RicoS321

You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO." By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here. Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.

The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names. Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting. In terms of bullying lawyers, Salmond has the funds to get lawyers that won't be bullied. Bullying the jury? Possibly, but I doubt that'd happen in such a high profile case. If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent. I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court). By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer. I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

Good points. Tyrant, if yer going to suggest "establishment" conspiracies, then at least back it up. The only possible way I can think that the justice system could intervene is by refusing witnesses, or certain evidence to be heard. None of that, however, will make the testimonies of the alleged victims any less true or false. The annoying thing is, is that there is an establishment, and our political system is corrupted (including at Holyrood, as Salmond's interactions with Trump showed) and infiltrated throughout by money. There are a huge number of credible avenues to look down for evidence of this. Why choose something so remarkably uncontentious? It's just a manny who may or my not have done something that many mannies in his position have done before. Stop elevating him to some level of importance beyond that which he once represented. The ideas of independence are not in any way reliant on one individual. This constant need for a "leader" or single person that who we can follow toward freedom (or whatever) is like a form of mass-patheticism. Independence is just something that he was a temporary salesman for. If he turns out to be a dick, then we just get another salesman.

I agree, but I think he will (or Gleeson). I think he'll go for the extra man in midfield (the way we finished against Hibs) unfortunately, which I think is a cop out at home. Whether he plays Ball or Gleeson as that additional man is neither here nor there for me, it's the formation that is the issue. He's done it in all games against them this season, including the opener at home, which was a total disaster with a painting-over-the-cracks last minute goal.

To be fair, it should have been at least 2, probably 3. Dallas' shitness as a ref shouldn't affect us tomorrow night. If anything, it'll have the opposite affect with refs pretending that they aren't huns for a few weeks.

I think I know a little bit more about Scottish fitba than the SFA, whoever they are.

Cairds get cancelled at the turn of the year, so he'd have to have been going some to be suspended already.

Aye, there was no concussion, just one of those cuts that bleeds like a whoor and needed stitches. DM said that the only reason he didn't return to the game was the time it would take to perform those stitches. Interesting one on Wednesday like. Common sense says that we stick to the same team from Saturday (Wilson for Cosgrove if necessary). At home, that's the way we should always be playing. Play GMS very high up on the wing against Tavernier and try and force an early booking, but at very least keep him defending. Even get Cosgrove dropping onto him for the headers from a Logan right to left to put pressue on him further. He's been the key to all their successes against us, but he's a pish defender, so play to his weaknesses (and our strengths). Shinnie and Ferguson improving every week in that midfield and we need to keep that momentum going. Hoban and Considine need to play like the latter and McKenna did at Ibrox and get hard up the arse of Morelos, niggling at every opportunity. Logan needs to play out of his skin again, as we'll need his covering both at full back and across the back when the inevitable over-the-top ball catches us out like it has all season. McInnes, will play the 4-5-1 though, with Ball or Gleeson coming in to midfield (probably Ball, unless Gleeson was any good against Hibs). I expect him to play McGinn out wide (in place of May or Stewart) because he'll put in a shift against Tavernier with defence-first in mind, or he'll play May there with the same instruction. I think we'll struggle with this approach, just as we did in the opening game where we were lucky to come away with a draw. I've a feeling that the Hibees game was the one where we played with confidence and bravery this week and I think we might lose. Fuck it, 2-0 to the dons, Ferguson and Considine.

None of those that left had proven quality though. It's a risk, but I'm actually quite glad to see the manager take one for once. I have no doubt his intention was to get another player in, but we've obviously failed. He'd probably made a decision that the players out the door weren't going to be good enough for the run in, and that shouldn't change just because we've not managed to get a replacement - they still wouldn't be good enough. For Wright and Anderson, we're sacrificing squad depth so that they can become better players by getting game time and I think that's the correct decision (should have happened sooner in Wright's case). Obviously, we'll get McGinn and GMS injured at the weekend and we'll be fucked, but that's life!

Are you counting Lowe as in and out? Forrester Tansey Wright Reynolds Anderson Stewart Who have I missed? Wilson hasn't returned has he? Edit: Jordan McGregor. He doesn't count.

5 out 1 in? Ruthless! Leaves about 21 still, which shows we were heavy on numbers. Lewis Cerny Lowe McKenna Considine Devlin Hoban Logan Ball Shinnie Ferguson Gleeson Campbell McGinn GMS McLennan Ross Stewart May Cosgrove Wilson

Quite happy with the way things are going actually. We're offloading a lot of the wider squad leaving just the bare minimum. With the winter break, I think there's maybe an opportunity to have a smaller squad anyway. We seemed to be very heavy on players, with a lot of guff in there. Could you imagine Reyonlds and Hoban hadn't been injured? That bench would have buckled under the weight of senior players. Wilson out and another in would be about right I'd say. Edit to add: just shows how shocking a decision it was not to put Wright out on loan last January. Arguably lost a year of his career for 20 minutes of game time last season. He could have got a good 6 months at a similar level to Dundee (Partick?) before the start of this season. It should have been obvious.

I agree, but Wright does seems to be perenially on the brink of being good but never manages to kick on. He's like Pawlett. I'd hate to see him spend another 6 months on our bench with the occasional cameo. Barker would be a direct replacement for GMS obviously. McLennan would provide cover, with Stewart, May and McGinn rotating between the wings and the behind the striker role as current.

I'm assuming that GMS going would be out of our hands. Anderson going out on loan would possibly be good for him, Wilson going would make zero difference to anything, other than an opportunity in the budget to bring in likes of Barker and that leaves Wright who I'd be surprised if we let go (on loan I assume) at the moment, given we didn't let him go out last January when it would have benefited both parties most. Although he does need some serious game time, so I wouldn't be averse to it. It'd basically be Barker in for GMS, which would be fine as I remember him being fairly decent at the hibees. We have too many players on too few minutes on our bench at the minute, so a pairing back might do us some good.

Somebody like Cadden would be an excellent signing, would improve the first 11. I think that we'll struggle to get a player like that in this window though, with a lot of competition and cost. A Cosgrove/Devlin type signing with a view to next season and a couple of pre-contracts would really help with the summer shopping list. If we could get Cadden on a pre-contract, we'd be doing well. There's only 15 games left, so I don't think we need another squad player. If we could get a loanee wide player or striker that would go into the first team, I think we'd stand a better chance of finishing second. That would have a huge negative effect on the huns again, and really set them up for a struggle next season, so I think it's definitely worth pursuing with another strong addition.

But they are the majority voting block (with a bit of DUP thrown in), so their party is representative of the voting public at the last GE in theory.

Is there any evidence at all that they did actually offer the reported amounts? They seemed exceptionally high bids and not really the sort of bids that the dons would turn down. The BBC reported that the Tims bid around £3.5M, which would seem about right, they didn't report on the Villa amount other than to say it was more. I just don't see any club thinking that they would need to bid more then £4-5M for an AFC player. It's 3-4 times our second place prize money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no deal is exactly what it says isn't it? We just leave. In other words, it doesn't require to get through parliament, it just happens on leave day (at least that's the way it should happen).

One of the worst parts about the recent oil industry downturn was the swathes of cuts to resource and resource pay. It's not that a "haircut" wasn't required, but it was that that was the solution. Operators making comments like "20% cut across the board". The executives on large pay (not necessarily and issue) held up as the strategic thinkers who, when pressed, could only come up with pay cuts or stopping projects. There was zero calls for innovation, zero attempts at business process improvements and automation - just pay cuts, sit tight, wait for the oil price to go back up, then start again. The industry is now beginning to put prices up again and re-employing those positions that went. The problem was that it was all entirely predictable (it's happened 3 times in my career). Instead of trying to work out the most efficient way to run yer business while times are good and you can probably invest a bit of time, operators (mainly, but I suspect a lot of service companies were the same) just employed more people to the do same inefficient shite. When the hard times hit, the unfortunate job-lottery occurs and folks are left high and dry with an unaffordable mortgage (partly their own faults in some cases, but a hard lesson to learn). At it's best, it's irresponsible. It usually stems from (department) management performance being a strange measure of: having more people = more important, having greater expenditure = more important. It's rare (never) I ever here a manager desiring to make their department the smallest it can be, which is surely the entire point of management in private industry. Instead of the gap between the Exec level and the worker getting smaller (in terms of layers, not renumeration), it just gets taller. How does that relate to this loon? Fuck knows, I've forgotten the question.

