William H. Bonney Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 What a cluster ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannymack Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 49 minutes ago, RDC1 said: Folk still desperate for this to be true. Sad. Incredibly true, very sad, pathetic and shallow that some folk can't accept the truth but continually thrive on looking for an ounce of evidence to prosecute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighTimes Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, soonbe110 said: Just cause charges are dropped doent mean the offence didn’t take place. Could just be that the Proc Fiscal doesnt have enough evidence to proceed. Our stadium manager spoke about how difficult to prosecute fans actually is at the AGM this week. May well be true, but presumption of innocence and all that. if they weren't charged, it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighTimes Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 On 12/12/2018 at 18:36, Jammy T said: Hitler was a socialist but meanings change over time. Communists have however mass murdered many more people over time than right wing fascists for what it is worth Eh no, Hitler was not a socialist. Not even close. It's a complicated subject, but here's a pretty simple but fairly thorough rundown of why not (incidentally, Dinesh De Souza is an absolute joke, btw, whoever was ill informed enough to quote him up the page). https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soonbe110 Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 19 minutes ago, HighTimes said: May well be true, but presumption of innocence and all that. if they weren't charged, it didn't happen. Agree that legally innocent. Doesn’t mean it didnt happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 26 minutes ago, HighTimes said: May well be true, but presumption of innocence and all that. if they weren't charged, it didn't happen. They were charged. They might not be getting prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Burgundy Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, RDC1 said: Folk still desperate for this to be true. Sad. They’re seething. Imagine having a life so devoid of meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheasant Plucker Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, To Be Frank said: Right here mate. It happened ?? Lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, Pheasant Plucker said: Lies. You’re right, absolutely nothing happened and the police just decided to charge them for a laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, To Be Frank said: You’re right, absolutely nothing happened and the police just decided to charge them for a laugh Fake news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Is Back Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, To Be Frank said: They were charged. They might not be getting prosecuted. Believe me, from personal experience, being charged means very little in these days of police incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, To Be Frank said: You’re right, absolutely nothing happened and the police just decided to charge them for a laugh But the PF dropped the charges ? Did he do that for a laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 hour ago, To Be Frank said: You’re right, absolutely nothing happened and the police just decided to charge them for a laugh Yep, and the PF looked at that compelling evidence and told them where to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, jake said: But the PF dropped the charges ? Did he do that for a laugh? 1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Yep, and the PF looked at that compelling evidence and told them where to go. If the PF have decided not to prosecute then there could quite a few reasons for that. For the sake of the club’s image, hopefully it was all a misunderstanding. Edited December 22, 2018 by To Be Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, To Be Frank said: If the PF have decided not to prosecute then there could quite a few reasons for that. For the sake of the club’s image, hopefully it was all a misunderstanding. Do you think the two fans in question should be allowed back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Do you think the two fans in question should be allowed back? Depends on the reason they’ve not been prosecuted imo. If it’s been a misunderstanding then I can’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Just now, To Be Frank said: Depends on the reason they’ve not been prosecuted imo. If it’s been a misunderstanding then I can’t see why they wouldn’t be allowed back? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Do you think the two fans in question should be allowed back? Yes, let them suffer like the rest of us innocents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, To Be Frank said: If the PF have decided not to prosecute then there could quite a few reasons for that. For the sake of the club’s image, hopefully it was all a misunderstanding. You are adamant it did happen not because you witnessed it but because someone told you it did. Do you concede that IF the PF drops it that they are indeed innocent? And do you condemn the Motherwell contingent ? And will you apologise ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Wow. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Wow. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 1 minute ago, jake said: You are adamant it did happen not because you witnessed it but because someone told you it did. Do you concede that IF the PF drops it that they are indeed innocent? And do you condemn the Motherwell contingent ? And will you apologise ? I know 100% there was an incident before the match involving opposition players raging at some of our fans and stewards and police had to intervene. I know 100% there was enough to charge two fans. It’s totally not true that just because the PF won’t prosecute that they are innocent. As others have also pointed out there are plenty reasons it doesn’t proceed. I’ve been involved in plenty cases where the police fully expected the PF to prosecute and they didn’t and plenty where police thought there was no chance of proceeding to prosecute yet they did. If the PF don’t proceed then the two people have either got away with it on a technicality/lack of conclusive evidence or it’s been a misunderstanding. i’ve nothing to apologise for as I only stated the facts, which are still true ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Wow. You don’t think they should be allowed back if it’s been a misunderstanding? Edited December 22, 2018 by To Be Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Just now, To Be Frank said: You don’t think they should be allowed back if it’s been a misunderstanding? No, I think innocent people should be allowed back. