The first reaction to the international break is never positive: “How many players do we have away and what condition will we get them back in?” The team which stopped the ten had more representatives at the 1998 World Cup than any other side (a remarkable achievement), but we caught a cold from these exploits the following season.
Leigh Griffiths would no doubt be delighted to start for Scotland this week. Representing your country is one of the things footballers look back on in their later years, so for his own sake, I hope Leigh gets the call, but for Celtic’s I’d be quite happy for him to have a quiet couple of weeks.
Griffiths, Scott Brown and Nir Bitton are precious commodities to Celtic right now, we can’t afford international mishaps for any of them. There’s better cover for the others who will be on international duty, but Stefan Johansen in particular looks like could do with a break.
You’ll know Packie Bonner’s autobiography, The Last Line, launches this month. Packie has a night at Walkabout in Glasgow on 29th October, where the big man will speak about his career, and many other things, past and contemporary. Tickets are available here.
505 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
blantyretim
+++
Hail Hail Tyre Rebel.
Thanks very much for your kind offer….I’ll have to decline…I’ll drop yerself and BMCUW a line explaining why.
A few of TOHG’s books will be on santa’s list.
Thanks also for your kind thoughts the other day…reciprocated.
Take Care….off oot. YNWA.
Hamiltontim on 7th October 2015 12:00 pm
This case again highlights the entire problem with the bill. The level of objectivity passed to the officers on duty.
At an extremely high level I don’t necessarily have an issue with the idea of a law specifically for offensiveness at events sporting or otherwise, where the action might not be offensive in everyday life. However that’s just the idea of it not the practical application.
They say ignorance of the law is no excuse and again I can accept that provided the law being breached is documented. As it stands people are falling foul of the law only as it stands is a random officers head, How this can be just is completely unfathomable.
KevJ
Take care fellow Trye bhoy
Afternoon Timland
Butsy
its only a new page not a new article… o))
how was TBM ?
I thought the behaviour of some of the police officers in that clip was very poor. Generally, the Police now act professionally ( and even sympathetically) when dealing with the Public . The tone used by one of the female officers in particular did not portray the Force in a positive light at all. Her style was certainly more offensive to me than the message on the banner (thanks, HT) was!
JJ
BT
He was in good form think he will go to the wee get together might be for just a few.
HH
I have now looked at the longer version of the video re the banner and a number of things jump out at me.
By all means watch the video again and feel free to disagree.
1. Is it part of Police training to stand across a group of people with your arms folded in what might be described as an aggressive manner?
2. Why were the police “checking out” this group of young people? They are asked “what are you checking us out for?” Recently Police Scotland announced that they were reviewing their stop and search policy. This is an example of a stop and search and indeed confiscate policy where no one apears to be arrested or charged with anything ( presumably they “checked out”? ), where property was confiscated without a warrant and not taken as eveidence in relation to any crime.
Later on the police officer says that the banner can be collected from the “found property” desk at Hamilton Police station.
Theft by finding is a crime in Scotland and it even applies to Police Officers. Theft can be depriving someone of their property even on a temporary basis.
3. One Police Officer – a female Sargeant — states that a 17 year old is “old enough to know better” and later, when the boys challenge them about what right they have to take the banner, the same officer or another famale officer states rather aggressively that if they want to complain then they can get their parents to come to the police station. When the boy mentions that the whole incident is caught on film, the police officer suggests ( again aggressively ) that they show the film to their parents and see what they have to say about it.
What dreadfully condescending behaviour from these Police Officers.
They cannot answer the question on the law and they have not arrested anyone as it would appear they have no grounds to do so.
On the one hand they say the people concerned are old enough to know better and then suggest they speak to their parents.
The Scottish Government ensured that people of such an age were able to vote in the referendum without a note from their parents. By law, anyone over the age of 16 can marry, claim benefits and have the full protection of the law in many instances as if legally an adult. Legally, they are an adult with full capacity to contract, marry and do many other things. In the eyes of the law these are not children and police officers should treat them accordingly rather than behave in a condescending manner.
There is no law about what age you have to be to display a banner, protest against a law, and there is no age limit above which you have to be to question a police officer or any other official about the law of the land and its implementation or effect.
The Police have an over riding duty to the citizens of this country not to abuse what special powers of detention or whatever they are given by right of being a police officer — which, as a basic rule of law, they are only allowed to use in special and controlled circumstances.
Any police officer who puts on a uniform or carries a badge is not automatically allowed to interfere with the free movement or actions of any other person. To do so, without good cause is a criminal offence.
