of proof), don't pontificate about it as if you do. Yours, ever pompous. aDONis Thanks for that, free counselling from a wilfully ignorant internet lawyer, I'm so lucky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Thanks for that, free counselling from a wilfully ignorant internet lawyer, I'm so lucky! Some days, even I am useful Yours aDONis P.S. Worse than being a 'wilfully ignorant lawyer', I'm an accountant that specialises in contract negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 What I do know, is racism is wrong. Always. As is taking one persons word over another, no matter how more credible that person may seem. Bang go the Justice systems of just about every country in the world then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Some days, even I am useful Yours aDONis P.S. Worse than being a 'wilfully ignorant lawyer', I'm an accountant that specialises in contract negotiations. Intentional irony?? So in other words you don't really know what you're talking about either but I could get some good advice regarding tax avoidance, explains a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 No need to worry on that front. If you quoted the whole post you'd know I'm not. But it does looks like it's bothering you and a few other sprats. Lets get back on topic Shay Logan is clearly f@nny!.........Tonev on the other hand might be a racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Intentional irony?? So in other words you don't really know what you're talking about either but I could get some good advice regarding tax avoidance, explains a lot. Whatever you do, don't come to me for tax advice! I have enough problems completing my annual return, let alone someone else's! However if you've got a problem with a commercial contract, or are trying to agree a contract, or are in dispute and are looking at going to court, I'm more your man. That's my field. Yours, not touting for freelance work, as I'm snowed under at the moment. aDONis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If you quoted the whole post you'd know I'm not. But it does looks like it's bothering you and a few other sprats. Lets get back on topic Shay Logan is clearly f@nny!.........Tonev on the other hand might be a racist! By Jingo, I think you're beginning to get there. Just a couple of suggestions; Better if you said "Shay Logan seems to be a complete f@nny!.........Tonev on the other hand is probably a racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 That article by Tom English is nonsense. He starts off by claiming that trusting someone you've known for months should be the same as trusting somone you do not know at all. How is Celtic trusting Tonev anything like a Judge trusting Logans testimony? And there's a very good reason why legal courts do not rely on the balance of probability, because it would not be fair. I have no idea what went on here but we all know it would have been thrown out by a 'real' court. I have a bit of sympathy for Tonev as c**t does seem like an entirely appropriate description of Logan!! Woah there horsey. What's all this about? I have no idea Ah right. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Any club could & should sack anyone guilty of racist remarks. We should bin Tonev. He was found guilty under current rules, was he not? Personally, I think Logan should have made a complaint to police. Maybe he did, I don't know. What I do know, is racism is wrong. Always. As is taking one persons word over another, no matter how more credible that person may seem. Celtic would have to hold their own internal hearing to be able to sack Tonev. The only thing which this SFA hearing does is confirm Tonev's guilt of the offence in a footballing context, and means he can be banned and fined within the framework of the football rules. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the word of every witness should be given equal weight. If someone seems to be evasive and comes across as a liar then their evidence must be treated as being less reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I've got to be honest here, I find the reaction from some Celtic fans (and the club) quite puzzling. If an on-loan player from my club did this and he was found guilty twice then I'd want him punted immediately. The other cases that you can compare this to, like John Terry oR Luis Suarez, these were leading players at the club not some on-loan nobody. Everyone knows that football fans are capable of being myopic when it comes to their players but there's more than that going on here I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The sweeple in ourselves alone type attitude shocker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 However, any rule whereby I can claim, or even mishear a racist comment, & someone can lose his job on my say so, is clearly flawed. do you honestly think thats what happened? nevermind tonev being called an unreliable witness, nevermind the conflicting stories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Left Wing Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Bang go the Justice systems of just about every country in the world then. How so? In a half decent justice system, even a credible witness has to be questioned on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Tibbs Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Most folk are racist. His crime is being stupid enough to be caught out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Vojáček Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If you quoted the whole post you'd know I'm not. But it does looks like it's bothering you and a few other sprats. Lets get back on topic Shay Logan is clearly f@nny!.........Tonev on the other hand might be a racist! At least that's not illegal though, eh? Most folk are racist. His crime is being stupid enough to be caught out. Speak for yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Left Wing Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 do you honestly think thats what happened? nevermind tonev being called an unreliable witness, nevermind the conflicting stories Honestly?, I don't know how the hearing went. When my kids argue about who broke a toy, one is usually more believable. Doesn't mean always right & the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.