Paul McBride

[gravydavie]

The phrase "good article in the Scotsman by Michael Kelly" might press a number of wrong buttons all at the same time, but I'd say that Kelly's criticism of McBride in today's paper is well worth reading.

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/religiousissuesinscotland/Michael-Kelly-Sorry-Mr-McBride.6828659.jp

 

 

is he not a celticminded man as well[kelly] mcbride is a tory ******* fcuk him

[milky_26]

i think i saw paul mcbride driving a bus today, i happened to take a picture of it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok its not the greatest but i found it funny

[IMA MAROON]

As this guy appears to be the only person that heard any sectarian or religious words it would suggest that he maybe has an "agenda". I would hope therefore that HMFC ensure that he is allowed no where near Tynecastle in an official capacity in the future

 

Pheter Croy wanted to see Mr Wilson punished. He was making things up, it is obvious. He will be gutted that nobody believed his story.

[RobM]

is he not a celticminded man as well[kelly] mcbride is a tory ******* fcuk him

 

I believe it was something of an inconvenience for him when the Tories had to go into coalition and space had to be found for the Lib-Dems in high profile positions within the Scottish justice system. Anybody that can jump straight from Labour to the Tories (or indeed the other way) isn't exactly to be held up as somebody of principles.

[RobM]

I believe it was something of an inconvenience for him when the Tories had to go into coalition and space had to be found for the Lib-Dems in high profile positions within the Scottish justice system. Anybody that can jump straight from Labour to the Tories (or indeed the other way) isn't exactly to be held up as somebody of principles.

 

Then of course I'm a raging bigot, really difficult for me getting married in a Catholic church that time.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I believe it was something of an inconvenience for him when the Tories had to go into coalition and space had to be found for the Lib-Dems in high profile positions within the Scottish justice system. Anybody that can jump straight from Labour to the Tories (or indeed the other way) isn't exactly to be held up as somebody of principles.

 

What would the Tories going into coalition with the Lib-Dems have to do with the Scottish Justice system?

[Spellczech]

No corroboration was required for the religious prejudice aggravation. The jury would have been perfectly entitled to find him guilty of the assault with religious aggravation. However they never clearly because they found the one witness unreliable.

 

If corroboration is required and not present the jury would never have the option of considering any verdict and the charge would have been omitted. A jury is never entitled to decide on wheter corroboration is present or not.

Simply a "He says X, whilst he says Y", whereas rape trials which are notoriously hard to get a conviction on because they often come down to "She says X, whilst he says Y". No matter how you cut it, adding the sectarianism bit to the assault charge was either ludicrously stupid of the prosecutor or politically driven, which for the legal system is far more troubling.

[The Gasman]

What would the Tories going into coalition with the Lib-Dems have to do with the Scottish Justice system?

 

There are a lot of posts within the Scottish Justice system that are filled by political appointment.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Simply a "He says X, whilst he says Y", whereas rape trials which are notoriously hard to get a conviction on because they often come down to "She says X, whilst he says Y". No matter how you cut it, adding the sectarianism bit to the assault charge was either ludicrously stupid of the prosecutor or politically driven, which for the legal system is far more troubling.

 

Rape is notoriously hard to prove because corroboration is required and where it is absent their is insufficient evidence for the accused to be convicted in law and their is no case to answer. With regards to the religious prejudice no corroboration was required and their was sufficient evidence for a conviction. Whilst it was A's word against B it was for the jury to decide who they believed and what weight they gave to the evidence. No doubt they probably quite correctly felt that the witness's hearing wasn't the most reliable given 18'000 fans were screaming their heads off.

[Sheriff Fatman]

There are a lot of posts within the Scottish Justice system that are filled by political appointment.

 

Yes there are, but as neither the Tories nor the Lib-Dems are in a position to make political appointments to the Scottish Judiciary that point is moot.

[The Real Maroonblood]

Not proven.

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

Therefore innocent.

 

Simple really.

Or we know your guilty but can't prove it.

[topcat]

Or we know your guilty but can't prove it.

 

Innocent but don't do it again

[Sydney from Sydney]

I tried to explain the unique 'Not Proven' verdict to my Oz colleagues today. They all laughed at me - thought I was taking the piss. Personally, I think 'Not Proven' has a legitimate place in law. However, I do think it should be subject to 'double jeopardy', which in Scots Law it isn't. In effect it's a 'Not Guilty' verdict.

It might also look like "guilty but not proven". Is Scotland unique in having a verdict like this ?

