barca72

Maybe the SFA will do the job for MW. Any player under SFA jurisdiction is subject to these rules. ... ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION 26. Betting 26.1 A club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall not bet in any way on a football match. Any such club or person found guilty of betting of any description on football, authorised and registered football pools excepted, shall be deemed guilty of misconduct and shall be liable to fine, suspension, expulsion or any other penalties or conditions which the Judicial Panel may think proper. 26.2 A club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA knowingly behaving in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting shall be deemed guilty of serious misconduct and shall be liable to a fine, suspension, expulsion or any other penalties or conditions which the Judicial Panel may think proper.

Did you read those sub-paras I quoted? It says if there is implication of a violent act against a person or group. One has a Rangers supporters scarf and in my opinion the other is referring to an orangeman. Ergo, I consider both condition A and condition B to be satisfied.

Whether you like it or not, as a Rangers fan you are referred to by C1888c fans as either a 'hun' or a 'Dirty Orange B*****d'. If you want proof just check out their banners on game day or go onto social media. Now go back and check out the pics in the media of the hanging doll effigies. One has a Rangers scarf around its neck and the other has an orange 'thing' around its neck. You choose what these represent. Now I refer you back to post #65 with the extract from the OBA of para 6. Just about any of those sub-paras would be easily proved if the police have done their job properly. For myself I like sub-paras 6.3.(a) or (b). Stone-cold winners. By the way, the Record has reported that these men will be appearing in Glasgow Sheriff Court next Friday. I would hazard a guess that this would be a summary appearance, ergo there would be no need for a jury.

Yes you can ... http://scottishflagtrust.com/the-scottish-flag-trust/faq/ Is anybody entitled to fly the Scottish flag? Yes. In Scots Heraldry, 1956, the then Lord Lyon gave the following guidance:- “The Cross of St Andrew is the flag which any Scotsman (or woman) is entitled to fly or wear as evidence of his (or her) national identity or patriotism. This is also the proper flag to fly on a Scottish church”.

In your OP you ask about 'lodges ...home'. Ian posted a link for Willie Vass pics and pic.46 shows you the banner. It says the Ligoniel Lodges are home. In post #3 you talk about an OO march, and in post #6 you talk about an OO march in NI. Why would you assume that the lodge referred to was not a Masonic lodge or let's say a hunting lodge? That's why I say you knew exactly what lodges the banner was referring to. As regards to your assertion in post #19 and Craig's assertion in post #20 about the banner being non-religious, I have to cede the point that the lodges are part of the OO and hence should be considered as religious entities. Semantic loyal.

Rubbish. Have you ever seen a dishcloth with a hole in the middle big enough to pass a lifesize human head through? What is the symbolism in hanging a doll with a dishcloth around its neck?

You ignored the last post, how does this suit? Extract from the OBA ... 6 Threatening communications (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person communicates material to another person, and Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 1) 5 (b) either Condition A or Condition B is satisfied. (2) Condition A is that— (a) the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person or against persons of a particular description, (b) the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and © the person communicating the material— (i) intends by doing so to cause fear or alarm, or (ii) is reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm. (3) For the purposes of Condition A, where the material consists of or includes an image (whether still or moving), the image is taken to imply a threat or incitement such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if— (a) the image depicts or implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act (whether actual or fictitious) against a person or against persons of a particular description (whether the person or persons depicted are living or dead or actual or fictitious), and (b) a reasonable person would be likely to consider that the image implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act against an actual person or against actual persons of a particular description. (4) Subsection (3) does not affect the generality of subsection (2)(a). (5) Condition B is that— (a) the material is threatening, and (b) the person communicating it intends by doing so to stir up hatred on religious grounds. Now the question is, where will the trial be heard ... https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/sheriff-court/about-sheriff-courts About Sheriff Courts The majority of cases are dealt with in the country’s Sheriff Courts unless they are of sufficient seriousness to go to the Supreme Courts at first instance. Each Sheriffdom has a sheriff principal charged with a number of duties in respect of the courts for which they are responsible, including in particular a duty "to secure the efficient disposal of business in the sheriff courts of that Sheriffdom". Criminal cases are heard by a sheriff and a jury (solemn procedure), but can be heard by a sheriff alone (summary procedure). ... will it be a solemn or summary procedure? As stated above, a Sheriff on his own can determine what a person is thinking when he sings 'TBB' , so why does he need a jury here? How hard can it be to prove condition A & B above?

