Toonpack

If he broke in - absolutely Justice

If there is anything left to arrest. There'll be plenty left, I mean I'll get a police cordon to protect me in my perfectly acceptable demonstration, erm.............won't I

I'm going to stand outside the Mosque up the west end with a sign saying Allah sucks pigs cocks (and he swallows) and see who gets arrested first, me or the muslims who'll berate me.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds. It's because the 'cause' was not illegal and SHOULD be protected by freedom of speech, while the 'effect' WAS illegal which is why i presume the police stepped in and made arrests. If we (the west) are going to hold up ideals of being the model for which all civil society is based on, we can't laud those ideals on one hand while we contradict them on the other. Take for instance the OTT measures taken after 9/11 by 'W' and his cronies, all in the name of "protecting" the public, if it means having my rights infringed upon then I'd rather take my chances against the terrorist tbh. The right to demonstarte is not illegal, but the method/words was highly provokative, I suppose a group of football supporters holding up such signs near rival area wouldn't be moved on/arrested either With respect to "over the top measures" taken after 9/11, I woudl suggest the yanks were pretty restrained tbh, at the time on many of the US message boards I frequent the sentiment was one of nuke the whole middle east, shame they didn't tbh

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon. For all you know you may be advocating it's OK to assault someone for no more than what is effectively name calling. Without the facts of the case, this debate is fairly pointless. Not at all, there was a cause and effect, only the "effect" has been dealt with apparently. As for the name calling, people get arrested for it all the time, notably and recently in football grounds.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen. Re: the rest of it, did they break any laws that you know of. Irrespective of what you'd like to see, that is. If the demonstrators had not as inflamatory, I would doubt the two arrested would have reacted, they were arrested for an offence (as yet unknown) BUT the catalyst was the nature of the demonstration, so likely there were two offences but only one was acted upon.

Irrespective of what they did, I would also expect the "demonstrators", given the inflamatory nature of their protest, to be charged with something like "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" or some such. But it'll never happen.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. There are however two major issues here: 1. Some of those banners are probably illegal (and action should have been taken about that). 2. People demonstrating against say a conservative muslim march would not be allowed to do so/would be arrested for doing so (which is wrong, hypocritical and illegal - yet it does happen). I'm not fishing here but genuinely interested. Do you have an example of this you can cite? You can actually see it in this demonstration, when the more general crowd verbally turned on these demonstrators the police's gloves came off very quickly. Two arrests were made, both have been confirmed as people who took exception to the "demonstration"

.......exactly, freedom of speech is there to protect the ideals and opinions that we disagree with otherwise whats the point in having it. To a point, but would you agree people should be allowed to protest against black people or gays ???

Little wonder it's a "rare species"

Rascist At least spell it right, dumbo. spelling is soooo old fashioned

Rascist

Can you spell out why it is abusing a right? The banners as stated in the article would be distasteful imo, but that is about it. If you have freedom of speech (and demonstration) it has to apply to all to work. I think calling people butchers and r@pists who are just doing their jobs maybe considered as abusing that right, wouldn't you? If I was holding up a placard saying something equally abusive and untrue about someone else I would be, quite rightly, charged. There is a long anti-war tradition (demonstrations) in England, it just so happens these are brown men protesting against white men. As I said the banners were distasteful. They were a tad more than distastefull IMO, if it'd been the other way around, or even football fans for that matter, there'd have been dogs in and baton charges. Bet I wouldn't have been protected from "the mob" if I'd held up an "Allah is Satan" banner, I'd have been carted off and charged with one of the many loony-lefty laws this country now has.

There is a direct correlation in the US between the states that teach abstinence only and the "wait for marriage" stance you are suggesting and the highest rates of teen pregancies. I think in this country people are frightened culturally to really talk about sex and that's what causes problems. I also think the root cause of the baby/benefit culture is more complicated than sexual morality - it comes down to education, poverty, class and opportunities. There is no such thing as "real" poverty in this country, I agree on the class thing though, but only in so much as there's an underclass and no amount of opportunity will change them.

