The Official Airdrieonians Thread - 2019/20 and beyond

[AJ77]

Josh Rae out for a number of weeks.

[ShineOnYouCrazyDiamonds]

2 minutes ago, AJ77 said:

Josh Rae out for a number of weeks.

Just seen that. Think the best thing now would be to get Johnson in on loan until January if possible.

[AJ77]

3 minutes ago, ShineOnYouCrazyDiamonds said:

Just seen that. Think the best thing now would be to get Johnson in on loan until January if possible.

Yeah 100% rather have him playing than Hutton.

[Jack Reed]

12 hours ago, BlackandGauld said:

Have Airdrie gone through with the transfer of James Mcpake as anticipated ?

Mcpake had  big knee operation, can't see that happening. 

[19QOS19]

Is the tribunal about the idiotic behaviour of some Airdrie supporters surrounding Yaxley-Lennon, back before Paul Hetherington was involved with Airdrie? 
Is the tribunal about the idiotic behaviour of some airdrie supporters at Gretna... in 2006, before the current owner or board were involved?
Is the Tribunal about the Airdrie supporters at all? 
Or is the tribunal actually about the club investigation into the accusations of racist abuse, and whether the club itself discriminated against Quitongo? 
I'm fairly confident it is that last one, not the other three. 
On that basis, Yaxley-Lennon, Gretna, the Trump flag, none of that has ANY bearing on the actual issue the tribunal is about. 
Unless the suggestion is that the people who dressed up in the Klan outfits are now the ones who conducted the investigation, or the people who got selfies with Yaxley-Lennon are the ones who conducted the investigation, then they are absolutely irrelevant to the tribunal which is currently ongoing. 
You're not daft, you must be able to recognise that. 
Those contemptible episodes, embarrassing though they are, have zero to do with the current board, current owner, and most of all, the current tribunal, which is about the investigation, and the investigation only, from last year.

You can't be surprised by the way the prosecution is conducting their business surely? It's basic stuff. Of course those instances have absolutely nothing to do with the Quitongo case but if you're trying to prove the 'defendant' is racist you obviously bring up previous examples to sway the decision.

[She who dares gins]

You can't be surprised by the way the prosecution is conducting their business surely? It's basic stuff. Of course those instances have absolutely nothing to do with the Quitongo case but if you're trying to prove the 'defendant' is racist you obviously bring up previous examples to sway the decision.

I broadly agree, although I do think it’s worth saying that PH was not owner of the club or involved with the club during those incidents so he shouldn’t be held accountable for them in terms of the case against him. Those are the failings of Ballantyne and Co if they weren’t dealt with properly.

[ShineOnYouCrazyDiamonds]

39 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

12 hours ago, AndyDD said:

Is the tribunal about the idiotic behaviour of some Airdrie supporters surrounding Yaxley-Lennon, back before Paul Hetherington was involved with Airdrie? 
Is the tribunal about the idiotic behaviour of some airdrie supporters at Gretna... in 2006, before the current owner or board were involved?
Is the Tribunal about the Airdrie supporters at all? 
Or is the tribunal actually about the club investigation into the accusations of racist abuse, and whether the club itself discriminated against Quitongo? 
I'm fairly confident it is that last one, not the other three. 
On that basis, Yaxley-Lennon, Gretna, the Trump flag, none of that has ANY bearing on the actual issue the tribunal is about. 
Unless the suggestion is that the people who dressed up in the Klan outfits are now the ones who conducted the investigation, or the people who got selfies with Yaxley-Lennon are the ones who conducted the investigation, then they are absolutely irrelevant to the tribunal which is currently ongoing. 
You're not daft, you must be able to recognise that. 
Those contemptible episodes, embarrassing though they are, have zero to do with the current board, current owner, and most of all, the current tribunal, which is about the investigation, and the investigation only, from last year.

You can't be surprised by the way the prosecution is conducting their business surely? It's basic stuff. Of course those instances have absolutely nothing to do with the Quitongo case but if you're trying to prove the 'defendant' is racist you obviously bring up previous examples to sway the decision.