First of all, you may see people at any time and any where wearing orange items of clothing. However, how many will be wearing an Orange Sash? Surely, being kind, you will agree that we are talking about symbolism when we refer to these blow up dolls. One is wearing a Rangers scarf and the other is wearing a crudely shaped sash. As far as the doll with the Rangers scarf goes it does not necessarily have to be proved to be a religious hate crime, just a hate crime will do. Now is the Orange Order religious ? ... The basis of the modern Orange Order is the promotion and propagation of "biblical Protestantism" and the principles of the Reformation. As such the Order only accepts those who confess a belief in a Protestant religion. Now associate the sash around the second doll with that statement and you can argue religious hatred. If a Sheriff can argue that a young man singing 'TBB' is thinking about inciting a riot, then it is not beyond the pale that the argument can be made for a religious hate crime here. We have seen in the past that a previous player and manager of C1888c has referred to Rangers' fans as 'DOBs' - one Neil Lennon. We also have these stickers recently ... These vile stickers have appeared on London Road between the Police Station and Helenvale Street. ... which show us what the C188c fans who put them there think of Rangers fans. I don't say that all of the C1888c support say this but a sizeable portion do, as is evident on social media. now I know that you know all this and are perfectly aware of the OO symbolism, hence why I thought you were trolling.

You knew when you seen the banner to associate it with an OO march in Ulster, so you know the story there. That banner made a statement. What is wrong with that? If it carried no interest for you, ignore it. It was not exhorting you to do anything, say anything, join anything or in any way take you out of your comfort zone. You know fine well the connection between Rangers and the PUL community, no need to retrace that. Very often in the past the only corner of the ground that generated any kind of atmosphere during a dull game would be that corner housing the Union Bears. You know what to expect from them. One banner containing a non-political, non-religious, non-confrontational message and you want to generate a faux outrage thread? Maybe you could take a video of the atmosphere at your bowling club and get the global Rangers' support to buy into that as a standard.

Who do you know who wears an orange sash other than a member of the Orange Order, which is a Christian organisation? Your attempt at trolling and sarcasm shows a depth of naivety.

A troll, of major proportions.

I agree with on the charges and it does feel that Harper & McCleod have a conflict of interest here.

I'm afraid they have got that covered, gs. Penalty for infringement could be up to and including removal of membership. ... 33. Participation in a Cup Tie 33.1 Clubs eligible to compete in the Challenge Cup Competition shall be subject to and shall comply with both these Articles and the Challenge Cup Competition Rules, as amended from time to time. 33.2 Failure by any member to comply with Article 33.1 shall be deemed to be an infringement of these Articles. 33.3 All members eligible to compete in the Challenge Cup Competition, shall so compete in the Challenge Cup Competition. 33.4 Failure by any member to comply with Article 33.3 shall be deemed to be an infringement of these Articles.

Finally, a wee bit of pushback in the form of 'wha dour meddle wi' me'.

Surely UEFA, like any disciplinary body, would have a level of repeat offences of any transgression before the punishment for subsequent offences rises. Why are C1888c being treated differently from any other club? Could Rangers not ask UEFA for clarification of C1888c's punishment for their own future reference? This would certainly be handy should any further clarifications require to be raised to the CAS level.

Our fellow member clubs of the SFA have shown us how to break the spirit and resistance of the SFA. In the C1888c case a few years ago, when Neil Lennon was appealing his six game suspension, and in this Hibs case all that is required is to threaten the SFA with legal action. In the former case they said that the money which would be used to defend the action would be better used for the development of the game here in Scotland, and in the latter case it is supposedly down to the lack of 'strict liability' in the rules; which was brutally pointed out to the SFA by Rod McKenzie. The fact that UEFA supposedly looks unfavourably upon a club taking legal action against its own Football Association would appear to hold little weight, since both of these clubs have threatened their FA with legal action and neither of them raised a flag at UEFA. Over to you Rangers, is it worthwhile letting this mess lie where it is or do you think the wellbeing of your players, staff and support are worth upholding?