[skinnybob72]

I've seen it mentioned that Neil Lennon and Alan Thompson both said 'NO' when asked if John Wilson made any sectarian remarks when he charged towards the Celtic manager.

 

I think that it would have been incredibly easy for Lennon and Thompson to have simply said 'YES' to this. You would have then had 3 people in close proximity to the incident claiming it happened and perhaps it would have swayed the jury as regards to the sectarian part of the charge. The fact that they both said 'NO' (especially NL given what he's been through) suggests that they are both better people than many would give them credit for.

 

I would not be surprised if they had been under pressure from the club to perhaps be slightly ecomonical with the truth to 'help the cause' so to speak. I'm certainly no fan of Neil Lennon but he at least had the decency to tell the truth.

[Spellczech]

Rape is notoriously hard to prove because corroboration is required and where it is absent their is insufficient evidence for the accused to be convicted in law and their is no case to answer. With regards to the religious prejudice no corroboration was required and their was sufficient evidence for a conviction. Whilst it was A's word against B it was for the jury to decide who they believed and what weight they gave to the evidence. No doubt they probably quite correctly felt that the witness's hearing wasn't the most reliable given 18'000 fans were screaming their heads off.

 

Found the below after writing my post above. Seems we're both right.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7207480/annals-of-legal-affairs-not-proven-edition.thtml

 

"Here again we run into the problems of Thought Crimes. It was alleged that Mr Wilson had shouted "Lennon, you Fenian *******". The defendent denied this, insisting he had simply called Lennon a "******* ######". The prosecution's allegation - though reliant on a single witness - seems quite plausible but, though Section 74 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act (Scotland) does not require corroboration for offences aggravated by religious prejudice (itself troubling, in my view), this aspect of the case came down to a He Said vs He Said argument and, in those circumstances, one can see why a jury might be minded to acquit."

[Rocco_Jambo]

Yes and obviously given that, the decision to add the religious prejudice charge is not really that stupid or politically driven as that is the law and obviously the Crown is required to add to the charge things it has evidence of and it is up to the jury to consider what weight it gives to this evidence.

[wavydavy]

I've seen it mentioned that Neil Lennon and Alan Thompson both said 'NO' when asked if John Wilson made any sectarian remarks when he charged towards the Celtic manager.

 

I think that it would have been incredibly easy for Lennon and Thompson to have simply said 'YES' to this. You would have then had 3 people in close proximity to the incident claiming it happened and perhaps it would have swayed the jury as regards to the sectarian part of the charge. The fact that they both said 'NO' (especially NL given what he's been through) suggests that they are both better people than many would give them credit for.

 

I would not be surprised if they had been under pressure from the club to perhaps be slightly ecomonical with the truth to 'help the cause' so to speak. I'm certainly no fan of Neil Lennon but he at least had the decency to tell the truth.

 

 

Hear what you are saying however they have been giving evidence under oath in a Scottish Law Court so should be telling the truth no matter what.

[Spellczech]

Yes and obviously given that, the decision to add the religious prejudice charge is not really that stupid or politically driven as that is the law and obviously the Crown is required to add to the charge things it has evidence of and it is up to the jury to consider what weight it gives to this evidence.

It's not the law that they have to try to convict for gravest charge possible...They could easily have gone for a common assault charge and would have been far more likely to get a conviction. So one has to assume that one of the following happened:

- political pressure was applied

- the prosecutor himself wanted to test the the sectarian element

- the prosecutor was an idiot.

[henry]

The jury should be congratulated for coming to the correct decision given the evidence put

to them.

 

This kind of verdict should give us all confidence in the Scottish justice system.

 

Mr Mcbride has a chip on his shoulder like a lot of his kind and should not be listened to.

[JamboX2]

Just a quick note;

 

He's been cleared of sectarian assault. He's still up for Breach of the Peace. For that he'll get done.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

A lawyer who doesn't understand the law - that's handy!

 

 

Him and most of our press.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

I've seen it mentioned that Neil Lennon and Alan Thompson both said 'NO' when asked if John Wilson made any sectarian remarks when he charged towards the Celtic manager.

 

I think that it would have been incredibly easy for Lennon and Thompson to have simply said 'YES' to this. You would have then had 3 people in close proximity to the incident claiming it happened and perhaps it would have swayed the jury as regards to the sectarian part of the charge. The fact that they both said 'NO' (especially NL given what he's been through) suggests that they are both better people than many would give them credit for.