I think Andy’s point is that none of these previous examples are actually examples of Hetherington being racist or turning a blind eye to racism, which I’m sure Quitongo has accused him of. It’s not surprising it’s been brought up and if I’m honest I wouldn’t say it’s completely irrelevant since it does highlight a serious issue with far right ideology and racism from some of the bams in our support. Those previous examples won’t prove that the investigation by the club was inadequate and they won’t prove any direct wrongdoing from Hetherington but I’m assuming the prosecution is claiming guilt by negligence, in that the club’s failure to deal with past instances has led to Quitongo being put in this position. Not sure how well that would hold up in court however and I would imagine if the club has actually punished previous wrongdoers they can prove that they have taken these issues seriously. It all probably hinges on how professional the Quitongo investigation actually was.

Edited August 12, 2022 by ShineOnYouCrazyDiamonds

[Diamond1924]

30 minutes ago, She who dares gins said:

I broadly agree, although I do think it’s worth saying that PH was not owner of the club or involved with the club during those incidents so he shouldn’t be held accountable for them in terms of the case against him. Those are the failings of Ballantyne and Co if they weren’t dealt with properly.

Absolutely the failings of Ballantyne and his cronies for not dealing with these incidents but that is the exact reason why these incidents have been brought back up. The club/fans/community didn’t deal with them then and subsequently haven’t dealt with Quitongo’s claims either which in turn, paints a picture that Airdrie are quite happy to accept racism amongst the fans. If they had dealt with Quitongo’s claim appropriately then there wouldn’t be a court case in place. 
 

I honestly don’t think saying “He wasn’t the owner at the time/ the past has nothing to do with this/ these things happened years ago” helps anything at all and in-fact makes us fans look even worse. Accept that there’s probably some seriously scummy fans amongst us and do your bit to call it out rather than deflect it.

[She who dares gins]

Absolutely the failings of Ballantyne and his cronies for not dealing with these incidents but that is the exact reason why these incidents have been brought back up. The club/fans/community didn’t deal with them then and subsequently haven’t dealt with Quitongo’s claims either which in turn, paints a picture that Airdrie are quite happy to accept racism amongst the fans. If they had dealt with Quitongo’s claim appropriately then there wouldn’t be a court case in place. 
 
I honestly don’t think saying “He wasn’t the owner at the time/ the past has nothing to do with this/ these things happened years ago” helps anything at all and in-fact makes us fans look even worse. Accept that there’s probably some seriously scummy fans amongst us and do your bit to call it out rather than deflect it.

There are two things going on here. The case against PH personally and the case against the club from my understanding. I was just referring to his personal role in those incidents. And for it’s worth I did and do speak out on behaviour of this kind and have been subject to targeted abuse as a result.

[Diamond1924]

2 minutes ago, She who dares gins said:

There are two things going on here. The case against PH personally and the case against the club from my understanding. I was just referring to his personal role in those incidents. And for it’s worth I did and do speak out on behaviour of this kind and have been subject to targeted abuse as a result.

I agree completely. The claims against the club and PH are coming as one it seems. 
 

It’s extremely sad that people feel the need to target someone who is doing the right thing. Unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me with the dregs that we seem to attract to games. 

[She who dares gins]

I agree completely. The claims against the club and PH are coming as one it seems. 
 
It’s extremely sad that people feel the need to target someone who is doing the right thing. Unfortunately it doesn’t surprise me with the dregs that we seem to attract to games. 

I just understand that’s it’s not always easy for people to stick their head above the parapet.

[Kenny_m]

13 minutes ago, She who dares gins said:

There are two things going on here. The case against PH personally and the case against the club from my understanding. I was just referring to his personal role in those incidents. And for it’s worth I did and do speak out on behaviour of this kind and have been subject to targeted abuse as a result.

What is the club though? Is it the entire staff? Does it include the fans? (Tommy Robinson paying into a game can't possibly be attributed to the Club, directors or staff)

Is this heading down the strict liability route?

[AndyDD]

10 hours ago, Diamond1924 said:

I understand your logic however the focus of the case has clearly broadened. 
 

It now seems as though the claims are regarding Airdrieonians and our fans being inherently racist otherwise those points would be unrelated like you say.
 

The inherent racism in this case being that a fan allegedly racially abused Rico only for the club to carry out a poor investigation due to the narrative that they too are racist. 

I don’t think the club nor directors are racist. I do think that the investigation was weak and I do think things could have been handled better. Unfortunately, some of our fans have a pretty grim and random affiliation with being complete and utter scum which has clearly not helped this case at all. 
 

