Sao Paulo

You've wilfully misunderstood me. But you are right. Clyde have never done interesting Chairmen, so when I read patter about "the paradox of perpetual poverty", I skipped a few questions. Our supporters have said they're concerned about: i) inexperienced managers; ii) the future whereabouts of Clyde; and iii) the CIC. About those things he was both frank and concise, happily.

Reading my post back, I will say one thing for those who antagonise the CIC. There is an argument which says: 'So what, if I'm not a member, am I less entitled to have my opinion of the team's performance listened to?'. I have some sympathy with that. It'd be an affront to most football supporters if they were told by their club of choice that their views on playing matters were less important than those of others. But I don't think that's the case at Clyde. And even if were, supporters of clubs which are limited companies express the same frustrations. Only, in those cases, the antagonism might be directed toward shareholders as opposed to members. The thing about football clubs, and Clyde are no exception, is that they are, in a sense, run both formally and informally. I've never really thought, while being and not being a CIC member, that I was any more or less influential re the team on the pitch. Other than to the extent that I might've chipped in with more money for wages. And that's not insignificant, of course. But the bottom-line is that if supporters aren't happy, that gets through eventually. It doesn't matter whether they're members, shareholders, guys paying in each week or posters on forums like this ('well-kent faces'). The Chairman's interview speaks to this fact, IMO.

I think we should all be contented by what the Chairman said in his interview. He addressed not some but all of the concerns which have been a feature of this thread; he was utterly frank in doing so, too. The idea that the legal personality of Clyde and the governance it operates with as a consequence is in any way at fault for the present fortunes of the club has a long way to go before it's even naive. Those wishing to argue otherwise really oughtn't bother unless they have a plausible alternative on-ice. There's really only one imperative for supporters; it's tripartite: be CIC members, be interested and do not, whatever you do, make clever and sophisticated apologies for players who're below average at best and woeful at worst. The failure of supporters - and, yes, management more relevantly - to acknowledge the latter part of the imperative is why we are where we are. We don't realise how much of a voice we have.

QPFC plant, I reckon.

Aye, well. Please yourself. Trivia: John Profumo held the now lapsed office of Secretary of State for War. This is back when the country had balls, of course. Who was the last person to hold that office?

We're all loving the distraction from football that politics is providing on this thread. I didn't know that Mason had alluded to "Freedom Fighters" being in the IRA's ranks. Another mob the Blair government surrendered to, by the way.

No no. Happy to leave it there. We are the famous Bully Wee and all that. But for how long?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a call-back to a comment I once made about J.C. Hutchison and his - startling for a goalie in the senior leagues - inability to kick a ball over a distance with consistent accuracy? Drive-pass over medium distances and so on. If it is, I'd just like to point out, for reasons of bitter personal vindication, that he's another player I was right about from the off; he had a lobby of apologists on here who, though they won't admit it, are now glad he's gone.

Two things. One: the Corporation Tax policy was ditched in 2015, invoking "morals", apropos of socialist thought. Two: how central control of otherwise local decision making can really be said to weigh against the socialist mentality of a party, I don't know. I don't call the SNP socialist in my own time; I call them left-wing and, as you say, Blairite. The idea that Blairism has any right-wing thought entailed in it is the fundamental error. It means big government; totally antithetical to genuine libertarian and conservative ideas. That you were able to point out two things - both now expired policies - amidst a raft of things which were manifestly in the style of socialism, shows the weakness of your position, surely?

*Without a risible lisp.

Only if you understand the word "socialist" to describe a party fully beholden to the ideas of socialism in its 19th and early-to-mid 20th century moods can you say of the SNP that "they're not even socialist". I could give you a list of SNP politicians, including the current first minister and Alex Salmond, who have, quite recently, described themselves and their party, in its aims, as "socialist". Of course you may think that's just to keep the left at large on-side. And perhaps you'd be right. But attend to the policies, ideas for policies and general chat that comes from the SNP for a moment: In a new Scottish Constitution: a right to employment; a right to food. For new parents: a "free" box of goods, the likes of which parents in this country haven't gone without or, in some cases, needed for centuries; not excluding a poem, the same one for each child, which is utter doggerel. What's the evidence-base? Finland introduced something similar in 1938, when they had an appalling infant mortality rate, and now, in 2017, that's fixed. Oh, well. Definitely a solidly evidence based policy then. Clearly, nothing but the goodie-bag operated to change Finnish infant mortality between 1938 and 2017. Six million quid, plus a bureaucracy to deliver it in the NHS. Well worth it. But on the whole "free", remember. Subsidising faltering businesses/industry. Expansive Welfare. Virtually fully-nationalised Healthcare. Subsidising parenthood. Vast Public Spending, generally. Vast intervention in the Housing Market. Constant chat about Tax Rates movements being somehow or the other "Moral"; absolute inattention to the revenue. There is no doubt that the principles of socialism drive the Scottish Government, as they do the UK Government. There isn't a libertarian or conservative thought in their heads. To suggest that because they say a lot of business friendly stuff - which is largely 'we'll subby you to the hilt', not 'we'll stop taxing you' - they're not socialist in their ideas can be nothing more than a PR exercise.

