lichtgilphead
-
Posts
4,367 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by lichtgilphead
-
-
21 minutes ago, ecto said:
Dundee is not even in the county of Angus, just a small point
Berwick fans aren't famed for their grasp of geographical location...
0 -
7 minutes ago, hehawhehaw said:
let's make it every tomorrow, each year. That would be great!
Nah. Let's just hold it once more. That should be enough.
0 -
13 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:
No you would have to be an utter simpleton to believe that reductions in crime were achieved simply by recruiting more police officers I'm afraid.
I will humour you and explain why. There are 32 local authority areas in Scotland. If you allocate 1000 police officers across each area that means an extra 31 officers per area.
An officer presumably works 37 hours per week which means before you even consider annual leave each local authority area would have on average an extra 6.8 officers on shift at any point.
Now how many of they extra 1000 are only performing front line patrol duties?
Do you think that would have a significant impact on deterring crime?
Your talking complete and utter dross just give up now and stop embarrassing yourself. You are taken in by SNP headline chasing policies.
3 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:
Are you also claiming the extra handful of police in each area has had a measurable impact upon crime rates?
Why have you divided the number of officers by the number of counties? What relevance does this actually have to today's police force or to the 8 forces that existed before reorganisation?
You might as well have divided by the number of doughnut shops in Glasgow to get a figure that would be just as relevant.
0 -
"1AgR€€!"
0 -
38 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:
The political context is the only reason this has garnered any attention at all. It is literally the crux of it. To leave it out would be artificial.The political context is that an elected representative has been accused of assault, yet the BBC and the Record consider the headline news to be the political leanings of a witness against her?
Edit: I pluralised Record
0 -
24 minutes ago, strichener said:
Do you know what the headline was from the first day? Remarkably I am struggling to find it on the BBC website.
"Labour MP Marie Rimmer on trial over 'referendum assault' " was the BBC headline. Wonder why they put "referendum assault" in quotation marks?
I can't find the Record's report.
By contrast, the Motherwell Times & Dundee Courier led with "Labour MP Marie Rimmer accused of kicking Scottish independence supporter" whilst the Liverpool Echo went for "St Helens MP Marie Rimmer "smirked" after kicking a campaigner, court told"
0 -
5 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:
I'm a full time national newspaper/broadcaster court reporter. So I'll claim some expertise on that thanks.
On your other point I wrote that before I read the copy. To be factually accurate, her lawyer was today putting her position to the complainer.
The headlines saying she's "on trial for alleged assault" are fair enough but don't convey the information they should. They're trial day one headlines, not for continuing evidence. BBC's day one headline was essentially that. I'm sure the record's would have been too.1) I'm a professional who appears in court as part of the job. I have personal experience of court reporters slanting their copy to their editorial line. Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that court reporters are unbiased.
2) Is it common for professional reporters to comment on articles then claim they haven't actually read them?
3) She is on trial for alleged assault. That's the story. As usual, the defence is trying to discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Why is this aspect of the trial the story on this particular occasion?
I would suggest that the BBC & Record are biased. You are free to disagree with that conclusion.
0 -
19 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:
Presumably it was day two of a continuing trial and that was the main thrust of today's evidence.
In fact, having just read it, that's exactly the case. Day one's copy was about the victim telling what happened. Today's is the MP giving her side.
You can hardly call it a conspiracy. Court reporters are duty bound to give an accurate and balanced account of a trial. If the day's evidence is the cross examination of that victim then that's how the story will read. Which is exactly how this one reads.Firstly, my point regards the headline, not the body of the story. As has been pointed out on many previous occasions, many people only scan the headlines and don't bother with the actual facts of the story.
Lets look at some other headlines from today (these are all the headlines I can currently find, so I'm not being selective)
STV: Yes campaigner 'saw MP assault colleague on referendum day'
Metro: Labour MP on trial for kicking woman outside polling station
Liverpool Echo: St Helens MP Marie Rimmer on trial over 'referendum assault'
St Helens Star: Campaigner tells court she did not provoke alleged kick
Only the BBC and Record have headlines beginning "Yes campaigner denies lying..." and "Independence campaigner denies..."