This isn’t personally aimed at you, but in dissecting the case, disregarding the allegations and deflecting stone cold evidence of racism at the club… YOU END UP LOOKING LIKE YOU DEFEND RACISM OR IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE A RACIST. 

I just don't see any basis for the idea that the focus has broadened at all. 

It's not a wide ranging investigation, it's an employment tribunal with a narrowly defined focus; the investigation the club conducted following the report of racist abuse. How the club handled it and whether the club discriminated against Quitongo in the course of that investigation is the only issue at play. That's all that the tribunal is going to adjudicate on. 

Conduct of Airdrie supporters in general or in particular, indeed the ins and outs of the actual incident itself, are not the point here. The point the tribunal is looking at is the investigation into the incident and how that subsequent investigation was handled. 

That's it. 

The conduct of Airdrie fans in Gretna over a decade ago has no relevance to the investigation conducted by the club. At best, it might have been tangentially linkable had the same board and/or owner been in situ then and now, but that's not the case. 

Quitongo's brief is the only one who could tell us why they felt it worthy of bringing up (trying to get a reaction from the witness? Not having all that much to go on vis a vis the actual investigation? No idea) but it's entirely correct for people to point out that it has nothing to do with this tribunal, given this tribunal is not into Airdrie supporters but into the investigation from last season. It's an employment tribunal and so it has a very defined purpose and scope. 

How good or otherwise the investigation was is for the tribunal to determine, and any fair and just conclusion will be drawn without paying any heed to things like Gretna 2006 or Yaxley-Lennon. These things are, in context of the tribunal, entirely irrelevant. 

I completely agree that disregarding the allegations out of hand is out of order and of course defending racism is racism, and I also think the Gretna incident and Yaxley-Lennon incident are absolutely embarrassing deplorable episodes, but I don't think there's anything wrong at all with pointing out that they should have absolutely no bearing on this tribunal, on PH or on anyone at the club if they were not involved at the time. 

And again, I don't accept at all that the focus of the case has broadened to include the conduct of some Airdrie supporters years before this. It simply cannot broaden to include that. It is an employment tribunal. 

I don't think there's much merit in us going back and forth over this, in any event (he says, after typing loads haha, I know, sorry) and the judgement of the tribunal will come when it comes. Until then, on to Saturday and here's hoping we keep this momentum going. 

[Diamond1924]

Just now, Kenny_m said:

What is the club though? Is it the entire staff? Does it include the fans? (Tommy Robinson paying into a game can't possibly be attributed to the Club, directors or staff)

Is this heading down the strict liability route?

I think the whole Tommy Robinson point is more about the clientele that Airdrie seem to attract and you need to ask yourself why does Tommy Robinson, the racist, attend a match in SPFL league 1 if those fans who literally surrounded him aren’t like minded. 

[She who dares gins]

What is the club though? Is it the entire staff? Does it include the fans? (Tommy Robinson paying into a game can't possibly be attributed to the Club, directors or staff)
Is this heading down the strict liability route?

All way over my head I’m afraid - my own view is just to let the case come to its conclusion and respect the findings regardless of what they are. If there are serious learnings to to take from that, then they should be implemented.

[Diamond1924]

6 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

I just don't see any basis for the idea that the focus has broadened at all. 

It's not a wide ranging investigation, it's an employment tribunal with a narrowly defined focus; the investigation the club conducted following the report of racist abuse. How the club handled it and whether the club discriminated against Quitongo in the course of that investigation is the only issue at play. That's all that the tribunal is going to adjudicate on. 

Conduct of Airdrie supporters in general or in particular, indeed the ins and outs of the actual incident itself, are not the point here. The point the tribunal is looking at is the investigation into the incident and how that subsequent investigation was handled. 

That's it. 

The conduct of Airdrie fans in Gretna over a decade ago has no relevance to the investigation conducted by the club. At best, it might have been tangentially linkable had the same board and/or owner been in situ then and now, but that's not the case. 

Quitongo's brief is the only one who could tell us why they felt it worthy of bringing up (trying to get a reaction from the witness? Not having all that much to go on vis a vis the actual investigation? No idea) but it's entirely correct for people to point out that it has nothing to do with this tribunal, given this tribunal is not into Airdrie supporters but into the investigation from last season. It's an employment tribunal and so it has a very defined purpose and scope. 