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, To Be Frank said: I know 100% there was an incident before the match involving opposition players raging at some of our fans and stewards and police had to intervene. I know 100% there was enough to charge two fans. It’s totally not true that just because the PF won’t prosecute that they are innocent. As others have also pointed out there are plenty reasons it doesn’t proceed. I’ve been involved in plenty cases where the police fully expected the PF to prosecute and they didn’t and plenty where police thought there was no chance of proceeding to prosecute yet they did. If the PF don’t proceed then the two people have either got away with it on a technicality/lack of conclusive evidence or it’s been a misunderstanding. i’ve nothing to apologise for as I only stated the facts, which are still true ?? Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfhearts Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Frank my good man I don't believe a word you have said on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: No, I think innocent people should be allowed back. You don't. I 100% think they should be allowed back if innocent. Please show me where I said I didn’t ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 33 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: No, I think innocent people should be allowed back. You don't. Not what he said I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ministry MK2 Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Haven’t read through the whole thread. Have the PF confirmed they will not be proceeding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Boy its a real legal mish mash, arrest does not presume guilt it just says there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. From memory Prosecutor fiscal examine the evidence, and if they feel that there is not enough to gain a guilty verdict they will not proceed. Again this does not imply innocence or guilt only that the evidence does not indicate a total verdict on either. In my high level knowledge of the law which is about as high as an ants wee toe I would suggest that some may feel the imposition of a suspension from Tynecastle may be seen as an impromptu action taken without sufficient cause. In the sue happy North American environment some may be if subject to such an assumption feel it proper to sue the entity imposing the action which could be deemed a punishment for an unproven allegation. It would then of course be up to a Civil as opposed to criminal court to decide the rights and wrongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ministry MK2 said: Haven’t read through the whole thread. Have the PF confirmed they will not be proceeding? Haven't seen it confirmed anywhere all I have seen was a random post on Facebook and on here. But maybe since then it's been confirmed by those involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertarian Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 I always believed in that old fashioned maxim, 'Innocent until proven guilty', it would appear that some individuals on this forum would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, bobsharp said: Boy its a real legal mish mash, arrest does not presume guilt it just says there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. From memory Prosecutor fiscal examine the evidence, and if they feel that there is not enough to gain a guilty verdict they will not proceed. Again this does not imply innocence or guilt only that the evidence does not indicate a total verdict on either. In my high level knowledge of the law which is about as high as an ants wee toe I would suggest that some may feel the imposition of a suspension from Tynecastle may be seen as an impromptu action taken without sufficient cause. In the sue happy North American environment some may be if subject to such an assumption feel it proper to sue the entity imposing the action which could be deemed a punishment for an unproven allegation. It would then of course be up to a Civil as opposed to criminal court to decide the rights and wrongs. The club can refuse entry to anyone for any or no reason if they want to, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, graygo said: The club can refuse entry to anyone for any or no reason if they want to, Apart from away fans who pay ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 16 minutes ago, bobsharp said: Boy its a real legal mish mash, arrest does not presume guilt it just says there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. From memory Prosecutor fiscal examine the evidence, and if they feel that there is not enough to gain a guilty verdict they will not proceed. Again this does not imply innocence or guilt only that the evidence does not indicate a total verdict on either. In my high level knowledge of the law which is about as high as an ants wee toe I would suggest that some may feel the imposition of a suspension from Tynecastle may be seen as an impromptu action taken without sufficient cause. In the sue happy North American environment some may be if subject to such an assumption feel it proper to sue the entity imposing the action which could be deemed a punishment for an unproven allegation. It would then of course be up to a Civil as opposed to criminal court to decide the rights and wrongs. Your knowledge is pretty spot on,bob, although with the first part I think you mean charge rather than arrest ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, Hearts Daft said: I always believed in that old fashioned maxim, 'Innocent until proven guilty', it would appear that some individuals on this forum would disagree. Probably because the system is shite and we’ve all been involved in or know about situations where the guilty haven’t been prosecuted and vice versa ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, graygo said: The club can refuse entry to anyone for any or no reason if they want to, I would not argue with your statement I have been too long removed from Tynecastle attendance. However if I appeared at Tynecastle went to a turnstile and was told I could not enter, and was told theres no reason I would be taking the matter to another authority, the Club have every right to operate their facility as they see fit, but basic rights must be maintained and I think this would require in 2018 some better reason than "becausee". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 32 minutes ago, bobsharp said: I would not argue with your statement I have been too long removed from Tynecastle attendance. However if I appeared at Tynecastle went to a turnstile and was told I could not enter, and was told theres no reason I would be taking the matter to another authority, the Club have every right to operate their facility as they see fit, but basic rights must be maintained and I think this would require in 2018 some better reason than "becausee". Me too, however..... 