Comment on One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All by John Clark.

    Cluster One 3rd April 2019 at 06:58

    "..New “Res 12”, website.



    Thank you for that important link, Cluster one.

    I have said before that I was not and am not one of the 'Res 12' group, but I am wholeheartedly behind them.

    The authors of this thoroughly researched and excellently drafted and presented account of what the Res12 issue is all about are to be congratulated and applauded. 

    No one reading that account could honestly assert that  there are not major questions to be asked of the behaviour of the now dead RFC , its owners and directors, and of the SFA.

    One can very well understand the anger many people feel at:

    the point blank refusal by the SFA to have the matter fully and independently investigated, and the suspicion that this raises as indicating that they fear what may emerge from an investigation

    the meek acceptance by Celtic plc that  they and their shareholders may have been cheated out of millions, and their readiness to kick a shareholders' AGM-resolution into the long grass rather than insist on a full investigation .

    And one can very well understand why a reference to the COPFS/Police Scotland seeking a police investigation into criminality is being held as a backstop.

    I am quite ready to believe that the apparent success of the dirty work involved in the granting of the UEFA licence to an unentitled club encouraged  black hearts and dishonest minds some years  later to believe, smugly, that they could get away with the utterly disgraceful 5-Way Agreement.

    Scottish Football supporters owe it to themselves to try to save Football in Scotland by getting to the truth. And a thorough reading of   https://www.res12.uk/     will convince them of that fact.

    John Clark Also Commented

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    finnmccool 2nd April 2019 at 16:49

    '…That is the problem that the SFA created when they failed to censure Gerrard over his referee comments and rescinded Morelos's red card..'


    The SFA, by cobbling up the 5-Way Agreement to accommodate cheats lost all moral authority, and has  several times been given the finger with impunity by the chairman of RIFC plc. 

    The SFA supped with the devil, and is now seen for what it has become- in  effect, a bent cop, with no moral authority over the baddies they so eagerly aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet in the deceit of the Big Lie.

    (As for BBC Scotland, I wonder whether Chris McLaughlin's recent promotion was the beginning of an attempt to appease TRFC Ltd by discreetly removing McLaughlin from the list of reporters who would be sent to Ibrox , thus giving in to TRFC ?)


    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    paddy malarkey 2nd April 2019 at 16:26


    The link has this:

    "Rangers: Ryan Kent offered ban for lashing [ my bold]out at Celtic captain Scott Brown

    Rangers' Ryan Kent faces a two-game ban after being charged for shoving [ my italics]Celtic captain Scott Brown.

    Footage showed the winger, 22, lash out at Brown in the aftermath of James Forrest's late winner for the hosts at Celtic Park on Sunday."

    What kind of garbage reporting we are now getting from BBC Scotland!

    There is no way Kent's swing at Brown could be construed as a 'shove' , and it was some crass idiot of a sub-editor who let such a contradictory report leave the keyboard.

    One, er, Two Rules to Rule Them All
    Ex Ludo 2nd April 2019 at 13:44

    '….Can anyone confirm if clubs do actually store banners? It suggests some sort of collusion and a tacit acceptance of unwelcome messages being displayed on the banners.'


    I have vague memories that Celtic FC some years ago and   for reasons of their own  (relating perhaps to a wish to exercise control of content) might  have offered to store large banners. 

    I don't know whether they actually did, or if so, whether the offer was accepted . 


    Recent Comments by John Clark

    In Whose Interests
    Higgy's Shoes 19th September 2019 at 12:57

    "Thomas Meunier and Juan Bernat capered through the open savannah that archaeologists believe was once populated by the Real Madrid midfield"


    That quote is worthy of the late Cyril Horne and Ian Archer.

    As for Aidan (I think that is the spelling) O'Neill QC I had the pleasure of sitting a few feet from him when he delivered the 'incontinent mendacity' observation.

    In Whose Interests
    easyJambo 18th September 2019 at 22:21

    '.. I don't believe that Hearts needed a DOF role..'


    eJ, I have only the vaguest notion of what a Director of Football is, or what his 'powers' are.

    Isn't  CL merely an employee? As 'sackable' at the Board's pleasure as Caldwell today or indeed any football manager?

    Or does being a 'director of football' give him the status and voting power of a Board member holding a significant number of shares?






    In Whose Interests
    Quote from O'Neill QC: "the mother of Parliaments being shut down by the Father of Lies" in his closing speech at the Supreme Court , a few minutes ago.

    In Whose Interests
    Higgy's Shoes 17th September 2019 at 12:51

    '.. RIP Bobby Prentice. ..'


    I've just watched that wonderful clip, and called Mrs C in from whatever she is watching on TV to see it.

    Wasn't that kind of dribbling skill, leaving defenders for dead, what most of us as kids ( well, of my generation anyway)would have wished to possess? The other guys that won the tackles and got the ball free to you to allow you to run were absolutely necessary, of course.

    But the  thrill of it all, as you cut your way through lumpen challenges, and avoided being scythed down and being able to get your shot in! Nothing to beat it!

     Or so I am told, I myself never having really been anywhere near achieving anything like that level of skill. (Well, okay, okay, okay! I was never even sure of being picked for the second eleven  even in primary school!)

      But that wee clip epitomises what the sport of football is all about. (including suspect refereeing decisions!)broken heart

    In Whose Interests
    One trivial thing I noticed in the Court proceedings today , and also last week in the Court of Session, was the use of the word 'electronic' by Counsel when referring to non-paper 'documents' that they wished the judge(s) to look at.

    Perhaps eJ might keep me right, but up until last week's hearings, I think that Counsel and the Bench just used the word 'digital' to distinguish betwen the 'electronic' record ( most of the judges I've seen use whatever they're called- I-pads or whatever, only two that I have seen still depend on folders of paper documents); so you would hear Counsel say something like 'in Volume I, page 10, my Lord, digital ,xyz'.

    I wonder whether at some UK level an understanding had been reached that the word 'electronic' rather than 'digital'  should be used as standard terminology?

    Of course, it is a little known fact that I have been known to nod off in the Court of Session, and maybe the use of 'electronic' has been the vogue for some time and I haven't noticed!

    Given that to me 'digital' conjures up long ago images and sounds of hospital beds and plastic gloves being snapped on , I'm rather glad if its use in Courts has been discontinued!angry