Do you think it's just specific to fitba? I suspect that it's got a lot to do with maintaining happiness amongst squads as a whole. Like a "time-served" type approach outside of fitba. I see it in a lot of places I work, where a youngster will come in and be better than those above them. Their boss knows it and they know (or certainly believe) it, but they "respect the system" of promotion based on an age/experience/length of service type deal and try and manage is as best they can. Usually the young upstart just goes for a more senior position in another company where they're not held back and gets a good reference from their boss who is happy for them and happy to not have to deal with the issue. Other times, it plays out awkwardly and the immature (understandibly, not a criticism) youngster gets pissed off and plays up and it effects their confidence and performance. It's a difficult one like. Experience is obviously very important, but is it as important as ability? I suppose by having a sort of "same rules for everyone/respect the system" approach it avoids the difficult questions for the manager. Probably a bit of a cop out like. Certainly something we see at AFC like, where I don't think we have the balance of experience over ability quite right when it comes to squad rotation (GMS getting 13 minutes, Wilson 6 and Ross only 3 at 4-1 up last night as an example).

No worries. Again, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong here, "massively flawed" is just my opinion and apologies if it was overstated. But specifically, I was referring to this: It's flawed, in my opinion, because by saying that we are one manager short you aren't simply ruling out AFC. You are ruling out all other managers that have worked in Scotland since the early nineties who also haven't been good enough to overcome the huge financial disparity for their clubs. That ONE manager hasn't been found by anyone. Unless you're suggesting that AFC are in some way uniquely placed, which I don't think that you are. You then correct me (correctly) by saying: A point I'm happy to concede because you're clearly right. However, it does the reduce the pool somewhat for SPL chairmen/directors if they have to find the ONE manager before they have their first success and they become too expensive.

Thanks. The quotes you supplied show zero evidence of me changing my mind, the three being entirely compatible with one another. You've misinterpreted them.

Excellent. While you're at it, could you provide quotes to backup the bit in bold as I think you've misunderstood what I have said.

It's not really wasting time if you're explaining something to me that I haven't understood or simply misinterpreted. For example: This(1): does not equal this(2): and these(3): do not equal this(4): Is what I infer from this: As the above points were the only parts in my last reply that I took from your quotes (everything else was an explanation of my misunderstanding). For what it's worth, I don't think your point (1) above is that clear, to the extent that my interpretation (2) is ridiculous. You seem to be conflating the injury and the fact that it is a retrograde step. I'm happy to accept that you're saying that it's a retrograde step, and also that the effect of that serious an injury can be devastating. I don't think that point was very clear. In points (3) versus (4) I'm think that I have probably focused in on your repeated statements rather than your point as a whole, but I still think you could have been clearer.

There was nothing intentionally confrontational about what I wrote, nor intentionally insulting. I am more than happy to agree on disagreeing, I was merely hoping that you'd put a bit more flesh on the bones of your argument, which is a constant (argument) in all your posts by providing examples of managers that aren't losers, or evidence that backs up your claim that our goal is not to win the league, or any evidence that having a goal of winning the league makes any difference whatsoever to realising that goal over and above just having a goal of finishing as high up the league as possible and signing the best players we can within our budget (which I don't think we are even close to doing, I'm just unsure how much blame to attribute to the manager for that). When I said that you are arguing from another universe, I meant that it seemed you were arguing - about Hayes in this case - from a point at which we've ditched Milne and McInnes and are talking about a different team entirely with a different budget. I'm happy to admit that was incorrect, you're point was that his injury would be a detriment to his performances making him a retrograde step.