And people say there are no 'Principle Politicians' any longer. Why, I doubt that even Winston Churchill would've went to such lengths. Missing games against Annan, Elgin, Forfar, Berwick and Montrose!? That's sending a message. Bet he wants McNiff at left-back and Johnston and right-back next season, him.

"Sit down and stop being bad". Tony Blair once directed those words to a heckling journalist, unsatisfied with an answer he'd given to a question. Blair was embarked on a far-reaching project back then. One which he will not, to this day, admit the folly of. And so it is with our own online cognoscenti. They said we would definitely get the play-offs, until we didn't. They said we were spoiled with Barry, until we weren't. Phil Johnston was a footballer, too, until he manifestly wasn't. They'd have us remember Martin McNiff as a left-back, just like we remember Mark Casey as a - ahem - 'centre-back'. Ach, who needs full-backs anyway? What are we, the slaves of convention!? Why, playing with anything more than a scarecrow at full-back these days, it's just not value for money, right? It's almost as silly as thinking that mentality might influence performance. We all know it's just good players plus good instructions. What were JP and Peaso supposed to do!? They won't express their contempt for disagreement in the same language, but the will of many of our own has long been aligned with that of princess Tony Blair. It's profoundly more important to them that their projects appear vindicated than that any actual success comes Clyde's way. They will, mark my words, continue driving square pegs into round holes when we're a Lowland League team. If they examined their consciences, they'd find that they're out for virtual vainglory, not Clyde's success.

The legislation post-Lawrence didn't affect Scotland (correct). However, we caught up to some extent about six years ago. It's not quite right to say the rule is abolished; it was, if you like, made subject to exceptions. I'm sure there's decent Wiki page out there on this. It's all thoroughly facile though; just another power grab by the state. It's understood to fix a rule from another time but, in my view, it's a deletion of our inheritance by progressives.

This is why rape oughtn't be actionable but in the criminal courts. It's an act of power driven violence, not something which ought to work out at £50,000 per perpetrator. If the state does not mount a prosecution, a civil action comes very close to being a circumvention of the - increasingly weak - double jeopardy concept. Albeit that no prosecution - as was the case here - and one which does not produce a conviction are quite different. If it's always open for someone to take someone else to the state's courts, irrespective of what kind of courts those are, you've a system of justice which tyrannises by the uncertainty it perpetuates. This is principles of justice 101. None of which should lead anyone to think that I, or anyone else, regards David Goodwillie as anything less than a scumbag.

With the first line, foreverarover meant to quote an earlier poster; his comment is the second line. And he's right, of course. The standard of proof differs, and it is a profound difference. There needn't be - and rarely is - a jury empanelled to be master of fact in a civil case. There wasn't in Goodwillie's. A judge ruled on both the law and facts; a jury would always do the latter re rape in criminal procedure.

Clyde OS [31/03/17]: "Scott Linton will also be missing again and it looks likely that he will be out of the rest of the campaign due to a groin problem, as JP McGovern explained:- "Scott is currently getting advice from different people but he's been struggling for a while. We had a chat with him and it wasn't doing him any good to be playing through the injury, so it's best for him to get the problem sorted out first and foremost." Cheers lads. Disappointing, of course. Thee most profound miss for us, IMO.

Indeed. Mantras like 'Rape is rape' are vacuous; they only operate to purify the soul of the person uttering them. And one wonders why a soul would need such purification... There used to be an STV interview with Donald Findlay QC on YouTube. Topical, I suppose, him being a Cowden man (restrain your giggles of incredulity, please). Alas, I can't find it any longer. If I could, I'd link it up. About halfway through it, he explained that the principle upon which our system of justice is built is - paraphrasing - that it's better that many guilty walk free than that one innocent be imprisoned. It takes a dispassionate mind to understand that. The knee-jerk reaction is of course: 'Whit!? So 1000 murderers can walk just so as one innocent punter gets spared the nick!?'. Well, actually, yes. Though the ratio mightn't be quite so great; it's impossible to say. It's better put like this: if it's easy for the state to remove liberty, it will. That's why it ought to be difficult to remove liberty. History shows that states, if given an inch, will invariably take a mile. Again, the ratio is inexact...! But if you don't accept that, you're probably extremely left, right or 'progressive' in your outlook.