Police officers can only use the power they are given in specific circumstances, and in the course of that film none of the officers concerned could specifically state what circumstances prevailed which justified either the confiscation of the banner or the “checking out” of the boys concerned.
Whatever, the OB act was intended to do it was not designed to allow Police Officers to create an incident in a car park – and that is precisely what they did with one officer referring to the fact that there might be a civil dispute of some kind. No such civil dispute existed until the Police Officers decided to confiscate the banner.
This is aggravated by the fact that a male officer says that the banner will not be returned or released until someone comes forward, provides a name and address and states specifically that they own the banner. He says they are not interested in anyone claiming that it is a group banner. What he is saying is that one or more persons have to come forward and take personal responsibility for a group action.
If the police officer does not know the identity of the true owner of the banner and if no one is claiming that it is their rightful property and it has been taken from them, then why and from whom was the banner confiscated in the first place?
If the Police officer does not know that and has no knowledge of ownership then why take the banner in the first place as opposed to saying “sorry but you are not allowed to display that in the ground or in the vicinity of the ground so either ditch the banner or move on.” That would be another issue – but confiscation of property is simply not allowed by law and that is the end of it.
Of course the implication is that if one person comes along and says it is my banner, then he or she may well be charged with something.
With regard to Morrisons, there appears to be an attitude that even if the boys concerned were going into shop their custom would not be wanted and the police say that.
Now that is an interesting notion because i can understand the manager of the supermarket simply wanting the whole incident, Police Officers included, to go away from his premises.
I wonder if the same boys went to the supermarket today to buy bananas and milk would their custom be refused?
I also wonder, if the boy had produced a share certificate showing that he was a shareholder in Morrisons PLC and asked for a written statement from the manager as to why his custom was not wanted – A) would he have gotten such a written statement and B) what would it have said?
Now, I know it is unlikely that a 17 year old would be wandering about with a Morrisons PLC share certificate, but the fact is that that certificate would not have changed the law about the banner, or his age, or whether confiscation was lawful or not.
However, what it would have done is change his legal position in relation to the manager who is accountable to their own management and board who in turn are accountable to the shareholders.
Would a manager, faced with a proven shareholder request, have had to stop and consider what to say or do next?
I will bet a pound to a penny that the manger wanted rid of the Police more than the boys and their banner because squads of policemen in and around your premises is not good for business.
In the past I have been asked to make representations to the Police on behalf of business owners asking that when the Police come in to check on licensed premises, they do not do so by the squad all wearing high viz vests.
Whilst there is nothing illegal about such a tactic, it is a policy that retailers and licence holders felt was unneccessary, was bad policing and could cause unneccessary trouble in otherwise peaceful situations.
This is an example of bad policing, in my opinion, and to my mind it demonstrates a lack of police training, a lack of knowledge of the law and the fact that in such circumstances otherwise good police officer may well be left high and dry when rightfully challeneged about a bad law which they do not know how to enforce correctly or practically.
The video with the appropriately worded letter asking questions should be sent to every MSP in Scotland.
HAMILTONTIM on 7TH OCTOBER 2015 12:00 PM
Tony
It’s your opinion which as you never tire of telling us, everyone is entitled to.
I’m giving you the cold hard reality.
It’s your choice.
KevJ
We have called out Celtic on it. In fairness the club have recently come out in opposition to the Act.
Must go, have a good day.
– See more at: http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/the-international-precious-commodities/comment-page-11/#comment-2693794
Your missing the point again, I know the cold facts of the bill, I know the laws of the land on it and I don’t like them either.
But you are sending kids in there getting involved with the police and all that will lead to is arrests on the kids and a past that will do there future no good, leave the kids alone, get a leader, a name, a man/woman to stand up ffs this has been going on since John Reid was there and you haven’t moved one inch, in fact if the truth be known you’ve went back ten years, if the big team haven’t the bottle to take on the cops, then chuck it, and you know the cops know your game, and that they won’t come out, so they are happy to mess the kids about, hey! Teacher……leave those kids alone.
new article posted.
BRTH
I have contacted my MSP and included the video clip asking for his and Police Scotland’s view on the incident shown in the video . I have been in contact with him several times regarding this issue and at present I am awaiting an update to a previous question .
We all need to play a part in fighting this Act but sadly most of our support don’t seem interested , I helped out with the petition against the act and the number of Celtic fans who told me they wouldn’t sign the petition because it didn’t affect them was very high .
The police stopped the same group of young supporters from walking to Celtic Park before the Fenerbache game with no reason given for the stop and when the group filmed the police in action the police told them that if they didn’t stop filming then the would hold them there so they would miss the match .
Scotland = Police State