Jump to content

Sportsound Watch


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, ArabAuslander said:

Was glad to hear that English and Stewart quite rightly voiced their dissent at him being on. He was obvs asked on cos Doncaster or Les Grey cancelled last minute.

I also feel the BBC fall down because they want to show consistency for "both sides of the argument" which results in a greater weight being placed on minority views.

We've seen this with the climate change debates, so they will have people debating for and against, encapsulated by Nigel Lawson disseminating his entirely unscientific and bias opinion as being an equally valid counter to the overwhelmingly massive body of scientific data.

Edited by Ric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bohemian said:

You're a great defender of LGBT rights Bennett, what do you think of this horrible c**t fighting sevcos corner?

Gay man defends lgbt rights shocker.  I'm afraid I don't know very much about him or his opinions,  the DUPs stance on most things though is usualy neolithic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Archie McSquackle said:

What was the justification for the DUP guy being on? Is he a spokesman for one of their supporters' groups or does he hold some other Rangers-related position?

He introduced a motion into the HoC asking for an independent investigation. I'm sure @Ad Lib could clear up what that actually means. But he effectively thinks instead of dealing on the matter at hand he'll talk about Rangers in the HoC when time is tight. I bet the Speaker was royally cheesed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ArabAuslander said:

He introduced a motion into the HoC asking for an independent investigation. I'm sure @Ad Lib could clear up what that actually means. But he effectively thinks instead of dealing on the matter at hand he'll talk about Rangers in the HoC when time is tight. I bet the Speaker was royally cheesed off.

It means nothing in the grand scheme of things, it's intended to make other parliamentary members aware of issues within your constituency that are not related to any bill being passed through parliament (and thus not debated). There is no follow up procedure.

It is quite simply, in this case, a complete waste of parliamentary time. Especially egregious at this time.

The speaker, btw, shouldn't have any opinion on the matter. I could be corrected here, but there is no official mandate that limits the fatuousness of the point made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ArabAuslander said:

He introduced a motion into the HoC asking for an independent investigation. I'm sure @Ad Lib could clear up what that actually means. But he effectively thinks instead of dealing on the matter at hand he'll talk about Rangers in the HoC when time is tight. I bet the Speaker was royally cheesed off.

I was blissfully unaware of what this is? Has one of the godbotherers put down an Early Day Motion about the ****?

Edited by Ad Lib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually a tough call on this one, considering Rangers has gone for the belt and braces approach.

It's all under defamation law, but slander tends to involve verbal one off statements. While libel is about making false accusations in print.

That's a rough approximation, as you can probably imagine there is a lot of legal arguments to be made around either.

 

I’m pretty sure the distinction between “Slander” and “Libel” is an English law thing and not applicable here.

 

But I’ve been wrong on the internet before and it’s been a long time since I was at law school and I never finished it anyway.

 

Which means my opinion is less authoritative but at least I can’t charge you for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I’m pretty sure the distinction between “Slander” and “Libel” is an English law thing and not applicable here.

That was Scottish defamation law I was quoting, but you are right to raise the issue as there is a distinction between the jurisdictions.

There is a proposal to amend it further:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/defamation-scots-law-consultation/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ric said:

That was Scottish defamation law I was quoting, but you are right to raise the issue as there is a distinction between the jurisdictions.

There is a proposal to amend it further:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/defamation-scots-law-consultation/

 

So my brief time at Glasgow University law school in the '90s wasn't entirely wasted

 

Edited by topcat(The most tip top)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, topcat(The most tip top) said:

So my year at Glasgow University law school in the '90s wasn't entirely wasted

 

...or the time you've spent in the cells after being picked up on Friday night waiting for court Monday morning! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

In all my student years I was not once caught doing anything illegal 

:lol:

I was only joking but your response was awfy quick to dingy any suggestion of miscreant deeds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ric said:

:lol:

I was only joking but your response was awfy quick to dingy any suggestion of miscreant deeds!

To be strictly accurate I denied being caught

But I refuse to answer any more questions without the presence of one of my classmates that actually completed the course.

I wonder what that Sturgeon lassie is up to

Edited by topcat(The most tip top)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...