I know she did. She essentially died of ignorance/lack of knowledge. She thought you had to drink loads of water when you were on ecstasy even though she was in the home and not out dancing in a club. Her kidneys couldn't cope. What a waste of a life. But the overwhelming message of the UK anti-drugs campaign in the aftermath of that was telling people one pill could kill you. The people doing it were clued-up enough on the risk of that to ignore that message altogether. I read about the rest of what you said too. The debate never seems to be able to be based on cold hard facts. It has to be emotional for some reason. My view is that the increase of drugs use reflects a recognition of the hypocrisy of the establishment and a lessening of the authority it has. I think in the past "drugs are bad m'kay" was taken as correct by the majority of society as they were conditioned that government knew best. Nowadays however, people can see that drugs aren't as bad as made out and recognise the argument of comparing them with alcohol and tobacco - the argument from authority has been lost. I see parallels with how religions teach about sexual morality - people are recognising that taking responsibility for your actions which harm nobody else cannot be "wrong" or "sinful". This only leaves fear of prosecution as a deterrent which is wrong - laws should be "obviously" about harming other people - ie they should stand up to a moral test. The current state of the country in terms of underage and unwanted pregnancy would lead me to believe that the death of the "wrong" or "sinfull" approach is something to be lamented. Also the benefits system significantly waters down the "taking responsibility for your own actions" standpoint.

Only went in there twice, my first ever game in 1969 and a game v Coventry 1970, have no recollection of the turnstyles at all I'm afraid. I was always a Gallowgater when I was a bairn.

nah, just convinced of my opinions, which are factually based by the way. "Debate" them as much as you like, but you have spouted bollocks and are still doiing it. Positives of being relegated ? What a joke. I wouldnt waste a moment debating your opinions. I havent either as is clearly evident. You started banging on about Shepherd again (shock horror) and I didnt even think to respond. which is the best idea, as the successors to the Halls and Shepherd have proceeded to make a right old cack handed job of it, despite you and others thinking it wasn't possible. Leazes your position is bollocks man, you would have slagged whoever took over from your pal Shepherd , the current incumbent does appear less than competent BUT the fact is, we're still in the tailspin your mate put us in, and I doubt very much we'd be better off if Shepherd, or anyone else for that matter, was running the show. such daft comments let you down. I stated my view, which was fully vindicated. I partly expected some people to blame the Halls and Shepherd for the position we are in, scorning the approach which gave you regular european football, champions league football, a completely transformed and full to capacity stadium and a couple of FA Cup Finals. Why don't you go the whole hog and blame Gordon Lee [if you have any idea who he was]. Leazes man, your view is based solely on the fact that it's not Shepherd. Anyone new would have received your bile, I would also suggest your view is yet to be vindicated, this year is marginally worse at this time than Shepherds later time. As for the Halls and the Shepherds, yes they gave us the best years I've ever seen, but the good years came to an end under Shepherds stewardship, we are purely where we are because of him, as evidenced over the last few years. How quickly we turn around (or don't) is the measure of the current regime. And as for your Gordon Lee comment the manager at the time of my first attended game was Joe Harvey

nah, just convinced of my opinions, which are factually based by the way. "Debate" them as much as you like, but you have spouted bollocks and are still doiing it. Positives of being relegated ? What a joke. I wouldnt waste a moment debating your opinions. I havent either as is clearly evident. You started banging on about Shepherd again (shock horror) and I didnt even think to respond. which is the best idea, as the successors to the Halls and Shepherd have proceeded to make a right old cack handed job of it, despite you and others thinking it wasn't possible. Leazes your position is bollocks man, you would have slagged whoever took over from your pal Shepherd, the current incumbent does appear less than competent BUT the fact is, we're still in the tailspin your mate put us in, and I doubt very much we'd be better off if Shepherd, or anyone else for that matter, was running the show.

Aye I know, probably will to be honest, never play it and go through phases of should I sell, should I not every so often. My 76 Strat is going in the ground with me tho' worked my nuts off as a kid to save for it. Still got the receipt somewhere, was £256

I've always hated this game, even when we were good, dreading the score tonight.

If you are being literal with that you're going to be totally knackered by the end of the game, after all our kick-offs (which by rule cross the halfway line)

Continuing Shepherds good works, there wasn't a club set up to harrass him though

I'm not even looking for a stream tonight (am up in Aberdeen just noo) I reckon I'll just fire up youtube and pick some random renowned goalscorers highlights videos and watch those instead, it'll probably look about the same.

I can't understand this attitude. If you want the club to still meet with NUSC you're going to have to understand that they don't need to put up with the snidey attitude. Strength of message doesn't come from being arsey with everyone, you have to remain calm and keep the words decent. It's much more effective. This hot headed way just comes across as childish. I know passions run hot with this subject but you have to keep your cool. Exactly, those I speak to (few of whom post on message boards) feel NUSC is simply an Anti-Ashley vehicle, and therefore divisive. NUSC needs a a much more balanced/reasonable and less emotive approach, keep the emotion for the games/websites/message boards an organisation needs to rise above that to be credible IMO

That's the hard part, I've got a Les Paul Standard bought in 1998, it's Honeyburst BUT it was a limited edition with all gold fittings/pickups etc. haven't found another like it anywhere on the net so am clueless to it's value or what I should be looking for if I was to flog it.