You are the person claiming that I see a conspiracy. All I see is the the 2 main pro-union news outlets in Scotland putting their usual biased spin on things.
Secondly, you claim that the MP was "giving her side". I wasn't aware that she had given evidence - it certainly isn't in the report in the Record. I wonder whether Rimmer will actually have the guts to face her accusers or whether she will rely on her right to silence?
Thirdly, if you believe that court reporters are duty bound to give an accurate and balanced account, I would suggest that you are very, very naive.
Finally, the story hasn't exactly gone national, has it. Imagine if an SNP MP was actually facing criminal charges...
0 -
27 minutes ago, bob the tank said:
BBC trying to make Rimmer out to be the victim of abuse which made her retaliate. Ffs you couldn't believe the bbc if they were telling you the date.Not just the BBC. The Daily Record headline is "Independence campaigner denies provoking Labour MP accused of assaulting her outside polling station"
0 -
20 hours ago, Bogs_Dollox said:
Aye ok deal. If I win £10 to the Archie foundationOk, confirmed. Hopefully you're paying out before Xmas
0 -
32 minutes ago, Bogs_Dollox said:
You wouldn't walk into the bookies and ask for a bet based on those terms , you're being ridiculous .
£10 on Doris won't score 15 league goals this season please . Injured or notJust for clarification:
If Doris scores 14 or fewer league goals this year, you win?
If Doris scores 15 or more league goals this year, I win?
If he moves club (unlikely, but need to factor it in), league goals for other club count too?
I'll take your charity tenner please. If I win, you pay £10 to RNLI Arbroath
Edit to add: Playoff goals don't count?
0 -
It looks like we have a dozen + players now, so we're definitely on. I can only presume the club will have no issue with the proposal. I will be looking to yourself to lead from the front after your surprise appearance on the bench at Elgin last year, you gave a good account of yourself in the warm ups at half time and the second half stretches and that's the sort of experience we need.
I'm overweight, slow and useless and could grow a pretty convincing handlebar moustache before the game kicks off. On these grounds alone, I think I've got a pretty convincing case to fill the CF role if we go for a traditional 2-3-5 formation.
0 -
Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of the 1st and 3rd. Nor is any of it inconsistent with the notion that the Police deliberately choose between certain charges or make representations to the Fiscal in relation to the choice between one charge or another regularly.
You are not often going to see prosecutions abandoned over a disagreement about whether to push for one charge or another when the two charges are sufficiently similar that the accused is probably guilty of both.
Hmm. Who should I believe?
1) The Procurator Fiscal who specifically told me that he wouldn't proceed with a prosecution unless the submitted draft charges were changed to an offence under a completely different (and to my mind inappropriate) act?
2) A student who posts on a football forum who has previously admitted that he has had little experience in real-life criminal prosecution?
It's a real conundrum.
0 -
You know fine well the kind of confrontation that would be created if the Crown Office turned round and tried to change a charge sheet.
like i said before you may be an excellent legal academic but you have absolutely no working knowledge, pf calls the shots, they dont care if the chief himself phones they decide the charge based on lord advocates instructions, charges get changed all the time.
The Fiscal always has the final say about which charges go forward. If the reporting agency disagree with this, it's highly likely that he will choose to abandon the prosecution. Accordingly, it's very uncommon for a reporting agency to argue with a proposed change.
This, of course, assumes that the PF discusses his proposed changes with the reporting agency. Often, when changes are made to draft charges, they are made without any consultation whatsoever.
0 -
The record was broken over 10 years ago. People just seemed to stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and pretend it never happened.
Aye, but you can't really count 149 deliberate own-goals as a competitive game!
Looks like the world record really has been taken from us fairly this time
0 -
Someone wasn't on the First Division forums circa 6-7 years ago. Don't be a bore.
I wasn't looking at the First Division forum at that time either. I do know the geography of Dens Park though. You obviously don't.
0 -
Dundee fans have always being disgustingly sectarian.
The "Derry" End.
Oh dear oh dear.
The ends at Dens were the "TC Keay" (after the factory behind it) and the "Provvy" (after Provost Road, which runs behind it)
HTH
0 -
And you too.