17 At all times, the right of admission is reserved by the club and in general no transfers within the ground are allowed. Spectators found in the wrong area amid opposing fans may be ejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 52 minutes ago, graygo said: Me too, however..... 17 At all times, the right of admission is reserved by the club and in general no transfers within the ground are allowed. Spectators found in the wrong area amid opposing fans may be ejected. Being totally ignorant of the rules which I shouldn't even be discussing let alone doing anything close to contradiction I went to google and checked the admission policy. The Club state they are a family oriented facility and welcome everyone. The restrictions come under disorderly conduct and movement from the ticketed area. It is quite clear that any contravention of these rules is entitlement to the Club to use their policies. I am sure the same would apply to someone seeking admission who posed a threat although not actually doing anything. So I think in a Radicle Road sort of way we are in total agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) I overheard a group of lads talking about this at Pittodrie today, saying they were pleased the lad who'd been charged had got off with it. They were a few rows behind me. Fair enough. I think Mitchell chucked it today, he wanted to get sent off IMHO. There's no excuse for that. He has to do his job. He shirked it today. Before that, in the second half, the vitriol the same group were directing at Mitchell was disgusting. Now, Mitchell was shocking today, he deserved pelters and got plenty from me, but my impression was he was getting special treatment from this particular group, for some reason. There was no excuse for that either. I'm a placid guy, I don't look or want to involve myself in stuff, but I felt uncomfortable enough that I will be emailing the club to confirm what seat I was in and what I thought of what was going on behind me. It was OTT, regardless of how bad Mitchell was. Edited December 22, 2018 by blairdin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 6 hours ago, To Be Frank said: Probably because the system is shite and we’ve all been involved in or know about situations where the guilty haven’t been prosecuted and vice versa ?? Sad. I feel sorry for you. Your search for justice will continue however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 1 hour ago, blairdin said: I overheard a group of lads talking about this at Pittodrie today, saying they were pleased the lad who'd been charged had got off with it. They were a few rows behind me. Fair enough. I think Mitchell chucked it today, he wanted to get sent off IMHO. There's no excuse for that. He has to do his job. He shirked it today. Before that, in the second half, the vitriol the same group were directing at Mitchell was disgusting. Now, Mitchell was shocking today, he deserved pelters and got plenty from me, but my impression was he was getting special treatment from this particular group, for some reason. There was no excuse for that either. I'm a placid guy, I don't look or want to involve myself in stuff, but I felt uncomfortable enough that I will be emailing the club to confirm what seat I was in and what I thought of what was going on behind me. It was OTT, regardless of how bad Mitchell was. Can we just clarify, you're going to email the club about something you "thought" might be happening? ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, JyTees said: Sad. I feel sorry for you. Your search for justice will continue however... The phrase “doth protest too hard” never rang truer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, To Be Frank said: The phrase “doth protest too hard” never rang truer Your crusade hit some problems Frank. The truth got in the way of your pathetic stories. Edited December 23, 2018 by JyTees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Kintner Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, JyTees said: Your crusade hit some problems Frank. The truth got in the way of your pathetic stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadj Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 8 hours ago, bobsharp said: I would not argue with your statement I have been too long removed from Tynecastle attendance. However if I appeared at Tynecastle went to a turnstile and was told I could not enter, and was told theres no reason I would be taking the matter to another authority, the Club have every right to operate their facility as they see fit, but basic rights must be maintained and I think this would require in 2018 some better reason than "becausee". Its no different to a nightclub a reason does not need to be provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambocub Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 8 hours ago, To Be Frank said: I 100% think they should be allowed back if innocent. Please show me where I said I didn’t ?? Let's be clear there is no evidence to suggest they are guilty nothing nada nixie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambocub Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 3 hours ago, blairdin said: I overheard a group of lads talking about this at Pittodrie today, saying they were pleased the lad who'd been charged had got off with it. They were a few rows behind me. Fair enough. I think Mitchell chucked it today, he wanted to get sent off IMHO. There's no excuse for that. He has to do his job. He shirked it today. Before that, in the second half, the vitriol the same group were directing at Mitchell was disgusting. Now, Mitchell was shocking today, he deserved pelters and got plenty from me, but my impression was he was getting special treatment from this particular group, for some reason. There was no excuse for that either. I'm a placid guy, I don't look or want to involve myself in stuff, but I felt uncomfortable enough that I will be emailing the club to confirm what seat I was in and what I thought of what was going on behind me. It was OTT, regardless of how bad Mitchell was. What did this group say that Ott? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Slim Stylee Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 2 hours ago, JyTees said: Can we just clarify, you're going to email the club about something you "thought" might be happening? ?? He's a long time, reasoned poster. He feels uncomfortable enough to write to the club and it's not a stretch to understand what he's intimating. Why do you have a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted December 23, 2018 Share Posted December 23, 2018 11 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: Yep, and the PF looked at that compelling evidence and told them where to go. Aye cause guilty folk have never had charges dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts