Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton

By

Has anyone considered showing Sandy Easdale just how easy it …

Comment on Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton by Martin.

Has anyone considered showing Sandy Easdale just how easy it is to set up a block function on undesirable emails?

Martin Also Commented

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
Chancer67,

Without wishing to expend too much energy on this ( I lack the patience of Ecobhoy). It’s clear that with all the Land Bears efforts to identify wrong doing and dastardly conspiracies time spent pouring over maps has exposed a singular lack of intelligence.

The latest link provided makes the astonishing link between problematic land conditions and the subsequent closure of a school.

Problems which if the land bears are to be believed facilitated an undervalue purchase of the land in question then vanished when Celtic subsequently built on the same land.

Perhaps it has never occurred to these intrepid investigators that when schools are closed the value of the building and the land on which it stands is of little consequence compared to its usefulness or affordability as a place of education compared to whatever alternatives may be in place.

The intrepid Land Bears have missed another point which could easily have been resolved by simply visiting the site.

“ when justification for demolishing the London Road Primary School was required then, via the SHEP report, a fault, voids, coal workings, made ground and a mineshaft were found affecting the ground stabilisation. However for Celtic’s New Building development there appears to be no grouting and ground stabilisation required – probably because it would cost perhaps millions.”

As it happens there is no building on the site of the old school. Just a public space, some paving and a little planting.

These guys need to get out more.


Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
With Rangers fans continuing to fight for the heart and soul of their club, the fight remains characterised by deep divisions among the support.

As an outsider looking in I have often marvelled at the cast of characters who have been supported by one fans group or another and simultaneously derided by others.

In the face of actual and effective fan organisation, desired objectives thus far have remained unfulfilled. I suspect this will remain the case for as long as organised fans groups cast around for a leader who seems to provide a way forward, rather that setting the agenda for themselves.

As it is we seem to have amidst the myriad of Rangers fans groups two distinct camps.

Those who support the current board, and those who don’t.

We have been here before.

The focus for each group has changed over time (It’s Graham Wallace and Dave King for now).

The Rangers support has split in a manner not seen since Laurel and Hardy lit up the silver screen.

Two gentlemen staring aghast at their predicament whilst one lamentably proclaims “well, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into” and the other weeps incoherently.

The lasting comedic value of Laurel and Hardy was that in spite of their efforts to succeed in their internal struggle, when faced with the challenges of the wider world they were entirely impotent.

Laurel and Hardy were permanently locked together in a bad marriage which ensured permanent frustration and failure, to the delight of their audience.

Can Rangers fans avoid a similar fate?


Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton
StevieBC,

I’m sure Ann Budge has a fascinating story to tell.


Recent Comments by Martin

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
John Clark says:
December 18, 2014 at 11:50 pm

with respect, I don’t think any evidence has been withheld in any recent disciplinary cases.


A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
There is it seems a developing question.

Who do we get to judge on issues that occur in football games if we cant accept the view of an independent panel and a process which allows appeal to an equally independent panel?


A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
Smugas says:
December 18, 2014 at 10:39 pm

exactly so.


A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
TSFM says:
December 17, 2014 at 12:10 am

Yes, everyone needs to grow up. Now.


A spectre is haunting Scottish Football
Aleksandar Tonev Appellate Tribunal Outcome
Tuesday, 16 December 2014

An Appellate Tribunal convened in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol has considered the following case:

Appellant: Aleksandar Tonev (Celtic FC)
Match: Celtic v Aberdeen (SPFL Premiership) – 13th September 2014

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.

Outcome: The appeal has been rejected and an immediate seven-match suspension will be applied (with one match having already been served).

Having read through the decisions given, firstly the initial hearing and latterly at the appellate tribunal I think it’s worth noting that the decisions taken and the reasons for them have been made public.

We have The Right Honourable Lord Bonomy to thank for that and his reasons for doing so in a postscript to the appellate tribunal decision are worth noting.

“There has inevitably been ill-informed speculation about the reasons for the Disciplinary Tribunal deciding to uphold the complaint and impose a seven match suspension. Against that background the Appellate Tribunal consider that it would be in the interests of the parties, in the interests of the wider football community and in the general public interest to publish this decision and the terms of the original Disciplinary Tribunal decision, thus ensuring that any debate is informed.”
I have no firsthand experience of the evidence given or any knowledge of Aleksander Tonev as a person but I am persuaded that those who passed judgement at the hearings did so fairly having considered the matter within the terms that the rules provide.
The suspension from playing football for seven matches also seems appropriate and within the rules.

Perhaps the Right Honourable Lord Bonomy had Twitter in mind when he wrote his postscript.

Immediately after the Appellate decision had been made all manner of opinion apppeared.

Polls were being conducted and questions raised.

Should Aleksander Tonev be sacked? Are the SFA equipped or appropriate in dealing with issues of racism? It’s wrong to convict someone of racism on no more that the evidence of his accuser?

I’m paraphrasing but you get the idea.

Going back to the original judgement it’s worth taking a look at the complaint in question.

Disciplinary Rule 202: Excessive Misconduct by the use of offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature.

The result of the tribunal is damning in its conclusion, there is no place for this kind of abusive language in football and the penalty imposed is appropriate.

The question of whether or not Aleksander Tonev is a racist is not one that was asked of the judicial panel nor should it have been.

The judgement given and supported at appeal is limited to Disciplinary Rule 202 and applicable penalties.

If anyone wants a wider judgement on this the SFA is not the place to go. Those who have given their time and experience to the case have completed their task, thoughtfully and incisively.

If you apply their answer to a different question you are likely to run in to problems.

I’m not sure TSFM is the place for me to comment further on this. So I’ll leave it at that.


About the author