 

I would not be surprised if they had been under pressure from the club to perhaps be slightly ecomonical with the truth to 'help the cause' so to speak. I'm certainly no fan of Neil Lennon but he at least had the decency to tell the truth.

 

 

Good point but doesn't excuse Lennon for all the other paranoid crap he has come out with, still a self centred tosser IMO

[Groatallar]

As Celtic own the catholic religion, an attack on anything to do with Celtic is an attack on the pope and catholicism itself. Anyone who does not think that Jungle John should have been at the very least burnt at the stake is clearly a durty orange bassa and should die a horrible death.

 

I can't understand how no-one gets this

[Eckauskas]

The filthy Glasgow rags were raging today as well.

 

[Rocco_Jambo]

It's not the law that they have to try to convict for gravest charge possible...They could easily have gone for a common assault charge and would have been far more likely to get a conviction. So one has to assume that one of the following happened:

- political pressure was applied

- the prosecutor himself wanted to test the the sectarian element

- the prosecutor was an idiot.

 

No it's not but it is their job to put forth the charges which they have sufficient evidence of. They had sufficient evidence of the religious prejudice in law for the jury to consider a conviction. The evidence may not have been reliable but that is for the jury to decide on what evidence is reliable or creditable.

 

How would the common assault charge have been more likely to get a conviction at trial without the religious prejudice?

 

How do you conclude your last points please. Are you saying that that the Crown should just charge an accused with the charge which they think they can get the easiest conviction from? If they don't their is an agenda behind it?

 

Sorry but some Hearts fans like you come across as paranoid as the Celtic fans with this. I'm assuming if someone you knew had had their face panned in you would be perfectly happy for the Crown to "have gone for a common assault charge and would have been far more likely to get a conviction". They will always go for the charges which they have sufficient evidence for because that is their job.

[Kinkster]

As Celtic own the catholic religion, an attack on anything to do with Celtic is an attack on the pope and catholicism itself. Anyone who does not think that Jungle John should have been at the very least burnt at the stake is clearly a durty orange bassa and should die a horrible death.

 

I can't understand how no-one gets this

You (I guess you do) have no idea how close to the truth this is. The self delusional one that ends with this country being a hole of a bigoted nation.

[Johanes de Silentio]

He's been cleared of sectarian assault. He's still up for Breach of the Peace. For that he'll get done.

 

He's already done a four month stretch, has he not? Bit much for breach of the peace, isn't it?

 

I'm not saying he isn't a brainless idiot.

[The Gasman]

As Celtic own the catholic religion, an attack on anything to do with Celtic is an attack on the pope and catholicism itself. Anyone who does not think that Jungle John should have been at the very least burnt at the stake is clearly a durty orange bassa and should die a horrible death.

 

I can't understand how no-one gets this

 

So sadly accurate!

[Sheriff Fatman]

Nobody got what they deserved out of what went on that day.

 

Wilson deserved to be found guilty of more that just breach of the peace, any sane person watching the video footage would say so.

 

A large number of Celtic fans deserved to be found guilty of more than breach of the peace too, but because the media had their scape goat nothing was said of that.

 

Wilson was a tit and deserves everything he gets. The Celtic fans that attacked a security guard and a ball boy been ignored and the press have shown themselves to be ignorant over the matter.

 

Though to be fair the Scottish press have shown themselves to be ignorant for decades, so it's not exactly anything new.

[Amjam]

i see mcbride has been making more wild insinuations about the jury. pointing to the fact that a scottish jury can comprise of people who can't read, write or count.

it doesn't matter what drivel galloway spouts. he's a complete irrelevance and a joke figure. it does matter what dangerous rhetoric is gobbed off by mcbride. his position and closeness to lennon/celtic makes him a champion for many people who are only too willing to climb aboard the persecution bus.

 

i sincerely hope mcbride's runaway mouth is eventually gagged by someone.

 

If I was a member of that jury, I'd be looking to sue McBride for defamation. Of course I'd probably get my windows panned in, or worse, if I did what with him being God's, I mean Celtic's representative on Earth.

[colinmaroon]

As Celtic own the catholic religion, an attack on anything to do with Celtic is an attack on the pope and catholicism itself. Anyone who does not think that Jungle John should have been at the very least burnt at the stake is clearly a durty orange bassa and should die a horrible death.

 

I can't understand how no-one gets this

 

 

It reminds me of a truism, and this is not a go at Roman Catholics, many of whom are genuine people, but:

 

 

where the Roman Catholic church is in the minority, like a lamb, it plays the persecuted card but, where it's in the majority, it persecutes like a roaring lion! Therefore, for that reason, they are firmly on the hypocrisy road.