How good or otherwise the investigation was is for the tribunal to determine, and any fair and just conclusion will be drawn without paying any heed to things like Gretna 2006 or Yaxley-Lennon. These things are, in context of the tribunal, entirely irrelevant. 

I completely agree that disregarding the allegations out of hand is out of order and of course defending racism is racism, and I also think the Gretna incident and Yaxley-Lennon incident are absolutely embarrassing deplorable episodes, but I don't think there's anything wrong at all with pointing out that they should have absolutely no bearing on this tribunal, on PH or on anyone at the club if they were not involved at the time. 

And again, I don't accept at all that the focus of the case has broadened to include the conduct of some Airdrie supporters years before this. It simply cannot broaden to include that. It is an employment tribunal. 

I don't think there's much merit in us going back and forth over this, in any event (he says, after typing loads haha, I know, sorry) and the judgement of the tribunal will come when it comes. Until then, on to Saturday and here's hoping we keep this momentum going. 

An employment tribunal. About racial discrimination. Which came about because of a racist fan. Of a club that have an evidential history of racist fans. At an employment tribunal. About racism. Of course these ‘episodes’ are related
 

If the employment tribunal was about Airdrie not giving Rico holiday pay  then you would be spot on but it’s quite clearly not.

 

Keen to see the outcome of the case.  

Edited August 12, 2022 by Diamond1924

[AndyDD]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

12 hours ago, AndyDD said:

Is the tribunal about the idiotic behaviour of some Airdrie supporters surrounding Yaxley-Lennon, back before Paul Hetherington was involved with Airdrie? 
Is the tribunal about the idiotic behaviour of some airdrie supporters at Gretna... in 2006, before the current owner or board were involved?
Is the Tribunal about the Airdrie supporters at all? 
Or is the tribunal actually about the club investigation into the accusations of racist abuse, and whether the club itself discriminated against Quitongo? 
I'm fairly confident it is that last one, not the other three. 
On that basis, Yaxley-Lennon, Gretna, the Trump flag, none of that has ANY bearing on the actual issue the tribunal is about. 
Unless the suggestion is that the people who dressed up in the Klan outfits are now the ones who conducted the investigation, or the people who got selfies with Yaxley-Lennon are the ones who conducted the investigation, then they are absolutely irrelevant to the tribunal which is currently ongoing. 
You're not daft, you must be able to recognise that. 
Those contemptible episodes, embarrassing though they are, have zero to do with the current board, current owner, and most of all, the current tribunal, which is about the investigation, and the investigation only, from last year.

You can't be surprised by the way the prosecution is conducting their business surely? It's basic stuff. Of course those instances have absolutely nothing to do with the Quitongo case but if you're trying to prove the 'defendant' is racist you obviously bring up previous examples to sway the decision.

I think as has been pointed out by others that the pertinent difference here is that those instances are from before 'the defendant' was involved with the club. They cannot therefore have any bearing on him or on the actual issue being examined by the employment tribunal; the investigation conducted last year. That's all the tribunal is about. Nothing more, nothing less. That investigation, how well/poorly it was conducted, and if the club discriminated against Quitongo in the way it was conducted. 

 

[AndyDD]

1 minute ago, Diamond1924 said:

An employment tribunal. About racial discrimination. Which came about because of a racist fan. Of a club that have an evidential history of racist fans. At an employment tribunal. About racism. Of course these ‘episodes’ are related
 

If the employment tribunal was about Airdrie not giving Rico holiday pay  then you would be spot on but it’s quite clearly not.

 

Keen to see the outcome of the case.  

An employment tribunal about an investigation into racial discrimination, and whether that investigation was conducted well or not, and into whether the club (as in, PH and whoever else was involved in the investigation at director level) discriminated against Rico in the course of the investigation. 

The investigation is the beginning and the end of it, really. So no, I don't think they are related at all, since none of them are pertinent to the investigation that took place last year, nor are they pertinent to PH or anyone who was involved in the investigation.

That's my understanding, anyway. 

Also keen to see how it goes. 

[Diamond Oracle]

Even if every man, woman and child that supported Airdrie were swastika waving bigots I don’t see how that could prove whether the club handled Quitongo’s correctly or not. Utterly bizarre line of questioning.

[Kenny_m]

47 minutes ago, Diamond1924 said:

Which came about because of a racist fan. Of a club that have an evidential history of racist fans

The "fan" has never been identified, might not have been an Airdrie fan!