Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Main Street

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 666
1
General discussion / Re: The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread
« on: May 27, 2017, 11:23:12 PM »
BBC

Brendan's speech from the pitch side,  "I was born into Celtic"

Q "the club has fallen in love with you and I get the feeling you have fallen in love with the club?"

 Brendan "No, I was born into Celtic, there has been no growing, only pride for me and a huge privilege to manage at Celtic. I was born into Celtic, into a Celtic family and always wanted to manage Celtic, to come here now  was just the right time for me  and  the club, we have created an identity this season and hopefully we can build upon this and improve over the coming years, to achieve what we achieved this year is a really spectacular achievement."





2
General discussion / Re: The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread
« on: May 27, 2017, 09:23:19 PM »
Tierney doesnt know what's going on there, looks concussed.
Probably painkillers, with a local anesthetic in the mix.
 
Excellent 2nd half to end the season with another high, that Aberdeen made them work hard for it, made it all the sweeter.


3
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 26, 2017, 09:48:57 PM »
They believe in evolution because they've no choice. Same as they believed the earth was round whenever it was proven. And now the theory is 'intelligent design', which basically consists of saying 'sure this all couldn't have happened by chance' when of course it did.
You are claiming certainty about your belief that the universe was created by chance?
Brian Cox was asked once what he dislikes most, he replied, "people with certainty" ;D

Well, what are the odds of all that happening by chance? Chance was the creator. Chancists or Chancers have a belief in Chancism. Chance being the  creative force behind  all creation, all evolution. In the beginning, before everything there was chance who happened upon an empty space, lo and behold by chance there was energy crackling in that space and then by chance this universe was born, the movement of the planets, everything  in this wide and wonderful universe, all by chance. Humankind evolved by chance, consciousness evolved by chance.

 Astronomist/cosmologist Fred Hoyle once wrote  “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein”


4
Quote
I presume the thing wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt??

Didn't even get to a jury decision

AFTER THE LONGEST-running criminal trial in the history of the State, Seán Fitzpatrick has been acquitted of all charges.
.......
Judge Aylmer also pointed to the extraordinary circumstances in which the ODCE lead investigator, Kevin O’Connell had admitted destroyed potentially relevant documentary evidence. This happened during legal argument in the first trial in May 2015 and emerged during that process.
That trial was then stopped and the retrial of FitzPatrick began last September. It was scheduled to last three months but quickly became bogged down in weeks of legal argument in the absence of the jury.
What are the chances of a solicitor having a panic attack just at the time he was close to reams of valuable evidence, then rushing to the shredder in a mad frenzied panic, destroying all that evidence, in one of the country's greatest banking fraud cases?
Not even Hitchcock could have dreamed up that episode.

5
General discussion / Re: Proof there is no god.
« on: May 25, 2017, 12:15:03 AM »
There is perhaps too much focus placed on some western religious dogma on how they claim the universe was created. For example, most of the catholic church adherents believe in evolution.

I don't quite know how accurate this graph is, but it is worthy of interest. It does support many other studies that Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict most religious /spiritual deeply held religious beliefs/understanding  on how the universe and all who live in it, have evolved.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

6
GAA Discussion / Re: Joe Brolly
« on: May 24, 2017, 11:34:34 PM »
We're obviously not going to agree on this MS and I'll take your insult in the last line in the good spirit in which I'm sure it's intended  ;)
if you applied more rationality and less emotion, it would go no small way to agreeing with me  ;D
However I am in complete agreement with the CAC's ruling and by default, Liam Keane's rational acceptance of their ruling, despite his emotional reservations.
Fwiw, Joe never claimed he was at the CAC hearing, he always said he could not attend that but had briefed the Antrim reps beforehand  on what points to argue.


7
Get the dust blown off those stetsons stored in that garage in Tyrone somewhere!!! 8)
Stetsons are kept in a Tyrone man's bedroom.




8
General discussion / Re: The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread
« on: May 24, 2017, 10:15:25 PM »
Growing up I was a Dundalk fan and went to their games. I just like Celtic and the Celtic ethos, I'm not what you'd call a fan but the fellow traveller connection goes back as far as I can remember.
Most everybody else in my 6th class at a Dublin national school which I attended, supported Leeds Utd at the time. They were the fashion in Ireland then.
I was a lone voice of fervor for Celtic in the days before the epic European cup semi final, Celtic v Leeds. The morning after the Hampden pk victory,  I came late to school and took my time strolling across the football field which the classrooms faced out onto, with a huge feckin' tricolor draped over my shoulders as a cape. My mother had sewn one together in 1966 to hang outside our house. It was faded but served with honor in what turned out to be its last call of duty.
The Head was amused and bemused at the same time.

9
General discussion / Re: Man Utd Thread:
« on: May 24, 2017, 09:46:21 PM »
It was a commanding performance by Man U, controlled the game all through and a very comfortable win, in what was predicted to be a much tighter affair, well, tighter than it turned out to be.

Is that Rooney off now? Not much use him hanging around if he's not going to get games.

10
GAA Discussion / Re: Joe Brolly
« on: May 24, 2017, 10:43:41 AM »

He did strike. Category 3 offence, 'striking or attempting to strike with the arm, elbow, hand or knee'... minimum 1 match ban. What am I missing?

You're missing the meaning of the word strike. It means the inflicting of a blow. It does not include a light tap nor a hair ruffle. Do look it up.
Exactly five points
Also due to the poor quality of that phone video and the long distance, we don't even know what happened or what appeared to happen in that video.
What was it? was it a strike, a tap, a gentle stroke or nothing?