 

 

The answer to the sectarian issue will never be found until BOTH recognise that they are both singing from the same hymn sheet!

[Gizmo]

Colin, I daresay the majority of these numbskulls only see the inside of a Church at weddings and funerals....

 

It's about time society stood up (both secularists and people of faith) and pointed out that these people are NOT representative of any religion, nor is there a great disharmony between Catholics and Protestants, or indeed most religions that are practiced in Scotland.

 

It's nothing more than tribalism, with either side adopting, perverting, twisting and mis-representing, any badges/flags/politics/causes that continue to separate themselves from each other. Sadly, since it seems a majority of the weegie-centric press is steeped in these perverted ideologies, particularly our laughable "sports" journalists, they won't ever address the issue properly.

[Amjam]

Colin, I daresay the majority of these numbskulls only see the inside of a Church at weddings and funerals....

 

It's about time society stood up (both secularists and people of faith) and pointed out that these people are NOT representative of any religion, nor is there a great disharmony between Catholics and Protestants, or indeed most religions that are practiced in Scotland.

 

It's nothing more than tribalism, with either side adopting, perverting, twisting and mis-representing, any badges/flags/politics/causes that continue to separate themselves from each other. Sadly, since it seems a majority of the weegie-centric press is steeped in these perverted ideologies, particularly our laughable "sports" journalists, they won't ever address the issue properly.

 

So steeped are they in their own "traditional" worlds that they fail to realise that the rest of Scotland is broadly secular, living in the 21st Century and staring at them with baffled bemusement.

[colinmaroon]

So steeped are they in their own "traditional" worlds that they fail to realise that the rest of Scotland is broadly secular, living in the 21st Century and staring at them with baffled bemusement.

 

 

Not half as bemused as I am!!! But, knowing the history of perverted religion, I suppose not surprised!!!

[Armageddon]

I know Paul McBride fairly well and I must admit he's a sound guy. For the record, ther person who said he agreed a deal on a rape trial because he had to get to the golf course ... Paul doesnt play golf.

 

If that was JJ at Parkhead and a fan attack him and was found not proven then JKB would go into meltdown so you have to see the fan and legal brain in him talking, I agree he does spout some shoite, and I've told him that before!

 

One John Wilson, there's only one John Wilson, one John Wilson, there's only one John Wilson ... who's with me on that chant???

[Le Chat]

Colin, I daresay the majority of these numbskulls only see the inside of a Church at weddings and funerals....

 

It's about time society stood up (both secularists and people of faith) and pointed out that these people are NOT representative of any religion, nor is there a great disharmony between Catholics and Protestants, or indeed most religions that are practiced in Scotland.

 

It's nothing more than tribalism, with either side adopting, perverting, twisting and mis-representing, any badges/flags/politics/causes that continue to separate themselves from each other. Sadly, since it seems a majority of the weegie-centric press is steeped in these perverted ideologies, particularly our laughable "sports" journalists, they won't ever address the issue properly.

 

 

:clap:

[The Gasman]

Colin, I daresay the majority of these numbskulls only see the inside of a Church at weddings and funerals....

 

It's about time society stood up (both secularists and people of faith) and pointed out that these people are NOT representative of any religion, nor is there a great disharmony between Catholics and Protestants, or indeed most religions that are practiced in Scotland.

 

It's nothing more than tribalism, with either side adopting, perverting, twisting and mis-representing, any badges/flags/politics/causes that continue to separate themselves from each other. Sadly, since it seems a majority of the weegie-centric press is steeped in these perverted ideologies, particularly our laughable "sports" journalists, they won't ever address the issue properly.

 

[Busby2Gibson]

Hmmm.

 

Attack on Lennon was wrong - end of. You've just got to imagine the same at Parkhead on one of ours.

 

Don't believe the incident was sectarian - so the jury got that part right imo.

 

As for Mcbride's comments, you've got to ask, is he making them as a Celtic fan? A QC? Or as a Tory? I think he's blurred the lines - he's a lawyer so you've got to assume he knows precisely why the jury came to the conclusion it did, so that leaves the Celtic fan and Tory and surprisingly both coincide. Celtic have recently gone down the 'core' support route rather than going for a more dilute, broader appeal. And as a Tory he can probably see benefits for a Unionist party in stoking up unease within that support about a wider hostile anti Celtic agenda, the worst effects of which are kept in check by the Union.

 

All imo obviously.

 

Or, of course, he could be a complete roaster.