Purely factual point. Courts have may be said to have jurisdiction or competence; they do not have standing. That concept describes something else. When one talks about a conviction, one is talking about a sanction imposed by the criminal law; typically a criminal court. So, in point of fact, Goodwillie's criminality is alleged; at least as far as the law is concerned. I know that I'll be disdained for pointing this out, and I dislike intensely the didactic delivery which I've been unable to avoid here, but I do care passionately about the presumption of innocence; it being fundamental to individual liberty. Mob-mentalities like that in evidence on this thread are precisely why it has been chipped-away at so successfully in the last fifty-odd years. Of course, if you'd like my sincere opinion on Goodwillie, I'd refer you to the post I made earlier on this thread; tenaciously ignored by the indignanti.

Venezuelan judiciary. Hiring now.

Virtually every single post made since the announcement of David Goodwillie's signing has been characterised by unmerited certainty. What else? We've had fatuous remarks about Clyde's legal personality; implying that if Clyde were a private limited company, for instance, its employment of a rapist might be more easily excused. And I think there was even a post which implied that the absence of a line on Clyde website's mentioning something like rehabilitation for Goodwillie was disgraceful. Arrest your determined indignation for a moment. Now realise that the very notion of rehabilitation for a rapist would be nothing short of an insult to the victim. Rapists go to prison. They aren't put through assessments of sexual etiquette and they don't receive information about the legal mechanics of consent but for at trial. In what has long been a terrifyingly strong field, this is an outstanding episode of supporter-led casuistry; an apotheosis moment for idiocy. The only thing which is truly certain here is that absolutely nobody passing comment will have read the commendably thorough opinion given by Lord Armstrong in the case of Goodwillie and Robertson. It's available here. If you do anything this evening, read it and be convinced one way or the other. And which ever way you are convinced, remember that you were either more or less so after reading it; not before. For anyone who doesn't think it should be very difficult for the state to incarcerate someone or otherwise rob him of his liberty, and for anyone who thinks it's just a thing that someone can, through the relatively meagre rigour of a civil proceeding, have the libel of rapist attached to him, I say this to you: you are fantastically ignorant and you would, if you had it your way, give away to siren calls our inheritance of British Justice; it being until recently the most procedurally robust kind around. Hypothetical questions for the progressives in the room: which other acts, not sufficiently evidenced to be tried as crimes, or tried unsuccessfully as such, would you like to see civil liability exist for? Will David Goodwillie still be a rapist if he successfully appeals the civil decision? And just how big would you like the state to be, roughly? What's my own opinion on Goodwillie? Excellent player; far too good for us. With him, the old boy from Irvine and these new lads from Dundee, we might just survive. Although, I'd say anyone that beds a woman who's had a drink in her - even if she isn't 'drunk'; whatever that means - should be in the jail. But then, I've an old fashioned sense of morality. If I had my way, the Police would simply follow taxis away from Sauchiehall Street each night; park up, let the door shut, then put it through. Fill the cells in no time.

Waddell will play a few games at full-back and be known as one forever after. Clyde. That's how we roll.

But, as we all know, he's played several times since then. The OS has been tenaciously poor in keeping us appraised of expected recovery times. The custom ought to be that a line appears in each match preview, even if it's repetitious ('Scott Linton is still injured'; 'Not back for X weeks').

Is Scott Linton injured or has he become one of los desaparecidos? His absence in midfield is an understated reason for our woefulness. And what's the script with Easton, Lowden and McGovern? Can we have some word on why they're not playing and/or how long away from recovery they are? We continue to field players who - and sometimes just where - their aptitude is no greater than the ordinary Avon seller. It's all the same, only the names have changed... ♫

I recently learned that, in what had been a private conversation between two of our fellow supporters, the opinions which I expressed following our defeat to Arbroath* were described as "reactionary". At once, this bored and amused me. I was amused because, in truth, I have many reactionary opinions. But of course, by definition, those don't concern football. And I was bored because learning that the supporter in question is as unlettered as he is determined that I am - somehow - wrong about everything only confirms me in thinking what I have for roughly a decade: Clyde are most bitterly rivalled with themselves. In our first match at Borough Briggs this season, a supporter approached me in order to ask indignantly: "Will you ever get off it about Phil Johnston and Martin McNiff!?". Latterly, at Meadowbank, a different supporter asked me: "Who's getting it this week then, eh? Gormley, Smith, Higgins...". You see in these questions how we have our priorities in the wrong order, I think. Top of the list: personal vindication; 'it's more important that I gain self-esteem from your error than that Clyde win games'. A close second: the wilting affections of paid footballers. You want to throw up things you've forgotten ever having eaten, don't you? It is like watching a club busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood. *These opinions said no more than that I thought McGovern and MacDonald could be doing better despite the short time available to them and that making such a point was anything but ridiculous.