Well, it's done and gone now. Time to focus on Partick Thistle.

Ask Jimmy Buffett, 'It's five-o'clock somewhere' !

Cry me a river. What have you done for Rangers?

The first leg of the treble is in the bag for us.

I'm bowled over with their sincerity. I mean, it really hits the spot, eh? Try firing Braiden and we might accept your 'apology'.

In all honesty watching their game tonight was like watching us against some team parking the bus. They missed a ton of chances before they scored two good goals. Our strikers did the same last night. I agree in any game against them the potential for a blow-out for either side exists. It comes down to who executes and is more clinical on the day. As far as I can see it comes down to how high we can attack them and still cover their break-out. Yesterday was good for our overall team confidence, and we may have suspended a bad influence on the training park and the dressing room. There is not that much difference between the teams. Sunday is big for us though.

This might help, dB, it's an old bookmark I had from June 2014. ... p.s. the pics are not posting properly, so I've added the link ... https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/06/20/so-willie-haughey-owns-celtic-park-but-the-question-for-celtic-shareholders-is-why/ So Willie Haughey owns Celtic Park but the question for Celtic shareholders is why? Posted by footballtaxhavens ⋅ June 20, 2014 ⋅ 11 Comments Filed Under Celtic FC, Co-operative Bank Below is a copy of the Title GLA150218 which is Celtic Park. Amazingly it is appears it is owned by Willie Haughey and he paid £1,000 for it on 4th August 2000. Seems a low price even compared to Glasgow City Council’s usual discounting policy for land valuations given to Celtic. Who knows what contrivance is behind it – questions please to Dermot Desmond, Celtic’s main shareholder at the next AGM. He became main shareholder after he bought most of Fergus McCann’s shares in 1999. How this sale can be done at such a low price under the noses of shareholders I dont know. Maybe that is why the asset was price so low. There is nothing in the companies notices to the stock exchange so it kind makes a mockery of shareholder protection. If Celtic wanted to protect their asset it could have been put in a trust or something neutral rather than selling it for such a low price to a businessman – even though he’s ‘Celtic-minded’ and previously been a director: William Haughey Co-operative Bank still has security over Celtic Park Cooperative Bank security Celtic Park Almost a year after Celtic Park was acquired by Willie Haughey then security over the asset was given to the Co-operative Bank for Celtic’s current 34 million loan & overdraft. Now I don’t think there is anything illegal about a third party, Willie Haughey, offering up the security for a loan from the Co-operative Bank to Celtic but if I was a shareholder it would be a worry. What other assets have been ‘arranged’ in such a manner? Are players next? Regarding the Co-operative Bank though, I wonder what the value of the security is on the Co-operative Bank’s loan book? Do you think it will be £1,000? Repayment of initial Co-operative Bank loan Fergus McCann, talking of when he bought Celtic, says that the Co-operative Bank gave them a loan on much better terms than the Bank of Scotland. That was in 1994. But this was suddenly repaid by Celtic in 2001 under mysterious circumstances when the proceeds of a share issue did not get used for it’s declared purpose i.e. a training ground & team expansion. ( See previous post) Again Celtic shareholders did not have the full picture. One thing is for certain is that Ian Bankier at the next Celtic PLC AGM will not be holding the title to Celtic Park unless Willie Haughey loans him it for the day. Somehow I think Big Dermot will be playing golf that day and may not attend the AGM. Land Register Extract GLA150218a GLA150218b GLA150218c ©footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com 2014 CC-by icon

As an aside for anyone wondering about a result for another arm of The Blues Brothers ... FT!! Linfield 4 - 0 Donegal Celtic Glendinning, Haughey, Lowry and Smyth!!