I'm over 50, have a bottle of wine inside me & Mrs Gilp is off to bed already. I have an excuse.
At Libby's age, however...
0 -
1. Irrelevant. Moreover, the laws aren't actually going to be identical across the UK. The proposal was to allow English councils to relax the rules if they wanted to, but the practical effect would have been to bring English and Welsh opening hours more closely into line with Scottish ones. If the decisions of employers with employees in England and Wales are capable of affecting the interests of Scottish employees to such a degree that it justifies Scottish MPs voting on legislation relation to them, then the logic of this argument is that English and Welsh MPs should be allowed to set the law in Scotland in relation to Sunday trading. Neither you nor the SNP support that, I suspect.
2. No it's completely material. It's formed the basis on which the English Veto on English-only Laws has come into place and was the basis for the Sewel Convention. It's a question of competences. What private employers do in response to the prevailing laws of the land is incidental and not core to, a legislative proposal. The legislative proposal does not affect all UK shopworkers' terms and conditions. The decisions of their employers do.
1a) The laws have never been absolutely identical across Scotland, never mind the UK. Are you too young to remember the days when you could buy a scud magazine in Glasgow on a Sunday, but not a bible?
1b) As a Unionist, I'm sure that you would prefer English & Welsh MP's to set the law in Scotland, as they did in all areas pre-devolution. Personally, I prefer a different future
2) I disagree. How private employers deal with their employees has always been subject to legislation. If a change to English laws could adversely affect Scottish employees, I would suggest that as long as these Scottish MP's are members of the UK Parliament, they are under a duty to attempt to maintain or improve those employee's rights.
Obviously, if we choose to leave the UK, then this obligation would cease. I am not suggesting that a change to English Sunday Trading laws would affect Tesco Ireland or Tesco Poland employees. However, I am strongly of the opinion that Tesco's decisions will be based upon what they consider to be "UK" law.
0 -
The pish Usdaw were coming out with, even if true (the evidence to substantiate it was criminally weak), is not the same as the nature of the impact of the Scotland Act on the powers of the UK Government to, for example, set income tax and cede routine control over certain aspects of welfare, the power to set the Holyrood franchise and a whole host of other things.
All major amendments to the UK's constitutional settlement represents a material change in the law of the UK as a whole in respect of which all MPs have an interest. The rules about whether supermarket can open after 6pm in Brecon or Stratford Upon Avon has f**k all to do with an MP for Caithness.
1) I didn't mention USDAW. I don't need to. I think it's pretty obvious that if the same Sunday Trading laws apply across the whole UK, then Tesco et al will attempt to 'equalise' conditions across the UK. Accordingly, it's a UK issue.
2) Your attempt to differentiate between amendments to the constitution and trading laws are immaterial. If it is OK for all UK MP's to vote on a matter affecting the constitution, then it's equally valid for all UK MP's to vote on a matter affecting all UK shopworkers terms & conditions.
0 -
The Scotland Bill didn't only change the law of Scotland. It completely reshaped the constitutional and fiscal arrangements of the United Kingdom as a whole.
...and changing the Sunday Trading laws down south would have had no effect whatsoever on Scottish shop workers conditions or enhanced payments for Sunday shifts?
Pull the other one Libby.
0 -
According to some on here (hi Reynard & other right wing nutters), I will receive a gold-plated index-linked pension that I've not paid a single penny toward. I recall them using derogatory language too!
Unfortunately, they were all unable to explain why I've paid somewhere between 6% & 7.5% every year for over 30 years. Funny that.
0 -
Minter Sannox
Am I doing this right?
0 -
It wasn't a Minister of the Crown (who is a legal person forming part of the government and legally accountable as such) that made the promises of further powers. It was the leaders of the respective parties, two of whom co-incidentally and in other capacities happened also to be Ministers of the Crown.
Are you suggesting that this nit-picking technical distinction was uppermost in the mind of every "No" voter when they cast their vote?
If not, why bring it up?
0
Oh Kez!!!
in The Politics Forum
Posted
If I've got this right, Kez is now complaining that she hasn't been counted as a supporter of a Tory policy?