The first thing to be considered by the CCCC is 'cause of action', that even if the charge was proven, is the offense sufficiently serious enough to warrant the attention of the CCCC and later the CHC. The answer to that is an emphatic no. There was not enough cause for action. Stuff like that happens all the time. If the match officials miss it on the day, then "forgetaboutit".
Secondly, the quality of the evidence was so dubious that it was laughable. The CCCC and to a lesser extent the CHC ended up having egg poured over their face.

 Joe had it spot on with his parody, whoever in the CCCC happened upon that video and thought to open up an investigation, is petty, vindictive, a zero tolerance extremist and also one who hasn't got an adequate knowledge about ethical & legal disciplinary procedures.

11
Oh yeah sorry, of course
Was focusing too much on Monaghan haha.
That's okay Fuzzman, better to be talked about than not.
But in regards to your erroneous  lengthy post,
as Tommy Cooper once quipped on stage after a magic trick of his spectacularly flopped, "it took me 10 years to learn that trick ……..10 years wasted".

12
GAA Discussion / Re: Joe Brolly
« on: May 23, 2017, 07:38:35 PM »
Just in case there is some doubt where this CCCC and CHC fckid up and are not fit for purpose.

The proper procedure is the CHC presents all the evidence to support the charge against the player at the Hearing.

The fuzzy video is presented, Fitz denies that it is he.
If the more clear evidence had been presented, then Fitz might well have said, 'okay that does look like me', 'yes it is me', 'lets look at the further evidence'.

All the evidence has to be presented at the hearing and it has to be decided there and then if the player is intentionally misleading the CHC based on the evidence presented. The CHC can't suddenly be given other evidence after the Hearing which was not presented to the player at the original Hearing and construct a new charge.

If the video evidence was fuzzy and unclear how was MF absolutely certain it wasn't him?
You still don't get it, no wonder Joe appears to be a super legal eagle.
The one thing  for sure is  that the CHC had no legal right to proceed with the 3rd charge. So whether Mat was not sure, or a little bit sure, or very sure,  or most definitely sure that it was not him in that fuzzy video,  does not not matter one whit.
The CHC fcked up, Keane fckd up and he still struggles with accepting that he fcked up as he spent so much time trying to justify why he and the CHC fcked up in that off the ball interview.

nonsense from start to finish.
So you don't agree with Liam Keane or the CAC?

I will spell it out word for word, very slowly.

Matt was suspended  for 48 weeks by the CHC, who  used  rule 7.3.3 A,  something or other, to justify their decision.

Radio interview
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/GAA_on_Off_The_Ball/192709/Liam_Keane_of_the_CHC_on_the_Matthew_Fitzpatrick_case

 Ger. "Why did the CAC kick it out?"

Liam Keane  "the CAC said  "in using that rule ….. emmm,    it can only be …emmm enforced or availed of by a hearing committee 
 if the evidence had been presented at the hearing where the false evidence was given,
that's the decision of the appeals committee."

The evidence in question was the video of the full game.

Are you going to shut up with your nonsense, once and for all time.  You're contradicting what Keane said on radio and his account of the CAC's reasons for their judgement.
You're not fit to lick the soles of Joe Brolly's brogues. ;D

13
GAA Discussion / Re: Joe Brolly
« on: May 23, 2017, 01:10:44 PM »
Just in case there is some doubt where this CCCC and CHC fckid up and are not fit for purpose.

The proper procedure is the CHC presents all the evidence to support the charge against the player at the Hearing.

The fuzzy video is presented, Fitz denies that it is he.
If the more clear evidence had been presented, then Fitz might well have said, 'okay that does look like me', 'yes it is me', 'lets look at the further evidence'.

All the evidence has to be presented at the hearing and it has to be decided there and then if the player is intentionally misleading the CHC based on the evidence presented. The CHC can't suddenly be given other evidence after the Hearing which was not presented to the player at the original Hearing and construct a new charge.

If the video evidence was fuzzy and unclear how was MF absolutely certain it wasn't him?
You still don't get it, no wonder Joe appears to be a super legal eagle.
The one thing  for sure is  that the CHC had no legal right to proceed with the 3rd charge. So whether Mat was not sure, or a little bit sure, or very sure,  or most definitely sure that it was not him in that fuzzy video,  does not not matter one whit.
The CHC fcked up, Keane fckd up and he still struggles with accepting that he fcked up as he spent so much time trying to justify why he and the CHC fcked up in that off the ball interview.

14
GAA Discussion / Re: Joe Brolly
« on: May 23, 2017, 12:57:03 PM »
So players lie all the time??  Don't you see how difficult that makes the authorities job?
Afaia most players on the pitch take issue over  decisions made against them which involve some doubt.
If the evidence in a disciplinary case is unclear, a player has the right to deny the charge, it's up to the CHC to prove otherwise.

Afaia defendants facing charges in the courts have the right to deny those charges. The courts have the burden to prove the case.
If a guilty verdict is handed out, the defendent cops the verdict. There is no big hissy fit by the judge, as in 'how dare the defendant deliberately deceive the court etc.


15
GAA Discussion / Re: Joe Brolly
« on: May 23, 2017, 12:32:29 PM »
Just in case there is some doubt where this CCCC and CHC fckid up and are not fit for purpose.

The proper procedure is the CHC presents all the evidence to support the charge against the player at the Hearing.

The fuzzy video is presented, Fitz denies that it is he.
If the more clear evidence had been presented, then Fitz might well have said, 'okay that does look like me', 'yes it is me', 'lets look at the further evidence'.

All the evidence has to be presented at the hearing and it has to be decided there and then if the player is intentionally misleading the CHC based on the evidence presented. The CHC can't suddenly be given other evidence after the Hearing which was not presented to the player at the original Hearing and construct a new charge.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 666